It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by webstra
Great find Foosm.
So 15 more to come ?
I can't hardly wait.
Thanks also for this great thread :-)
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Facefirst
You posted that 20 minutes after my post which is right above yours..
167:45:03 Similar to 18647 and 48. Best of the three. Charlie is pointing to a sample location on the face of Outhouse Rock. Note that he has a pack of sample bags hooked to his finger. Note that the shadow of the sample bags is orange. This is normal for sunlit transmitted thru the translucent Teflon film from which the bags are made. The photo is sharp enough that we can confirm that Charlie has magazine K ("Kilo") on his Hasselblad and that his checklist is open to pages LMP-30 and LMP-31.
The type 200 film magazine is for thin-base film and its capacity is 200 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 inch frames. Each film magazine contains gross-film indicators for frame count.
Charlie's close-up of the shatter cone in House Rock
167:54:20 Base of House Rock
Charlie's second portrait of the base of House Rock, consisting of frames AS16-106-17349 to 17354, has been assembled by Dave Byrne. John may be examining Outhouse Rock at the left.
167:44:36 England: Yeah, make a good picture of that one for Muehlberger.
167:44:39 Young: Well, that settles that, huh?.
[Charlie's close-up of the shatter cone is AS16-106 17345. See, also, Figure 17 in the North Ray chapter of the Professional Paper.]
[Fendell moves his aim to the right to get a full-frame view of House Rock at maximum zoom. After several seconds, he moves the TV a short distance to the left and then moves it back to the direction where we last saw the crew.]
167:44:41 Duke: Okay, move it (meaning the tongs) down a little bit.
[Charlie takes a second picture of the shatter cone, Text Orange.]
RealVideo Clip (3 min 15 sec)
167:44:42 Young: That settles that, doesn't it, Houston?
167:44:45 Duke: Okay, got it. (Pause) (To Houston) Okay, here's a chunk of it. The black rock looks...Some of it's glass-coated, Tony, and man, that is a shatter cone.
167:45:00 Young: Charlie, let's get a piece of it.
167:45:01 Duke: Okay, here you go. I got a piece.
167:45:02 Young: Okay.
167:45:03 Duke: Give me a bag. (Pause) Okay, on the next one, how about stepping back and as I point to it, I'll pull off another piece; and we'll put a couple of pieces in here.
167:45:18 Young: Okay.
167:45:20 Duke: Okay. That's going in bag 389.
167:45:22 Young: Wait a minute. Let me...Hold it up.
167:45:23 Duke: Okay, let's just...
167:45:26 Young: Okay, I'll take a picture.
167:45:27 Duke: Take a picture of that so they'll know where it came from.
[John takes seven pictures, AS16-116- 18647, 18648, 18649, 18650, 18651, 18652, and 18653 during this Outhouse Rock sampling operation. Note that Charlie has a pack of sample bags hooked to his little finger.]
167:45:29 England: Okay. We copy. 389.
But, part two is about ready to be posted.
IMAGES
NASA Public Affairs image collection
Unless otherwise noted, all images processed by Kipp Teague from raw scans provided by NASA Johnson. Images labeled "OF300" are from the original film and are presented at the equivalent of 300 DPI on an 7.5 inch by 7.5 inch reproduction.
The type 200 film magazine is for thin-base film and its capacity is 200 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 inch frames. Each film magazine contains gross-film indicators for frame count.
70 mm Film Magazines. Two types of film magazines are used, one for standard-base film, the other for thin-base film. Either film magazine attaches to rear of camera and is locked in place by a lever-actuated clamp. The type 100 film magazine is for standard-base film and its capacity is 100 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 inch frames. The type 200 film magazine is for thin-base film and its capacity is 200 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 inch frames. Each film magazine contains gross-film indicators for frame count.
He got it from this site:
history.nasa.gov..
Have you ever used photoshop? The "Rubber stamp" tool is likely what was used. You select a nearby area of the image and click on it and then click on the area you want to clean up, and it duplicates and blends it together. It's pretty easy to do and doing that could easily end up covering one or more of the crosshairs if one's not being that careful.
Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM
The 170 is referring to the total number of exposures in that magazine. You can see it's just a sticker, which has no way of changing as they take pictures. And, as your source indicates, they had "gross-film indicators." Gross means total.
The "remaining" part is referring to the frame counter, as indicated by the arrow here:
We can't make out exactly what frame he is on.
Here's a better picture of a film magazine showing the frame counter:
Question: why doesn't NASA label their tampered photos as being tampered with?
Why present them as being the real deal? And why even tamper with them in the first place?
Have you ever worked with real film cameras? A roll of 36-exposure 35 millimeter film often has room for 2 or 3 extra exposures on it. It all depends on how much film the camera pre-rolls when loading the film, and how much the camera advances the film between pictures. The 170 probably meant the film was rated for at least 170 exposures. The Apollo 14 Photo Index lists the thin-base B&W film as having 190 frames.
Originally posted by FoosM
Fact: Other missions also had Magazines where more than 170 images were made.
Originally posted by FoosM
You know what else is strange. Why put the words "remaining" on the magazine?
In the same box as the 170 EXPS so that it would read, "170 EXPS Remaining"?
If by "it," you mean some kind of frame indicator, it's been there on other missions, as we can see on the Apollo 11 magazine image.
Originally posted by FoosM
And even if they took a look at it, why put it there if it wasn't there in other missions?
Originally posted by nataylor
Have you ever worked with real film cameras? A roll of 36-exposure 35 millimeter film often has room for 2 or 3 extra exposures on it. It all depends on how much film the camera pre-rolls when loading the film, and how much the camera advances the film between pictures. The 170 probably meant the film was rated for at least 170 exposures.
Originally posted by FoosM
Fact: Other missions also had Magazines where more than 170 images were made.
The Apollo 14 Photo Index lists the thin-base B&W film as having 190 frames.
How is it not an explanation? There was enough film in the magazine to get at least 170 exposures. They got 182. Seems reasonable to be conservative and have the actual number of possible exposures be higher than the rated number.
Originally posted by FoosM
Its still not an explanation for the 170 on the camera and the took over 180.
200 on one magazine of 3401 B&W from Apollo 16?
Originally posted by FoosM
Cause so far I've found 200 frames.
Question: why doesn't NASA label their tampered photos as being tampered with?
Why present them as being the real deal? And why even tamper with them in the first place?
Cause so far I've found 200 frames.
...The film used on Apollo-11 was the same type carried on the other flights - a Kodak special thin-based and thin emulsion double-perforated 70 mm film - which permitted 160 pictures in color or 200 on black/white in each loading.