Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Why is there a siren at the start of this clip and then repeating audio in this NASA Apollo 16 video ? BTW it's an off air recording of the TV broadcast.

history.nasa.gov...

Sorry, but this 'Real Player' format is the only format NASA encodes this clip in.

edit: as soon as I learn how to convert it I will post the new version.

Then in this image .. what looks wrong to you without me prompting it ?



If you need the original .. here it is...
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

(hint try zooming in on the bottom of the flag on the higher res download)

Now ask yourself, could you do a better photoshop job?

lots more to come ...


[edit on 10-5-2010 by ppk55]




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
What gets me going is how come we don't see any stars or other planets in the back ground. Is space really that lonely?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ^anubis^
 


im not sure but i think its to do with the light reflecting from the moon or a simpler answer is that there are no stars in a movie studio.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by listerofsmeg
 


LMAO my point exactly.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Thanks for your replies but there is already a topic on this...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
It would seem obvious to anyone who has ever used a camera more complex than a disposable, but here goes anyway....

Think "aperture". You will never never be able to see stars in a photo taken on the moon which includes ANY object on the illuminated side of the moon for the simple reason that anything in the foreground (including the surface itself) is BRIGHT. Since the object is to get a photo of the local area, the lens must be "stopped down" to prevent overexposure thus eliminating any weak light source (like stars?). The only way to see stars in a photo taken from the moons surface would be to aim the camera UP, eliminating any surface object, and then open the lens wide enough to capture the stars.

As for the flag, From the wrinkling along the top edge, it would seem that the flag material was "scruntched" (is that really a word?) along the horizontal bar, then the bar was folded down parallel to the vertical support and the whole thing compressed as tightly as possible to reduce its volume during the trip. As the material from which the flag was made would be extremely light weight (silk maybe or something even lighter) it would take a while for the 1/6G gravity of the moon to fully straighten it out after erection. All we can say for sure is that this photo was taken shortly after deployment.

No Star or Flag for jumping to irrational conclusions.

Edit to add: The photo comments were in reply to ^anubis^, not the OP

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Tholidor]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Check out this 'photo flaw':




Thanks for making the thread ppK.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Did they photo shop the flag in ?
It has a green line around it

Why would they do that



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Thanks everyone but no-one has still got the 'under the flag thing'.

However it's allowed me to examine this photo further and if this is not the boundary that separates the scotchlite screen from the foreground then I don't know what is.

I've added a white line below what I believe to be the boundary of the real set vs the scotchlite screen



Please google 'scotchlite' .. it was used in 2001 A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick. Produced 1968.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Why is there a siren at the start of this clip and then repeating audio in this NASA Apollo 16 video ? BTW it's an off air recording of the TV broadcast.

history.nasa.gov...


That's not a siren. It sounds like a radio artifact. I used to hear them on my Grandad's ham receiver. In fact, that very artifact was used as a sound effect in a somewhat popular SF movie from 1980. Can you name it? Hint: it was in the first half-hour.

As to the "repeating audio", are you referring to where Charlie says, "Yeah, I've got the rake with me, that's all I need,"?

That was not all that unusual. They were on VOX (voice-activated) radio, and the time-delay between Capcom and the astronauts often resulted in one transmission stepping on another. If someone thought they weren't heard, they might repeat themselves - sometimes verbatim.

Perhaps you were referring to the echo of the Capcom transmissions? That was very common on VOX. The received audio in the helmet was sometimes loud enough to activate the microphone. On the ground end of the loop, you can often hear the Capcom's words repeated back with a ~3-second delay. Recently, some Italian students timed the echo time precisely and were able to accurately compute the distance to the Moon.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
That's not a siren. It sounds like a radio artifact.


Sounds like a siren to me. Anyone else ???


Originally posted by Saint Exupery
As to the "repeating audio",
If someone thought they weren't heard, they might repeat themselves - sometimes verbatim.


I don't think you get me .. this is an EXACT repeat .. not verbatim, an exact duplicate. How can that be if it's live ?



[edit on 10-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Please google 'scotchlite' .. it was used in 2001 A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick. Produced 1968.


It was used for the sky in the daytime scenes on Earth. If you project a "black" sky on it it picks up the ambient lighting in the studio and washes out gray. That's why they had to use matte effects for the lunar scenes. I see you've given up on your previous failed threads.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



Check out this 'photo flaw':


Yes, these things sometimes happen when you digitize a photograph taken with a film camera. Do you have a point here?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
I see you've given up on your previous failed threads.


No, just consolidating all my thoughts into one thread that I can keep track of. You sound bitter.

Also, if you're posting here, please respond to the initial topic, or your OT. Thanks.



[edit on 10-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Why we are not seeing star is the fact that they need to adjust the level of light entering the camera to get a "good" picture.
The light from stars is so small that you would need to let ALOT of light get in the optic, then, in the same way ruining the photo.

That's called exposure, I think.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jolois
Why we are not seeing star


Please, as I've said, there is already a thread for this
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The "siren" you refer to in that RM file is communications artifact. If you listen to the "noise", the sound is lower than the rest of the tones on the channel. Alot lower actually.

You might want to take into account that the RM file cuts out audio as well as video to make the compressed file, before saying this "siren" shouldn't be there.

You say your going to convert the RM file, to what?? There isn't any DATA in the RM file to convert, the result would be whorse than what you have now.

my 0.02 on that.

As for the image, what do you think is wrong with the image?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
The "siren" you refer to in that RM file is communications artifact.


Cool, let's hear what others think of it.


Originally posted by theability
As for the image, what do you think is wrong with the image?


That's what I'm asking of people reading this thread. Once I've got a few responses, I'll post what I think.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



You sound bitter.

Also, if you're posting here, please respond to the initial topic, or your OT. Thanks.


You sound frightened. My response to the OP: there is nothing unusual about this photograph. What smoking gun are we supposed to be seeing here? I see no "green line" around the flag. Perhaps there's something wrong with your browser. If you're going to police this thread in order to maintain its focus please give a warning to the de-railer who brought up scotchlite after you mentioned photoshop. Oh, wait a minute, that was you. Therefore my response was every bit as on topic as yours.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Thanks everyone but no-one has still got the 'under the flag thing'.

However it's allowed me to examine this photo further and if this is not the boundary that separates the scotchlite screen from the foreground then I don't know what is.Please google 'scotchlite' .. it was used in 2001 A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick. Produced 1968.


The generic term is "front- projection". There are several problems with this hypothesis:

- As others have pointed out, this is a process you would use to create the illusion of a bright background, not a dark or even medium one. In "2001", Kubrick used front projection to make the indoor set look like an outdoor scene under the indirect lighting of a cloudy sky, while the sun shined on the landscape in the background:



The very bright, single-source illumination in nearly all of the Apollo photographs is all wrong for this process. It would cause glare on the projected image, and if there are shiny objects on the set, they can cause discrete reflections and hot-spots on the background.

- Speaking of reflections, the whole principle of front-projection is based on the scotchlite screen, which is retroreflective - that is, it reflects light preferentially directly back towards its source (see above link). If there are shiny objects in the image (such as a mylar-covered LM or an astroanuts glass helmet), they too will show the light. In "2001" you can see this in the scene with the leopard with its freshly-killed "zebra" (it was actually a dead horse they painted stripes on). The cat's eyes reflect the projected light back towards the camera throughout the shot:



- The biggest problem with the front-projection hypothesis is that, although it might be workable with individual, carefully-composed shots, the illusion falls apart when you have many photographs of the scene taken from different angles - which is what we have from the beginning of roll 134. The multiple images, taken from different angle, show telltale shifts in position of background objects that are consistent with parallax. For objects in the distant background, sometimes it takse a shift of several meters (or tens of meters) to show parallax, but it is there. One of the neat things you can do with photos (whether from Apollo missions or your own family vacations) is to find two photos that have the same static backgrounds and make 3-D stereo pairs with them. AS17-134-20378 & AS17-134-20379 make a dandy pair. What appears to be a basically flat valley floor is, in 3-D, revealed to be a rugged & rolling landscape.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join