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.

 

Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts

page: 14
9
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Look at the tiny lens flare beneath the sun.


Yeah? SO??

It is a characteristic of that particular lens.

IF those two pictures had been taken by TWO DIFFERENT cameras, then you'd have a better point, and argument.

As it is, you've got bupkis.....




posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


What a load of rubbish. parallax has no significance in regards to sun position and lens flare. Nice try. One only needs to see the above animation.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


You apparently mis-read his post.
because here you just re-stated what he was saying:


parallax has no significance in regards to sun position and lens flare.




( I see you still have a 'fan', though...:shk: )



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Here's the original animation. Can YOU replicate the sun and lens flare position even with a viewfinder. The Apollo crew DIDN'T have a viewfinder ... so how did they get this match so right ?



edit: come on people, if you saw this lens flare / sun addition in any other situation you would call fake. But because it's Apollo, anything goes right ?

remember, you are looking at 2 photos taken 27 frames apart, with the astronaut descending into a crater, and the sun moving at least 2 degrees in elevation. coincidence?

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
parallax has no significance in regards to sun position and lens flare.

That's my point. Did you not even read what I wrote? It's like the only word you saw in my reply was the word parallax.

One only needs to see the above animation.

Yup, it moved. Since it's the lens flare spot closest to the sun it should be expected to move the least since it has the smallest angular separation from the sun. The lens flare spots farther from the sun shift more noticeably. The angle of the shift is constant, but over a short distance (distance from the sun in the image) the total distance of the shift in the image is small.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Here's the original animation. Can YOU replicate the sun and lens flare position even with a viewfinder. The Apollo crew DIDN'T have a viewfinder ... so how did they get this match so right ?



edit: come on people, if you saw this lens flare / sun addition in any other situation you would call fake. But because it's Apollo, anything goes right ?

remember, you are looking at 2 photos taken 27 frames apart, with the astronaut descending into a crater, and the sun moving at least 2 degrees in elevation. coincidence?

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ppk55]


Here's an idea: do an animated GIF of the entire pan and see what it looks like. The flare appears on several images.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
So what is the proposition here? Is it that they used the same overlay twice in order to fake one of the most significant photo series in the history of man kind? Because they were lazy? Because their budged was too small? Because they were incompetent?

Or do we simple see the same flare because the camera is pointed in the same direction?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Here's the original animation. Can YOU replicate the sun and lens flare position even with a viewfinder. The Apollo crew DIDN'T have a viewfinder ... so how did they get this match so right ?

Never underestimate coincidences.



edit: come on people, if you saw this lens flare / sun addition in any other situation you would call fake. But because it's Apollo, anything goes right ?

No, if I saw this in any other situation (but in two photos known to be made while not trying to make them look the same) I would think "coincidence".

Apparently you think in a different way, so when looking at seven photos that were taken some time later than the first one, you chose the one that looks more like that one and, while ignoring the other six, say that the sun or lens flare was added to the photo, when you can clearly see that the light is coming from that direction, in all photos.


remember, you are looking at 2 photos taken 27 frames apart, with the astronaut descending into a crater, and the sun moving at least 2 degrees in elevation.
The number of photos between the two is irrelevant, the time between them is what matters. It could have been the next photo, taken some minutes later.


coincidence?

Probably. It happens thousands of times each day.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Here's an idea: do an animated GIF of the entire pan and see what it looks like. The flare appears on several images.

Conveniently they completely left this image out of the pan, which is featured in the previous page.

edit: the photo number they omitted was AS12-46-6766




[edit on 28-7-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


I don't understand why you think this is significant??


Conveniently they completely left this image out of the pan, which is featured in the previous page.


I'm confused as to your point....also, I see the collage of shots, arranged into a sequence for a pan, as you posted the images. Did YOU arrange them like that? Or, is that montage something you found online, and posted?

Because, if you say they "left it out of the pan", yet you found the full pan arrangement online, and posted it...this means they they DIDN'T leave it out...right?


Perhaps, rather than such nitpicking, and attempting to make something out of nothing, how about using an example of something that will actually make people sit up and take notice?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Did YOU arrange them like that? Or, is that montage something you found online, and posted?

Because, if you say they "left it out of the pan", yet you found the full pan arrangement online, and posted it...this means they they DIDN'T leave it out...right?



No, I didn't arrange them like that.

It's from the NASA lunar surface journal.
history.nasa.gov...

What I'm concerned about is why they left that image out of the pan ?

And why when you look at the individual photos (taken 27 frames apart) do the 2 lens flares and 2 'suns' match perfectly, as illustrated in the above animation.

edit: more reading here history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 28-7-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
What I'm concerned about is why they left that image out of the pan ?

First of all, you should consider who "they" is:
history.nasa.gov...
Second of all, there are at least two images that can fill that part of the pan. Pitching a fit because they didn't choose the image you wanted them to choose is just silly.


And why when you look at the individual photos (taken 27 frames apart) do the 2 lens flares and 2 'suns' match perfectly, as illustrated in the above animation.

They don't match perfectly, as we've been trying to tell you.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
history.nasa.gov...
Second of all, there are at least two images that can fill that part of the pan.

Wrong. There are no other images whatsoever that could fill that part of the pan.

I've done my research and they completely left out that image.
AS12-46-6766

No two images are alike in any respect, except for the lens flare and 'sun' that is identical in the animation above.

And no other image could 'fill that part of the pan'
all sources are posted further back.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by ngchunter
history.nasa.gov...
Second of all, there are at least two images that can fill that part of the pan.

Wrong. There are no other images whatsoever that could fill that part of the pan.

Ahem
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
6766 is redundant. These images can fill the same part of the pan.


I've done my research and they completely left out that image.
AS12-46-6766

Multiple images cover the same area as 6766, you're pitching a fit because they chose those images over 6766. Either you haven't done adequate research or you're not being honest.


No two images are alike in any respect, except for the lens flare and 'sun' that is identical in the animation above.

It's non-identical.


And no other image could 'fill that part of the pan'
all sources are posted further back.

Yes, they can.
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 28-7-2010 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Conveniently they completely left this image out of the pan, which is featured in the previous page.

edit: the photo number they omitted was AS12-46-6766

When doing panoramas it's natural to leave some photos out, and that was not the only photo left out.

Judging by the numbers of the photos in panorama (photos 6764 to 6782), the panorama should have 19 photos, but I can only see 16, and those of the missing photos are consecutive photos, 6766 and 6767.

No need for speculation about why they left that photo out, it was redundant, like the other photo(s?).

PS: I know that governments lie, politicians lie, people in general lie, but that doesn't mean that all things that you cannot understand represent a conspiracy of some kind. Stop a little, try to see other possible points of view and find reasons that may explain the things you don't understand, and, most of all, don't cling to a chosen idea as if it was your only salvation, the ability to understand that we are wrong about something is one of most useful tools we have between our ears.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
When doing panoramas it's natural to leave some photos out, and that was not the only photo left out.

No need for speculation about why they left that photo out, it was redundant, like the other photo(s?).


Well at least we've agreed they left the image out of the pan. I believe they left the image out because in the pans it would be immediately obvious that they used the same lens flare / sun in two identical photos. By making it 'redundant' it would be harder to scrutinize wouldn't it ?

So now the question becomes even more interesting ...

How can the lens flare and 'sun' be identical if...

[1] The 2 photos are taken 27 frames apart
[2] The astronaut descended into a crater to take the second one
[3] The sun moved at least 2 degrees in elevation between these photos
[4] Every photo they took had the horizon at a different level as evidenced in the pans above.
[5] They had no viewfinder
[6] The 2nd photo was omitted from the pan



sources:

history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

The 2 frames are AS12-46-6739 and 6766

www.lpi.usra.edu...
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

edit: to add 6 entries instead of 5.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



How can the lens flare and 'sun' be identical if...

[1] The 2 photos are taken 27 frames apart
[2] The astronaut descended into a crater to take the second one
[3] The sun moved at least 2 degrees in elevation between these photos
[4] Every photo they took had the horizon at a different level as evidenced in the pans above.
[5] They had no viewfinder
[6] The 2nd photo was omitted from the pan


1] It is the same camera with the same lens system.
2] What difference would that make to the camera's lens?
3] It takes the sun about four hours to move two degrees on the Moon. Where did you get that figure, anyway?
4] Again, how does this affect the lens?
5] What does this have to do with lens flares?
6] Maybe because they had a similar photo that wasn't spoiled by a lens flare?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
By making it 'redundant' it would be harder to scrutinize wouldn't it ?

They didn't make it redundant, it is redundant because you can use three photos that show almost the same area, that's why they jumped from photo 6765 and 6768.

They could use those photos, but from those three only one would be visible.

In something that takes a lot of time and work to do, ignoring two images that would add nothing is good thing.


[1] The 2 photos are taken 27 frames apart
[2] The astronaut descended into a crater to take the second one
[3] The sun moved at least 2 degrees in elevation between these photos
[4] Every photo they took had the horizon at a different level as evidenced in the pans above.
[5] They had no viewfinder
[6] The 2nd photo was omitted from the pan


1 - The number of photos between those two is irrelevant, it would only be relevant if they were consecutive photos. All things were the same (the camera and the Sun), so the result was the same.
2 - Irrelevant, the astronaut could point the camera higher or lower.
3 - As above.
4 - Except the ones with the Sun, that's why I think the astronaut may have used the Sun as a marker.
5 - But they had lots of practice, it's a big difference.
6 - Irrelevant, the other photo was also omitted.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts
[edit on 10-5-2010 by ppk55]



This one just speaks for itself.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by packinupngoin
 


Oh, you have to be kidding!!??!!

You fall for that?

What...are you a "believer" like "Arcangel4myke" over on YouTube? 'Cause, HE is the moron that made that video, and posted it!

Know why??

'Cause, he is a religious LOON who thinks that "god" doesn't allow space travel...so, by his 'logic', therefore ALL space missions are "faked".

He is a few slices short of a full loaf of bread, that guy is....

(Pssst: The "bubbles"....?? Debris. Glinting. In. The. Sunlight.)

HERE is some proof of his idiocy....Actual video of actual NASA underwater tank.

AND another.

On this one, I want you to LOOK!! at the BUBBLES!!! This is actually in a tank, too.

DID YOU SEE those?? SEE how many???


Really....take a BREAK from YouTube, and go out and learn something please....






[edit on 2 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join