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: 15
9
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by packinupngoin
This one just speaks for itself.

So you think ISS is a hoax too? How do you explain the fact that amateurs like myself can track ISS based on its orbital elements and see it just fine?
www.youtube.com...




posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
[1] The 2 photos are taken 27 frames apart


Originally posted by ArMaP
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.


The number of frames between these photos is highly relevant. It's easier to take a similar shot immediately after the previous shot. It's still highly unlikely you will match it exactly though.

Also as we will get to in point 3, the sun DID move, about 2 degrees. So when you say all things 'were the same.' That's wrong.

[2] The astronaut descended into a crater to take the second one.


Originally posted by ArMaP
2 - Irrelevant, the astronaut could point the camera higher or lower.


Of course you could point it higher or lower. However, lining up the sun EXACTLY as you had done previously, before you entered the crater and 27 frames ago is a pretty good accomplishment.

What makes this more interesting is whether the camera was fixed and chest mounted. If this is the case, which is how most of the apollo photos were taken, then astronaut would have had to tilt his body, without a viewfinder to match the sun position exactly. I'm about to look into this.

[3] The sun moved at least 2 degrees in elevation between these photos


Originally posted by ArMaP
3 - As above.


Above you quoted the sun 'was the same'. Well it wasn't. It moved about 2 degrees between the 27 frames.

[4] Every photo they took had the horizon at a different level as evidenced in the pans above.


Originally posted by ArMaP
4 - Except the ones with the Sun, that's why I think the astronaut may have used the Sun as a marker.


Based on this animation of about 24 frames, The horizon changes quite a bit. So no, I don't think they used the sun 'as a marker.'



[5] They had no viewfinder


Originally posted by ArMaP
5 - But they had lots of practice, it's a big difference.


Ok, let's assume they had 'lots of practice.' Even the best photographer in the world would be hard pressed to replicate the exact sun position 27 frames later.

[6] The 2nd photo was omitted from the pan


Originally posted by ArMaP
6 - Irrelevant, the other photo was also omitted.


I rest my case.

So after watching all of those 24 frames featuring the sun, what do you think the chances are they could produce this result ? Matching the sun and lens flare perfectly.



edit: add 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 on 3-8-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


How about showing how you determined this to be a fact:


[3] The sun moved at least 2 degrees in elevation between these photos


At least one (possibly two) other members have questioned this assertion.

Please provide the data that proves the amount of elapsed time for the Sun to move 2 degrees across the Lunar "sky".

I'll help....just back-of-the-envelope brainstorming:

Assuming a simplified "sky" azimuth span of 180 degrees...divided by 2 = 90.

Correct?

Using a simplified Lunar "day" of fourteen Earth days, we get 14 x 24 = 336 hours.

336 divided by 90 = 3.73 hours.

(Another way to look at it is....the Sun will appear to move ONE degree every ~1.87 hours. Doesn't this seem logical, considering the time frame involved, as the Moon rotates on its axis???)

SO...in order for, as you assert, the Sun to move 2 degrees in the "sky", as the Astronaut took the series of panorama shots, he would have had to have spent at least 3+ hours, taking those approximately 27 photos!!!

Want to re-assess your suppositions? Because, seems to me, you are working from false assumptions...and this is a waste of everyone's time.

Everyone who has patiently explailned to you, WHY you are wrong.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
How about showing how you determined this to be a fact:

116:22:29 Rightward of 6738. Up-Sun view of the LM and S-band antenna. As mentioned above, the Sun's elevation is about 7.6 degrees.

116:24:47 Rightward of 6751 Pete took the pan at about 1248 GMT/UTC on 19 November 1969, when the Sun was about 8.4 degrees above the eastern horizon

So what was it at frame 6766 ? Based on the 1 degree movement between those 13 frames, I'd say another 1 degree based on the next 15 frames.
history.nasa.gov...

Even if the sun somehow remained stationary, how the hell could you replicate the sun / lens flare matching anomaly in the animation above ?


[edit on 3-8-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
It is not even a question whether the photos were made in the same direction, because you can actually just see that the sun is in the same absolute location in the image. If anything, you would expect similar flares.

So even without the flares you would argue that the sun is in the same spot. But to what end? Only in a studio it is possible to have such a coincidence? Or was the sun itself also edited in?



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Only in a studio it is possible to have such a coincidence? Or was the sun itself also edited in?


I think it was edited in .. just look at the multiple animations and points above.
Coincidence ... I think not.

edit: multiple animations above.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Did the sun move, or the horizon? They were in irregular terrain, so it was probably the horizon, don't you think? How do you orient yourself on uneven terrain?



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by -PLB-
Only in a studio it is possible to have such a coincidence? Or was the sun itself also edited in?


I think it was edited in .. just look at the animation and points above.
Coincidence ... I think not.


Ok so you agree that your argument has nothing to do with the flares being similar, but with the fact that the sun is in almost the same absolute position of the image, which you claim to be impossible? That at least clears up your argument.

I just think it is much more likely that they coincidently took an image in approximately the same direction, than some image faker deliberately choosing to place the sun in the same position for some unknown reason.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
so you agree that your argument has nothing to do with the flares being similar


I don't mean to be rude, but your questions are all answered in the multiple points above.

They're also answered in the multiple animations above. You will see it's highly, highly unlikely that even a professional photographer could take 2 similar shots 27 frames apart and match the sun perfectly.

Please respond to just one of the points and animations raised above.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Your only point is that you think it is unlikely. It is as unlikely as an image faker putting the sun in almost the same spot on two images. So you have no point at all in fact.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Your only point is that you think it is unlikely. It is as unlikely as an image faker putting the sun in almost the same spot on two images. So you have no point at all in fact.


Ok, which point out of the 6 above do you disagree with ?

Which images out of the 24 above featured in the animations do you disagree with ?

you do realise don't you that the 2 contentious images are featured in that animation above ?




[edit on 3-8-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
The number of frames between these photos is highly relevant. It's easier to take a similar shot immediately after the previous shot. It's still highly unlikely you will match it exactly though.
It's not relevant, as I have said from the beginning, the number of photos between two similar looking photos is only relevant if the number is zero. If the photographer moved between the two photos it doesn't matter if there are 27 or 27000 photos between those two, that's why the number 27 is irrelevant.


Also as we will get to in point 3, the sun DID move, about 2 degrees. So when you say all things 'were the same.' That's wrong.
It's not wrong, the camera taking the photo and the target of the photo were the same, or are you implying that the Sun is not the same as in the other photo?



Of course you could point it higher or lower. However, lining up the sun EXACTLY as you had done previously, before you entered the crater and 27 frames ago is a pretty good accomplishment.
First of all, please don't use the word "exactly" as if it meant "approximately", if the line up was exactly the same we wouldn't see any difference between those two photos.


What makes this more interesting is whether the camera was fixed and chest mounted. If this is the case, which is how most of the apollo photos were taken, then astronaut would have had to tilt his body, without a viewfinder to match the sun position exactly. I'm about to look into this.
If the camera was chest-mounted I think the probability of having two photos pointing in almost the same direction is better than if it was hand-held.

I will wait for your investigation about that.



Above you quoted the sun 'was the same'. Well it wasn't. It moved about 2 degrees between the 27 frames.
No, "above" meant the answer above this one (3), meaning answer 2, "Irrelevant, the astronaut could point the camera higher or lower."


Based on this animation of about 24 frames, The horizon changes quite a bit. So no, I don't think they used the sun 'as a marker.'
Yes, it changes quite a bit, but from the 21 photos you used (the last one is duplicated) 10 have just a slight difference in the position of the horizon (frames 1, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 22). From those, frames 1, 15, 21 and 22 have the horizon at the same position (with an error margin of 1 pixel, it's a little hard not be exact).


Ok, let's assume they had 'lots of practice.' Even the best photographer in the world would be hard pressed to replicate the exact sun position 27 frames later.
No, it's not that difficult, trust me.

Have you ever seen those occasions in which there's a lot of people surrounding someone famous and the photographers that cannot get close enough raise the camera and shoot, even without seeing what they are doing? They don't need to see exactly where they are aiming because they have enough practice, in the same way I don't have to look at the keyboard to write the right letters (although I must confess I hit the "j" instead of the "k" while writing "keyboard"
).


I rest my case.
I don't understand what you mean by that, sorry.


So after watching all of those 24 frames featuring the sun, what do you think the chances are they could produce this result ? Matching the sun and lens flare perfectly.
See above, and I do mean the list of the frames some sentences above.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


to me.....and I'm no expert.....but it's pretty obvious.....that ALL the color has been removed from the background picture...

there is a distinct difference between the grey coloring on the Lunar vehicle, and the lifeless grey of the background...

It's almost laughably obvious now that I take a second look.


Is this what I should be seeing because that is what immediately jumped out to me...

it's like they aren't even trying anymore.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ^anubis^
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?



Well.....I can see stars in the sky at night.....but when I go to take a picture with my camera phone they don't show up...

Does that mean they are no there? nope..

My phone just can't pic it up..

I think they purposely use cameras that only focus on the near, as to purposely block out anything they can naturally.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55


Ok, which point out of the 6 above do you disagree with ?

Which images out of the 24 above featured in the animations do you disagree with ?

you do realise don't you that the 2 contentious images are featured in that animation above ?

[edit on 3-8-2010 by ppk55]


I agree with all points, but as explained, they are all irrelevant. None of the points you make make it impossible to make a photo in which the sun is in a similar position. In fact, the fact the camera was mounted on their chests makes it only much more likely that the vertical angle is similar. The two degrees you claim the sun has moved is negligible.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


Nope.


...that ALL the color has been removed from the background picture...


Nope.

It is merely what the film recorded..nothing more, nothing less.

This is an ALIEN environment, not what you're used to on Earth, so you cannot assign your life's experience you have here, to there.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I agree with all points, but as explained, they are all irrelevant. None of the points you make make it impossible to make a photo in which the sun is in a similar position.


It's not about the sun being in the same position, even though it wasn't.
It's about taking an identical photo with the sun in the identical position considering these facts.

[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

[7] to be confirmed, that the astronaut had the usual fixed, chest mounted camera. Which means he would have to tilt his body to match the suns position exactly, even without a viewfinder.

See animations above to compare the images in question.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


And...nope.


I think they purposely use cameras that only focus on the near, as to purposely block out anything they can naturally.


Gee....the actual specifications of the cameras used is readily available.

Why not research, and learn for yourself?

BTW... if you understood photographic principles, you'd know HOW to make the distant background "blurred"....it has to do with the size of the aperture.

Look it up, if you don't believe.

I'm afraid today's generation is spoiled by the "point-and-shoot" types of cameras, designe dto be versatile in all situations. It diminishes the understanding of the art of photography, and leads to these sorts of misconceptions.

BTW...the very distant hills ARE in pretty good focus....this indicates a broad depth-of-field used, according to the aperture settings.

Can look those up, too.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
A question for you ppk55, do you think all of the image was faked, or just the sun? If you think all of the image was faked, can you explain how they did that and why they did it like that? If you think only the sun was added, can you explain why all the shadows in the image are consistent with the location of the sun?



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Can't wait to see how this threads will also get 150 Pages.

You make the evil moon very happy! Wait a moment...where is Foosm?



ATS - Awful Trolling Site? - you make it true!

[edit on 3-8-2010 by cushycrux]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join