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 packinupngoin
This one just speaks for itself.
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.
Originally posted by ArMaP
2 - Irrelevant, the astronaut could point the camera higher or lower.
Originally posted by ArMaP
3 - As 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.
Originally posted by ArMaP
5 - But they had lots of practice, it's a big difference.
Originally posted by ArMaP
6 - Irrelevant, the other photo was also omitted.
[3] The sun moved at least 2 degrees in elevation between these photos
Originally posted by weedwhacker
How about showing how you determined this to be a fact:
Originally posted by -PLB-
Only in a studio it is possible to have such a coincidence? Or was the sun itself also edited in?
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.
Originally posted by -PLB-
so you agree that your argument has nothing to do with the flares being similar
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, "above" meant the answer above this one (3), meaning answer 2, "Irrelevant, the astronaut could point the camera higher or lower."
Above you quoted the sun 'was the same'. Well it wasn't. It moved about 2 degrees between the 27 frames.
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).
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.'
No, it's not that difficult, trust me.
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.
I don't understand what you mean by that, sorry.
I rest my case.
See above, and I do mean the list of the frames some sentences above.
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.
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?
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]
...that ALL the color has been removed from the background picture...
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.
I think they purposely use cameras that only focus on the near, as to purposely block out anything they can naturally.