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 ppk55
Irrelevant.
[1] The 2 photos are taken 27 frames apart
Irrelevant.
[2] The astronaut descended into a crater to take the second one
Irrelevant.
[3] The sun moved at least 2 degrees in elevation between these photos
Not true, there were some photos with the horizon at the same level.
[4] Every photo they took had the horizon at a different level as evidenced in the pans above.
Irrelevant.
[5] They had no viewfinder
Irrelevant.
[6] The 2nd photo was omitted from the pan
Irrelevant.
[7] The camera was mounted and fixed on the astronauts chest plate.
Once again, to achieve the sun and lens flare in the identical position on photos 27 frames apart given the above 7 points I think is remarkable.
edit: I'm going to call this one ... the sun and lens flare were added in later.
Apart from the obvious take a look at the rays just visible screen left. They're even identical.
Originally posted by ArMaP
Once again, to achieve the sun and lens flare in the identical position on photos 27 frames apart given the above 7 points I think is remarkable.
I think it's only a coincidence, not enough to be something remarkable either.
Originally posted by ppk55
Once again, to achieve the sun and lens flare in the identical position on photos 27 frames apart given the above 7 points I think is remarkable.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
It's a trap Armap.... The English language, great fun!
Originally posted by ArMaP
the fact the camera was chest-mounted makes it even easier to point in the same direction.
Irrelevant.
NASA lunar surface journal
116:26:05 Conrad: (I'm) taking a look at that Surveyor, Al, I suspect we ought to be able to get there quite readily. I'm going to head down into the crater a little bit for this set of pans...Whoops, (garbled)
116:26:14 Bean: Watch yourself; it's easy to slide.
116:26:16 Conrad: Yeah, you can say that again. (Pause) I notice you've been over here, haven't you?
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Not true, there were some photos with the horizon at the same level.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
I think it's only a coincidence, not enough to be something remarkable either.
I'm going to call it Mary.
If the light source is in the same spot the rays are always going to be identical.
Originally posted by ppk55So this makes the perfect matching of the sun and lens flare even more remarkable.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5eeeb742340.gif[/atsimg]
And magically, after all of that, he lined up the sun, lens flare and rays exactly the same as the image taken way back 27 frames ago. Magic.
[[3] The sun moved at least 2 degrees in elevation between these photos
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant. It makes the job of taking two photos with the sun and lens flare in the identical place much harder.
The sun has moved. Pretty basic.
If you're going to try and capture the sun and lens flare, and rays in the exact position between 27 frames, having a viewfinder really would help a little. Not having one would make it a one in a million jackpot guess.
[6] The 2nd photo was omitted from the pan
Irrelevant.
Excuse me, but had that image AS12-46-6766 been included in the pan above, it would have been immediately obvious to all that the sun, lens flare and rays were identical to AS12-46-6739. So very relevant, again.
[7] The camera was mounted and fixed on the astronauts chest plate.
Irrelevant.
Addressed in the opening sentence of this post.
Once again, to achieve the sun and lens flare in the identical position on photos 27 frames apart given the above 7 points I think is remarkable.
etc...
Originally posted by ppk55
Conrad descended into a crater to take the 2nd image AS12-46-6766. If Conrad was supposedly walking down into a crater, he would have had to tilt his entire body vertically to lineup the sun exactly, seeing as the camera was attached to it, so that it would match perfectly the image taken on the level surface.
So this makes the perfect matching of the sun and lens flare even more remarkable.
Originally posted by ppk55
Conrad descended into a crater to take the 2nd image AS12-46-6766. If Conrad was supposedly walking down into a crater, he would have had to tilt his entire body vertically to lineup the sun exactly, seeing as the camera was attached to it, so that it would match perfectly the image taken on the level surface.
Everyone knows it's much easier to take 2 identical photos consecutively.
If you have to take another 26 shots in between it's going to be so much harder to try and even remember where the sun was on the 1st shot.
And magically, after all of that, he lined up the sun, lens flare and rays exactly the same as the image taken way back 27 frames ago. Magic.
Irrelevant. It makes the job of taking two photos with the sun and lens flare in the identical place much harder.
The sun has moved. Pretty basic.
Would you mind pointing these out please ?
And I'm not talking about one of the lunar lander and then one of an experiment.
We are talking about matching the 'sun' and lens flare.
So far it's not looking good for you.
I'm sorry, but this is again very relevant. If you're going to try and capture the sun and lens flare, and rays in the exact position between 27 frames, having a viewfinder really would help a little. Not having one would make it a one in a million jackpot guess.
Excuse me, but had that image AS12-46-6766 been included in the pan above, it would have been immediately obvious to all that the sun, lens flare and rays were identical to AS12-46-6739. So very relevant, again.
Addressed in the opening sentence of this post.
Once again, to achieve the sun and lens flare in the identical position on photos 27 frames apart given the above 7 points I think is remarkable.
I'm sorry but that is one hell of a coincidence, and one I'm not buying.
I'm going to call this one ... the sun and lens flare were added in later.
I'm going to call it Mary.
From a so called mod I would not have expected this type of reply.
Nothing is in the same spot, not the sun and certainly not Conrad who allegedly took the photos.
Also, I would expect a mod to reply with more than just 'irrelevant'. You really should explain in detail why you think something is irrelevant. Just posting one word replies is a little lame.
Originally posted by ppk55 Everyone knows it's much easier to take 2 identical photos consecutively.
Originally posted by ArMaP Yes, and I said so before,
Originally posted by ppk55
Thank you for acknowledging that to take 2 photos of the sun in an identical position 27 frames apart is harder.
Originally posted by ppk55
Originally posted by ppk55 Everyone knows it's much easier to take 2 identical photos consecutively.
Originally posted by ArMaP Yes, and I said so before,
Thank you for acknowledging that to take 2 photos of the sun in an identical position 27 frames apart is harder.
edit on 16-9-2010 by ppk55 because: formatting
Originally posted by ArMaP
Taking 2 photos of any target in an identical position is harder when those two photos are not taken the same occasion and in sequence, with the second taken immediately after the first, that's obvious.
Originally posted by ArMaP
"Irrelevant."
Originally posted by ppk55
Thank you again for confirming my first point of seven. So your initial comment regarding this issue...
I'll address point two tomorrow.
Originally posted by ArMaP
I see you haven't understood yet what I am saying.
Lunar Surface Journal
116:22:29 Conrad: Okay. (Pause) Go. f/11. f/11 it is. (Counting frames and clock positions as he turns) 1, 2, 3. Now f/8. (Pause) 4, 5, 6, 7. (Pause, possibly changing to f/5.6) 6, 7
Pete's 12 O'Clock Pan ( frames 6730 to 6745 )
116:27:03 Conrad: I think my camera's...(Long Pause)
Pete's 8 O'Clock Pan ( frames AS12-46- 6764 to 6782 )
Originally posted by ppk55
Are you seriously telling me that given these circumstances, you could match the sun and lens flare perfectly if you mounted a camera to your chest and the following conditions below applied ... I dare you .. actually double dare you to even try it in earth conditions. (don't forget getting the lens flare rays to match perfectly)
No, I'm saying that is not "amazing" that two photos show the Sun in almost exactly the same position.
Originally posted by ppk55
Are you seriously telling me that given these circumstances, you could match the sun and lens flare perfectly if you mounted a camera to your chest and the following conditions below applied ...
I will not try that, I don't want to ruin my camera's sensor.
I dare you .. actually double dare you to even try it in earth conditions. (don't forget getting the lens flare rays to match perfectly)
Once more, you are not understanding what I have said...
So to do this on earth you'd need to do the following .. I'm sure you're up for it seeing as you're so confident.
That's easy to do. Would it make a difference if they are 26 or 28? Or 280? Or 2?
[1] The 2 photos are taken 27 frames apart (you can do that)
No, I never cheat, and the fact that you mention that shows that you do not know me and that you would probably not trust my results if I would make the test exactly like you want it and the results would show that you are wrong.
[5] They had no viewfinder (you can do that.. but will you cheat ?? )
Read what I wrote, I never said that I could do it, I said it wasn't an amazing thing and that a photographer with experience could do it.
Are you up to it .. or is this just all talk ? I'm going to trust you on this that you complete this experiment faithfully.
I suggest you stop trying to guess what I think, you're not doing a good job.
edit: and before you say ... 'oh it's all too hard'... you're on earth, without a life preserving suit, with dexterity in your hands, nimble feet, and a rested state of mind and you are experienced with the light conditions on earth, and you know how gravity works on earth, and you're under no pressure, but you only have 5 minutes to do it.