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: 18
9
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

The answers are the same, the fact the camera was chest-mounted makes it even easier to point in the same direction.


[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
Irrelevant.

[4] Every photo they took had the horizon at a different level as evidenced in the pans above.
Not true, there were some photos with the horizon at the same level.

[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.
Irrelevant.


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.


edit: I'm going to call this one ... the sun and lens flare were added in later.

I'm going to call it Mary.



Apart from the obvious take a look at the rays just visible screen left. They're even identical.

If the light source is in the same spot the rays are always going to be identical.


edit on 13/9/2010 by ArMaP because:





posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

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.



Been alot of remarking on it though, for something you allege is unremarkable....

*You feel into the trap, perhaps next time when someone says 'I Say! This is bloody remarkable!', you could say "Perhaps it is to you....."

Otherwise you end up remarking on something that you think is unremarkable; the end result is something which is not remarkable has a large number of remarks made about it and by the end of the exchange you may be wrong by virtue of the shear number of remarks made during the exchange.

It could turn out to be remarkable afterall, but that wouldn't suit you; having just argued for the things unremarkability.





It's a trap Armap.... The English language, great fun!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   

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.


It would have been remarkable if the sun was in a similar position but the lens flare not.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
It's a trap Armap.... The English language, great fun!

Many things are lost in translation (and some are gained), too bad I cannot "talk" to everybody in Portuguese, that would be interesting.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
the fact the camera was chest-mounted makes it even easier to point in the same direction.


Hello, unfortunately you're wrong. In case you hadn't noticed, quite a bit happened within those 27 frames.

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.



[1] The 2 photos are taken 27 frames apart.

Irrelevant.

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.

In between these frames, Conrad shot a whole bunch of the crater with the surveyor 3 spacecraft in it (they allegedly landed just 200 metres from it),

Then he shot some of the lunar lander, then some of the S band antenna, then some more of the TV camera (the one Bean ruined), then some more of the surface where they landed. He even took another one of the sun, but this one didnt even come close to matching.

Then.... this happened

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?


Then.. he finally got around to taking the 2nd image in the animation above. AS12-46-6766.

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.

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

Irrelevant.

Wrong again. As evidenced just above.

[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.



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

Not true, there were some photos with the horizon at the same level.

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. Here's an animation of all the images with a 'sun' showing.



[5] They had no viewfinder

Irrelevant.

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.

[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.


I think it's only a coincidence, not enough to be something remarkable either.

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.

Apart from the obvious take a look at the rays just visible screen left. They're even identical.

If the light source is in the same spot the rays are always going to be identical.

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.

xx




edit on 14-9-2010 by ppk55 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


He wasn't trying to create a lens flare. Lens flares just happen when light strikes a lens at a certain angle. By coincidence, there were two separate shots that had the light source at a similar, but not identical, angle, which is why the two lens flares look similar, but not identical. You do realize they're not identical.... notice hoe the lens flare seems to rotate and expand slightly in your animated GIF. They look similar because the optics are the same optics... you're seeing the iris of the camera reflected.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55So this makes the perfect matching of the sun and lens flare even more remarkable.




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...


Your animated .gif very clearly shows that the lense flares are not identical.

Starting with the sun on the upper right, we see that:

- The overexposed blob of the sun is more diffuse/distorted than the one in the other picture.
- The ring aroung the sun-blob is more diffuse/distorted than the one in the other picture.
- The ray at the one-o'clock position rotates slightly and changes shape near the edge of the frame.
- The small lense flare is ~1/2 obscured by the sun-blob in one picture, and only ~1/4 exposed in the other.

Down on the lower left, we see several more lense flares, which are located near a reseau crosshair (nice job lining those up, btw):

- The lense flares move in relation to the superimposed reseau crosshairs.
- The axis of the lense flares rotates consistently with the ray on the upper right.
- Two of the circular lense flares overlap each other. The degree of overlap changes between pictures.

Repeating that they are identical doesn't make it so - it just makes you wrong many times.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

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.


You do know that when you walk on a slope, you always try to stay perpendicular with respect the gravity, and not the ground? So you don't need to tilt your body to get the same angle. You are already in that angle. Else you fall over.

Like this:

\
_\|
__\

Not like this:

\
_\/
__\



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

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.

As -PLB- said (and everybody knows), we try to remain aligned with gravity, not perpendicular to the ground, that's why a camera attached to the torso has a higher probability of pointing in the same azimuth twice than a hand-held camera.


Everyone knows it's much easier to take 2 identical photos consecutively.

Yes, and I said so before,


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.

What I have been saying since you presented this case is that the number of photos between the two is irrelevant, if the photos between the two change. It doesn't matter if you take 1, 26 or 260 photos between those two, what is relevant is the change in position between the first photo, the second (or a sequence of photos after the first) and the last photo.


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.

Magic is only magic for those that do not understand it, for those that do it's simple.


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.

No, the difference is not big enough to be relevant.
Think of it this way: if someone has a error margin of 2º when trying to point a camera to some target, the fact that the target moved 2º may completely compensate the error or it may amplify it, it's a question of coincidence.


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.

Are we? I thought that when you wrote "every photo they took" you were talking about every photo, not just about photos with the Sun and lens flare.

I thought I had an animated gif with a line at a fixed height on the photo's edge, showing all the photos from that panorama, but I see I didn't post it. I will look for it, and if I find it I will post it, but if I cannot find it I have to remake it, so it may take some time.


So far it's not looking good for you.

I didn't know that this was some kind of contest, I thought we were just presenting our opinions about this.


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.

No, it's easier to have your torso pointing in the direction you are facing (specially with a space suit and a helmet) than having a small object like a camera between your hands. The angle between the camera and the ground is much more stable if the camera is attached to the torso than if it's in the hand(s).

But don't take my word on it, try it, like I did, and you will see that it's much easier to point the camera in the direction we want than when looking through a viewfinder. If you use a viewfinder you have to remember the framing of the target (if you want to repeat the photo), while without a viewfinder you point the camera with your whole body.


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.

How is that relevant to how easy or difficult it is to make two separate photos look almost the same?
That's what we are talking about, right? Or are you considering that the possible difficulty of repeating a photo is the same thing as not showing that there are photos that look the same?

Or are you talking about a different thing.



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.

Already answered.


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 don't think is such a hell of a coincidence, I think it's just an easy to happen coincidence, nothing more.



I'm going to call it Mary.

From a so called mod I would not have expected this type of reply.

Why? I didn't stop being who I am just because I am now a mod, and this discussion has nothing to do with anyone being a mod or not (at least to me).
And in Portuguese it sounds different.


Nothing is in the same spot, not the sun and certainly not Conrad who allegedly took the photos.

The light source is in the same relative position to the camera, if it wasn't you wouldn't be saying that the photos look the same, right?

If a light source appears on a photo in a specific area, another photo with the same light source in the same spot on the photo will show the same lens flare and other camera and lens related artefacts.


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.

Do you want me to write long sentences just because I am now a mod? I was never good at writing (as anyone can tell), not even in Portuguese, so why should I write more than I did before just because now I am a mod?

Being a mod is irrelevant to this discussion.

And if you keep on repeating the same points I don't see the need for me to repeat all I wrote before, so I just repeated the relevant part of my answers.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   

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



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   

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.

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.

It's also obvious that the number of photos taken between those two is irrelevant, and that's what I have been saying.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
If you think that the light source was edited in later, how do you explain that the shadows are all consistent with the light source?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

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



Not that this is relevant, since (as you own comparison shows) the sun is not in an identical position in the two photographs.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

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.

Thank you again for confirming my first point of seven. So your initial comment regarding this issue...

Originally posted by ArMaP
"Irrelevant."

is ... well ... irrelevant.

I'll address point two tomorrow.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Thank you again for confirming my first point of seven. So your initial comment regarding this issue...

I see you haven't understood yet what I am saying.

Your first point on that list was: The 2 photos are taken 27 frames apart.

That is irrelevant. They could be 26, 25, 20, 10, 3, 2 or even zero, what makes it harder to have the target in the same position is the fact that they were not taken in succession.

If they we consecutive photos on that magazine but taken with some minutes between them, that would be relevant, and there would be zero frames between them. Some of the Apollo photos show one photo taken from orbit and the next taken on the Moon's surface, with no frames between them but obviously a relatively large period of time between them.

To make it even more clear, the problem with your first point in the list is that you have considered the number of frames as an important, and you have insisted in the exact number, as if that number had any special reason behind it, when you should have said something like "The photos were taken x minutes apart" or "the photos were not taken in succession", that would point to what matters, the time that passed between the two photos.


I'll address point two tomorrow.

Great, maybe this time we can clear that too.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I see you haven't understood yet what I am saying.


No actually, I haven't to be honest. However point 8 that has now been added should address your time period dilemma.

Before I move on to point two. 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)


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.

[1] The 2 photos are taken 27 frames apart (you can do that)
[2] The astronaut (you) descended into a crater to take the second one (surely portugal has something nearby you could use to replicate)
[3] The sun moved at least 2 degrees in elevation between these photos (I'm sure you could wait a bit)
[4] Every photo they took had the horizon at a different level as evidenced in the pans above. (should be easy)
[5] They had no viewfinder (you can do that.. but will you cheat ?? )
[6] The 2nd photo was omitted from the pan (for this you would need to complete a pan with the other 6 conditions)
[7] The camera was mounted and fixed on the astronauts chest plate. (you can do that)

edit: [8] You only have 5 minutes to do all of the above 7 points.


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 )


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.

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.

edit2: from the amazing race .... GO!!


edit on 20-9-2010 by ppk55 because: 5 minute time constraint + spelling + amazing race



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
I still don't understand: why would you want to create two identical lens flares? Why don't you just go with the lens flares you've got? They just happen, you know.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

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)


Your animated .gif very clearly shows that the lense flares are not identical.
Repeating over and over that they are identical doesn't make it so - it just makes you wrong many, many times.




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

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 ...
No, I'm saying that is not "amazing" that two photos show the Sun in almost exactly the same position.


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)
I will not try that, I don't want to ruin my camera's sensor.

Also, you are the one that should try it, you are the one that thinks that this would be "amazing".


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.
Once more, you are not understanding what I have said...


[1] The 2 photos are taken 27 frames apart (you can do that)
That's easy to do. Would it make a difference if they are 26 or 28? Or 280? Or 2?


[5] They had no viewfinder (you can do that.. but will you cheat ?? )
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.


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.
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.


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.
I suggest you stop trying to guess what I think, you're not doing a good job.


I don't find it hard, but I don't have any intention of wasting my time trying to find a place where I could do this.

And having a suit that limits the movements would help keeping a chest-mounted camera pointing in the same direction.

I forgot to say that the new point [8] doesn't help, the five minutes are irrelevant. I suggest you re-read what I wrote, you haven't understood a thing of what I said. I can explain it again, but it would be better if we only advance to a new point after clarifying the previous one.


edit on 20/9/2010 by ArMaP because: I forgot point [8]




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   


I havent found much unusual about the pics so far, To me, if you are looking for strange things. This is the most questionable photo I have seen. The guy with hands in his pockets pic.

go here for hi res
spaceflight.nasa.gov...


edit: I thought I embedded the photo, Maybe someone else can


edit on 23-9-2010 by Cheesefacedogbone because: pic confusion



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join