Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 11-5-2010 @ 12:04 PM by jra
Originally posted by NLDelta9
The 1st show the nasa craft in the crosshairs, but what is all this purple color and disc shape in the color?
history.nasa.gov...


You know, I don't think I've ever seen this picture before. It's rather neat.

Your monitor brightness might be a bit too low. The purple disc is a creator. There are many more in the image, but they are quite faint.

2nd shows more odd color in space,what is it?
history.nasa.gov...


It looks like an out of focus reflection off the window.


reply posted on 11-5-2010 @ 12:12 PM by NLDelta9
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by NLDelta9
The 1st show the nasa craft in the crosshairs, but what is all this purple color and disc shape in the color?
history.nasa.gov...


You know, I don't think I've ever seen this picture before. It's rather neat.

Your monitor brightness might be a bit too low. The purple disc is a creator. There are many more in the image, but they are quite faint.

2nd shows more odd color in space,what is it?
history.nasa.gov...


It looks like an out of focus reflection off the window.


Thanks.I can't believe I didn't notice that to be the moon 2nd makes sense too.


reply posted on 11-5-2010 @ 10:09 PM by Saint Exupery
reply to post by NLDelta9


I agree, the 2nd pic is reflection on the window. This picture is one out of a sequence documenting when Apollo 14 jettisoned the empty LM ascent stage after the astronauts returned from the lunar surface.

As to the first picture... WOW! That's unusual!!! Judging from the other pictures in the roll (link), this was taken as the LM "Antares" was separating from the CM on its way to landing at Fra Mauro. Judging from the dark image and the lighted reticule (crosshairs), this was taken through the Command Module Pilot's window - which has the docking reticule - after they had passed into the moon's shadow.

The big question is, where is the light that's illuminating the craters coming from? At first I thought that just the edge of the sun might be peeking over the horizon, but then I realized that this would have put the LM in direct sunlight, which it is clearly not. That leaves the Earth as the only option (it's several dozen times brighter than the Moon is in our sky). This is the only example I've seen of a photo taken by earthlight. To take it with ISO 160 film, CMP Stu Roosa must've had the aperture wide-open and used a slow shutter speed. Even so, whoever processed this image really had to push it to get anything to show-up - thus the weird graininess.

What a great and unique find!


reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 06:32 AM by ppk55
Originally posted by DJW001
What did you do to this photo, ppk?


This is from another post, however you can replicate the results easy as, just like I did.

Here's the original nasa link

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Then using photoshop, go to IMAGE / ADJUSTMENTS / LEVELS...
then keeping adjusting them and you'll get the same result.
(I'm a photoshop novice, so there's probably better ways to do it)

Check out the other thread, there's a bit of a discussion about it
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's also a site with more of them
easynowsufoblog.blogspot.com...

[edit on 12-5-2010 by ppk55]


reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 08:22 AM by jra
Originally posted by ppk55
This is from another post, however you can replicate the results easy as, just like I did.

Here's the original nasa link

spaceflight.nasa.gov...


They seem to touch up there photos on that site. Try going to:

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
The Project Apollo Archive
The Gateway to Astronaut Photography

And find as17-134-20382 on each of those sites, do that same technique and I bet you won't get the same results as you did on the one from your original link.


reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 08:51 AM by ppk55
reply to post by jra


Are you telling me I can't use this official NASA link to the original image ???

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Because when I did, and applied the simple procedures as mentioned above, this is the result I got. I also played with the exposure settings.

I have to admit, it only took me 2 minutes to do this.



I beg anyone reading this to try the same thing.

edit: resize image

[edit on 12-5-2010 by ppk55]


reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 09:20 AM by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55


As has been explained in a previous thread, NASA does not scan the photos posted on their site, Internet Archives does:

www.archive.org...

Film tends to degrade over time, so professional scans invariably make color adjustments during the process. If you feel there is something to be learned from examining the original slides, you can try obtaining a research grant.


reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 09:55 AM by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55


You're telling me the sky in this photo is film degrading ?

If so, it's degrading on a scale I've never seen. It's amazing how the 'degrading' looks just like the photoshop clone tool.

How can this photo exist on a nasa.gov domain ?


No, as I stated, professional scans are routinely tweaked. Professionals have a very keen eye. If they detect the slightest flaw, they will compensate for it... or perhaps even go overboard to guarantee the uniformity of the image. If you are genuinely interested in these matters, feel free to contact Online Archive to inquire about the specific standards and techniques they apply. BTW, do you look at old photographs much? I mean. not scanned ones online, but washed out old slides? Blue skies turn orange. Ask to rummage through your Mum's old snaps. You'll be shocked.

As for the second question... it has something to do with HTML embedding or something. All I know is that Online Archives scans the photos (for free) and send the scans to NASA. Some IT guy then puts them on the web. But then, I get the feeling that your question is purely rhetorical, so... never mind.


reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 10:37 AM by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55


So are you telling me ..

spaceflight.nasa.gov AND the 'NASA History Division' history.nasa.gov
(yes, I checked, the NASA history division also have the same image)

are both using touched up photos ? This has major ramifications.

The NASA History Division image is here ...
history.nasa.gov...
just remember to apply the quick photoshop adjustment I posted above.

As I mentioned before, if this is the case how can we trust any of their other images ?

And once again. WHY would they want to do this much image adjustment to the sky ?


I am telling you they are posting out-sourced digital scans. You claim the same image is posted in two places? Did you try running them both through your dubious photoshop procedure? Did you get exactly the same results, or were they slightly different? If they were even slightly different, they are either not the same scan, or there is a serious flaw with your methodology. If fact, try performing the same process several times with the same scan. If there is any variation at all between the results, it indicates that you are simply looking at an artifact of your procedure. This is what as known as a 'control" in scientific methodology. If your results are so flawed, how can we trust anything you post? I call rhetoric again. I also answered your final question above. Why would they post photos if the deep black of space has turned muddy brown? Would you?

[edit on 12-5-2010 by DJW001]


reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 11:17 AM by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55


That 'dubious photoshop procedure' is called brightness, contrast and exposure. If you don't know what that is, that means you haven't even tried it. I think everyone should give it a go on the images below.


I assume you have used this same forensic technique on hundreds of other photographs. Please provide a baseline of random photographs culled from the web in which you have messed with the brightness, contrast, hue, etc. Daylight photos, studio photos, B&W photos, cgi photos, etc. Photoshop was created to "fix" bad photographs, not as a forensic tool. That is why any procedure to use it for such is automatically "dubious."
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^