Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts

reply to post by ppk55


A "model"????!!!!

Oh, for Pete's sake!!

(When will the nonsense end???)

You didn't LOOK at the other photo I posted?? Just up-thread a bit. See? Look. At. His. Ankle.

Do you see the little compartment down there? A compartment to carry stuff. With a velcroed flap to close it, on top.

Furthermore, it sure as heck looks like the photo was snapped whlie he was "in action", and some regolith has been kicked up, and is in the process of falling back down....the camera caught it in mid-flight. Surely you've seen Earthly examples??? I mean, this is becoming beyond ridiculous, at this point.

A "model"!!! Sheesh!!! Now I've seen everything....

Oh, and forgot to add: In your "interpretation" of the photo, I can see WHY you get it so wrong. You have an arrow labelled "Bottom of the boot?"

NO! The arrow that you inserted is NOT pointing at the bottom of his boot. It is only in your skewed view, wrong interpretation and (apparently) fevent desire to grasp at any straw, no matter how feeble, to satisfy your obsession. Misinterpreting, whether from ignorance, or from a completely incorrect world-view of reality, results in very, very average photographs being "analyzed" to death...and this baloney continues.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also adding, ATS member nataylor posted (one page back) the MET when that photo was taken. At 165:25, approximately. I went to look, found the data page A17 mission

history.nasa.gov...

Open that, then go to "The Third EVA", look for "Geology Station 6", and scroll down to a video at time mark MET 165:26:35. Maybe it will put that photo in context.

(It doesn't play for me, perhaps others can see it? It's in "RealVideo" format, whatever that is...)

This links directly to the clip (I think): history.nasa.gov...

This seems like the appropriate thread to ask my question. It's always bothered me because I can't figure out how this was done but ................when Neil Armstrong made the first steps on the Moon, who set up the TV camera that captured him descending from the modular? Thanks

reply to post by weedwhacker

reply to post by Human_Alien


I am truly surprised that this simple question still needs to be asked? I thought, maybe they'd at least teach it in school. In history classes, maybe?? Shame if they don't....

In the Descent Module was the MESA compartment....Modularized Equipment Storage Assembly.

This Wiki article tells you everything you need to know. Ain't the internet search engine a wonderful thing??

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ppk55


Thanks to nataylor for finding the original photographs. Here is the sequence from the Apollo 17 EVA at geology station 6 showing your toy astronaut in context:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d8fe232b4126.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a37e0629bc39.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e948852cb122.jpg[/atsimg]
AS17-140-21496, AS17-140-21497,[url=http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-140-21498.jpg]AS17-140-21498[ /url]

These photographs are clearly taken from a distance, and you have chosen, as usual, to blow one up to the limit of resolution to ask the rhetorical question: "what is this?" The correct answer can only be: "A grainy blow up of a partially obscured astronaut's foot." I believe nataylor's explanation is probably correct.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

I am truly surprised that this simple question still needs to be asked? I thought, maybe they'd at least teach it in school. In history classes, maybe?? Shame if they don't....

In the Descent Module was the MESA compartment....Modularized Equipment Storage Assembly.

This Wiki article tells you everything you need to know. Ain't the internet search engine a wonderful thing??

en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah but it was more fun bothering you!
The reason I asked is it's been rumored that Neil wasn't the first person on the Moon. The person who set up the camera was. I still find it hard to believe they were able to pull that off using robotic methods seeing they had no idea how the gravity would effect anything.

Was just seeking clarity so thanks for this 1st grade review Weedwhacker. Isn't it good to know you're needed?

reply to post by Human_Alien

I still find it hard to believe they were able to pull that off using robotic methods seeing they had no idea how the gravity would effect anything.

Ummm...firstly, it wasn't a "robotic method".

If you read and research, you will learn....as he exited (backing out, feet first, on hands and knees) he stopped on the "porch", just at top of ladder. There was a handy-dandy handle, all ready for him to grasp and pull.

And, voila!. The MESA compartment door opens.

Oh, and "gravity"? Still works, and the amount of gravity on the Moon was already known. How do you think they calculated all the maths to know what weights they could manage, how much thrust would be required, how long to burn the enignes, how much fuel (have to consider ITS weight as well) to land, and also launch again, to achieve orbit for rendezvous, in order to come home? It's called "rocket science"!

Plenty of books on it, just pay a visit to your local Public library (or University library, if you have privileges there).

Learning is free, and good for future development potential.

Here's a detailed view of your "model":
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e8a2ecbba091.jpg[/atsimg]
Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Journal

Sure is detailed for a model. What scale do you suppose it is? Looks 1:1 to me.

reply to post by weedwhacker


But you see, I don't trust anything I read. I extrapolate my conclusions based on what others have to say about a particular matter then.........I make up my mind.

I think all 'history' books are BS. Sorry. I am just a disgruntled and cynical student of life having trusted too many authoritative people to find out, they know no more than what was told to them. So the corruption of lies gets recycled to every generation.

I've concluded, NASA lies. The Bible is fake. Our government is dishonest and history is sugar-coated.

And THAT is why I come to ATS!

reply to post by Human_Alien

But you see, I don't trust anything I read.

In that case, I can only feel a little sorrowful for you. With attitude like that, likely won't get anywhere in life....

reply to post by weedwhacker

Here is the video, after being converted to FLV.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

But you see, I don't trust anything I read.

In that case, I can only feel a little sorrowful for you. With attitude like that, likely won't get anywhere in life....

Come now, don't castigate him for being skeptical. He's only asking questions.

And he may even make more money than you, so you ought not question his status.... That could be why he doesn't know this stuff, he's too busy racking up the money in our glorious free market to be much concerned.

Besides, some of you b'leavers need skeptics to keep your open-mindedness in check. Bro.

reply to post by ArMaP


Obrigado!! Thank you, merci beaucoup, gracias, etc....ArMaP!!!!

Odd that ANYONE can watch ANY of the (many) Apollo videos that exist, and STILL not understand how real it was.... :shk:

That (obrigado, again) was just ONE example....converted an posted to be able to see here on ATS.

Odd, I seem to have the "real video" player installed on my computer, but still it gives trouble...well, nevermind, will let others work that out for themselves. Using not only the links already provided in THIS thread, but any sort of Internet search they may choose to use, as well.

I challenge "anyone" (and you know who you are) to watch, in entirety, the many, many videos that exist, of ANY (and only the REAL videos, NOT the "edited" ones by the likes of so many YouTube poseurs) and find ANY instances where it sounds "scripted"!!!!

What a crying shame that such an incredible effort and experience that benefigtted ALL of humankind is subjected to such idiotic nit-picking and disingenuous lying and altering, today.....it is a shame.

reply to post by Human_Alien


This photograph from Apollo 12 (taken by Pete Conrad of Alan Bean descending the ladder) clearly shows the TV camera, still mounted on the deployed MESA (on the lower left) and pointing at the astronaut on the ladder. You can see the cylindrical lense just under the white box.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Here is the video, after being converted to FLV.

Here's a better version of that video in either RealMedia (ick) or MPEG.

Thanks everyone for your your comments, I've taken some advice and not blown it up so much.

Originally posted by DJW001
you have chosen, as usual, to blow one up to the limit of resolution

So here is the new version not so blown up.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dfda81a475e3.jpg[/atsimg]

I'm still confused by the stick object labelled as 'what is this?' I think human bone might get this narrow, but nothing else, certainly not a spacesuit.
Some people seem to think the foot is encased in regolith/dust.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
looks like the photo was snapped whlie he was "in action", and some regolith has been kicked up, and is in the process of falling back down....the camera caught it in mid-flight

It just doesn't look like that. Whatever that 'foot' is in, it looks pretty solid don't you think.
edit: however as I posted earlier, I do think when the image is zoomed out it is meant to look like dust spraying whilst the astronaut is in supposed motion.

For the original extreme wide shot, see DJW's 2nd image above.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
scroll down to a video at time mark MET 165:26:35. Maybe it will put that photo in context.

I did and this is the widest frame from that video..I don't think it really does put it in perspective at all.
It never shows any more than this, in fact from this frame onwards it zooms in.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/680496316539.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by ppk55
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)

PPK ... Please mate. I'm not saying this in an insulting way, but you say you're cinematographer .... Please, apply some of your personal knowledge to this situation you're outlining here.

I'm a post artist. I don't handle cameras nearly as much as you should, and I don't see a problem with this.

You're not approaching any of this scientifically at all. Your hypothesis isn't a hypothesis ... You're starting with the answer and trying to make it fit. So, getting two nearly identical lens flares in a deliberate way is a little difficult with a stills camera without a view finder. So in your mind two near identical flares in one magazine is a big thing. I disagree with this anyway. Lens flares taken in the same or similar lighting conditions will look the same. The sun hasn't moved that far in the time between these photos it seems so you would expect a similar flare.

However ... even assuming your logic is true. You're just applying your flawed mind to do the statistics for you. What are the chances of a similar flare happening in two photos? Low perhaps. What are the chances in a hundred? Two hundred? Three hundred? If a classroom of 35 people have an 85% chance of at least two people having the same birthday then I assure the chances of these lens flares being identical are high.

In fact, the last films set you were on - assuming you weren't using filters ... how many flare were similar? More than one no doubt.

Originally posted by ppk55
I'm still confused by the stick object labelled as 'what is this?' I think human bone might get this narrow, but nothing else, certainly not a spacesuit.

Can you draw a highlight around the object you're pointing to, because I'm not seeing it. This is how I see it. Based on my previous animation comparing AS17-140-21497 and AS17-140-21496, you can determine where the background is showing between the leg and boulder.

Originally posted by ppk55
I did and this is the widest frame from that video..I don't think it really does put it in perspective at all.
It never shows any more than this, in fact from this frame onwards it zooms in.

This stitched-together panorama photo shows you the scene. The video is shot from the rover:

Note: Image continues to the right ---> This forum cuts it off to fit it on the page. Click on it to view the whole thing.

Originally posted by Pinke
but you say you're cinematographer .

Show me where I wrote that I am a cinematographer please?
It goes back to your accuracy and understanding of events and the credence we can place on your posts.