Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
jra

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Originally posted by jra
Pay attention to the astronauts feet the next time you're watching some Apollo videos. You'll notice they tend to kick up a lot of regolith at times.


I'm serious, watch some videos and pay attention to there feet. Dust flies out in all directions. Covering up anything near where they step.

watch the parts at 2:25 and at 2:45 for some examples.





posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


So you're saying they kicked up so much dust it completely obilterated all signs of the heavy (missing) rover tracks. Wow, that's a lot of dust.

Look how perfectly they distributed it.



How did they do this when their footprints (lighter than the rover) are so far away.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by ppk55]


jra

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
So you're saying they kicked up so much dust it completely obilterated all signs of the heavy rover tracks. Wow, that's a lot of dust.


Did you look at the photos and video I posted at all?

And the LRV isn't that heavy (especially when on the Moon). I seem to recall in one of the missions the astronauts picked it up to point it in a different direction.


How did they do this when their footprints (lighter than the rover) are so far away.


If you watched the video I linked to, you'd see how far the dust can fly.

What else do you think would cause the lack of tracks? In what way are the lack of visible tracks near the rover a sign of a hoax in your mind?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


So what does this mean? These missions are fake and never took place?
Why? Why??!!



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ppk55
 
Are you suggesting this must have been in a studio because in a studio vehicles don't leave tracks?


I'm just saying, it's strange there's no trace of tracks between the wheels regardless of a few footprints. Try getting that result with your car on the sand.

One more Apollo 16 image which has bugged me for ages.

1. The wires look like they are anchored into the dirt
2. There's an object way down the back with no shadow
3. The big shadow in the foreground looks wrong for the object casting it.





There's a higher res version of the whole pic here which you really need to look at to see the details with the wires and the anchor points.

i1028.photobucket.com...

source: history.nasa.gov...




Re shadow length sun was low down DOH!
Re shadow of object at rear, what was the surface like there ie slope DOH!

Re the edge of the flag because the background is further away and the flag is in focus you have a mild kind of depth of field effect thats all.

Re tyre tracks remember the rover did not have tyres as such they were woven metal wires not solid like a rubber tyre!
So it was far easier for the dust to cover as it was not a solid tyre like track!



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
reply to post by jra
 


So you're saying they kicked up so much dust it completely obilterated all signs of the heavy (missing) rover tracks. Wow, that's a lot of dust.


Well, for one thing, the rover did not leave particularly deep tracks. Yes, there is a lot of dust - It's a signature characteristic of the lunar surface.

If you spend much time watching lunar EVAs, you will notice that the astronauts tended to kick a fan of dust quite easily - especially when they shifted from side-to-side while working on something. In 1/6th G in vacuum, a lot of dust can go a surprisingly long way. I know there are better examples than this, but with a 5-minute search I came up with these two examples:

www.hq.nasa.gov...
at ~1:34 & 2:00

www.hq.nasa.gov...
at ~1:20

Also, here is an example of the rover shortly after arriving at a station: AS16-107-17445
and here it is in the same position after the astronauts have unloaded their tools: AS16-110-17960



Look how perfectly they distributed it.


I see nothing "perfect" about the distribution.

The whole "no tracks" argument is really amusing: If we postulate that your photo was faked on a set here on Earth, how did the rover get there? "No tracks" suggests that it was lifted and deposited where we see it. Well, the doggone thing has wheels. Wouldn't they have, you know, just rolled it into position?

A similar argument applies to the "flag looks photoshopped" argument. Quite aside from the fact that digital photo manipulation did not exist in 1972, the whole argument supposes that a whole series of man/LM/LRV/flag images would have been created by painstakingly cutting & pasting elements onto the background instead of just setting up a flag and the other stuff and snapping some pictures.

"Anomaly hunters" keep pointing these sorts of things out and saying, "a-HA!" but when you stop to think about it, these arguments just don't make any sense.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
you will notice that the astronauts tended to kick a fan of dust quite easily


I'm sorry but I don't agree astronauts kicking up some dust could completely cover all of the rover tracks so perfectly and precisely, as would have to be the case in the images above.

While looking at the photos featured in the 'wires under the dirt' images above, I found two photos taken at the same time that appear different.

I'm confused how that kink appeared in the wire in the right image.

I'm more confused as to how the footprint in the right image appeared when it wasn't in the left image taken seconds earlier.



Did Cernan run into frame, adjust it, then run out while Scmitt was taking his photos ? From the lunar surface journal...

[Fendell pans past Gene, who is still dusting. Jack takes three photos of the west heat flow hole. AS17-134- 20492 is from the west. Note the rock that Gene used to give the cable a bend from southward to eastward. Frames 20493 and 20494 are a stereopair from the northwest and show the Central Station and Geophone Rock beyond.]

So if Gene is dusting, I doubt he could have wandered over to put the kink in it.

And, why does he need a rock to 'give the cable a bend' ? Just bend it, it's not going anywhere.

Sources: history.nasa.gov... at time marker 170:10:47
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...


[edit on 18-5-2010 by ppk55]

[edit on 18-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
I'm sorry but I don't agree astronauts kicking up some dust could completely cover all of the rover tracks so perfectly and precisely, as would have to be the case in the images above.
Shallow tracks like the ones made by the rover (they were less marked than the astronaut's footprints) are easily covered with dust, just look at some videos and you will see how previous marks disappear when the astronauts are moving relatively close to them.


While looking at the photos featured in the 'wires under the dirt' images above, I found two photos taken at the same time that appear different.
Not exactly at the same time, they were taken with the same camera.



I'm confused how that kink appeared in the wire in the right image.
The kink in the left image is just starting to appear at the edge of the image you cropped.


I'm more confused as to how the footprint in the right image appeared when it wasn't in the left image taken seconds earlier.
Perspective. I think I see where it is on the left image, also near the edge.


And, why does he need a rock to 'give the cable a bend' ? Just bend it, it's not going anywhere.
I do the same thing, it's better to have some kind of anchor when moving some equipment, that way it's easier to avoid the cable going back to its original shape.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
The kink in the left image is just starting to appear at the edge of the image you cropped.


That's cool, I posted the sources so you can look at the full frame images yourself.

This one from the same area I find interesting.

I'm not sure how a footprint in the lunar dust could create a 'lip' or raised area. It almost looks like a plaster mold.

If they kick up all that dust that could completely obilterate the (missing) rover tracks (see above) .. seems strange that it would clump together like this.



here's a contrast enhance



source: history.nasa.gov...


[edit on 19-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
That's cool, I posted the sources so you can look at the full frame images yourself.

That's what I did.



If they kick up all that dust that could completely obilterate the (missing) rover tracks (see above) .. seems strange that it would clump together like this.

No, that's another characteristic of a very dry and fine dust, like Portland cement.

Have you ever touched Portland cement? It's so fine that we do not even feel it in our hands (until it starts to extract all the moisture from our skin), and if you pressed it, it behaves almost like wet clay.

There's nothing strange with that behaviour.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
that's another characteristic of a very dry and fine dust, like Portland cement. it starts to extract all the moisture from our skin), and if you pressed it, it behaves almost like wet clay.


So which is it? It either obliterates rover tracks (see above pics) because when it's kicked around it's so fine, dusty and light, or .... it clumps together because of moisture ? see above pic of 'lip' footprint.
(don't think there was much moisture on the moon)

Also, why does this shadow appear just as dark in the bright regions as in the dark regions ? Very puzzling.



source : history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 19-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


how the hell did two men with those oversized suits fit in that tiny lander?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


On the Moon the dust tends to cling because of static electricity, not moisture. So yes, it can get kicked around and still be a bit clingy. The photographs clearly show this. As for the shadow: you're joking, right? A shadow is caused by the absence of light. Are you expecting it to change color or something?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by ArMaP
that's another characteristic of a very dry and fine dust, like Portland cement. it starts to extract all the moisture from our skin), and if you pressed it, it behaves almost like wet clay.


So which is it? It either obliterates rover tracks (see above pics) because when it's kicked around it's so fine, dusty and light, or .... it clumps together because of moisture ? see above pic of 'lip' footprint.
(don't think there was much moisture on the moon)

I thought that my post was easy to understand, but the completely mangled version that you posted in your quote above makes it look even worse.

I know that I am not a good writer (specially in English), but I would never made a post like that.

What I said, as you can see on the original post, was that Portland cement is so fine and dry that:

1 - It's hard to notice that we have some on our hands just because of the weight.
2 - It's so dry that when on our hands it starts to extract all the moisture from our hands.
3 - Because it's so fine and dry, it acts like wet clay, and when pressed (like when we step on it) it keeps the shape perfectly, just like the footprints on the Moon.

And you didn't answer my question, have you ever touched Portland cement?


Also, why does this shadow appear just as dark in the bright regions as in the dark regions ? Very puzzling.

It only appears just as dark, the shadow on the footprint is twice as bright as the shadow on the darker dust, as you can see by using any relatively good graphics program (Paint is not good enough).

PS: I will add an animation showing what I mean.

Edit: in the animation below you can see the RGB values for several areas in the shadow, and you can see that it changes from a minimum of (23,20,20) to a maximum of (45,45,46).



[edit on 19/5/2010 by ArMaP]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Paint is not good enough
[edit on 19/5/2010 by ArMaP]


I agree, I use my eye, and everything I've posted above looks wrong to the human eye. I use this on a day to day basis to fake shadows, reflections, shading, perspective, etc.

Which brings me to another couple of pics.



I realise there are perspective changes between them, however that cannot explain why there are bootprints in the right image and not in the left.

If you line up the left and right rocks in both pics, you can see where the prints should be in the left image.

btw. These are from the same set of images with issues discussed above.

Here's the full frame sources
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 20-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
This image has me very confused. I understand many people have gone on about the rover tracks missing, and rightly so, I agree. My question is different.

It appears they've attached the fender repair to the wheel.



If it's attached to the wheel, how can this stay in place when the wheel is turning?

from NASA: "Picture of the replacement fender taken at about 143:46:34 by Gene Cernan, just before driving off from Station 2. Jack Schmitt is already seated. The dust-coated- originally-blue Traverse Gravimeter is mounted on the back of the Rover just above the replacement fender. Gene took this photo, in part, to document its condition after the 9.1 kilometer drive out from the LM and, in part, to document his handiwork. At the end of EVA-3 Gene decided to bring the fender back to Earth and, as of the late 1990s, it was still on display at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington D.C. Ron Creel has provided a summary ( 1.3 Mb PDF ) of the fender extension losses that occurred on all three Rover missions"



source: history.nasa.gov...

edit: or for a slightly higher res jpg .. eol.jsc.nasa.gov...
search for AS17-137-20979


[edit on 20-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
How do you come to the conclusion its attached to the tire?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


The mesh isn't protruding.

It is an illusion caused by the deformed fender.





posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
I agree, I use my eye, and everything I've posted above looks wrong to the human eye. I use this on a day to day basis to fake shadows, reflections, shading, perspective, etc.

So, does that mean that I have non-human eyes?





I realise there are perspective changes between them, however that cannot explain why there are bootprints in the right image and not in the left.

If you line up the left and right rocks in both pics, you can see where the prints should be in the left image.

You are right, it's a question of perspective, and that is enough to explain the presence of the bootprints.

That's because the place where the bootprints are doesn't show on the photo on the left.

In the following images I marked some common references in both images (resized to have more or less the same size).




That yellow line on the second photo shows what I think it's a ridge from a slight terrain elevation that hides the bottom of the first photo (the photo on the left from your post), and the bootprint is on an area that does not show on the that first photo.

As you can see from the photos, the change in perspective was not only a result of moving away from the target of the photos, it also resulted in the second photo (the one on the right from your post) being taken not as above that place as the first, so it's easier for the terrain to interfere with the photo.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 

Judging from this post and your previous post, it looks like you have some problems in understanding how the difference in depth on a photo translates into real world situations, it's clearly noticeable that the replacement fender is not only not touching the wheel, it's even farther away from the wheel than the original fender.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join