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: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Where did you get the image you've posted?




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Where did you get the image you've posted?


It's in my original post, here it is again.


Originally posted by ppk55

I sourced the image from the Apollo image atlas www.lpi.usra.edu...





posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
ArMaP, it could be because of the lower res, but the site I found it on is the only source where images are not over exposed.

It's the other way, the photos on that site show signs of having had their contrast exaggerated.

The photos from the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth are the best, and the only ones that show the full frame.


I have to say, if it's not a light bulb filament, it's a very strange looking artifact, one I haven't seen before.

That's true, it looks very strange, but we do not know what they did to the image.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
The artifact doesn't appear on this version either.

history.nasa.gov...

This image looks washed out. They may have tried to adjust the contrast after they scanned it. Whatever it is, it wasn't "really there."



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Whether it's a light bulb filament or an artifact, you have to admit, it's a pretty strange occurrence in a NASA photo don't you think ?

edit: this is image AS15-85-11367

[edit on 5-6-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Whether it's a light bulb filament or an artifact, you have to admit, it's a pretty strange occurrence in a NASA photo don't you think ?


It's not actually in the NASA image. It's an artifact that appeared during the scanning by another party. The image on the NASA web-page, which probably scanned by an organization called Internet Archive, does not show this flaw.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
While looking at this image, something struck me ...

Why didn't they just pick this rock up and take it home ?
Imagine the science data that could reside inside this ?"

Yes it does look a little like paper mache.



This is from Apollo 16, AS16-107-17445

also check out the mini-me footprints just below the bottom of the square.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Why didn't they just pick this rock up and take it home ?
Imagine the science data that could reside inside this ?"

Yes it does look a little like paper mache.


Why didn't they pick up that one over there? Or over there? Or that one? Or that one? Now you're just being silly, PPK. What aspect of this particular rock makes you think it is paper mache? How do you distinguish paper mache from styrofoam? What visual quality would a real lunar rock have that is missing from this particular lunar rock, out of all the other rocks in the visual field that they also didn't pick up?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Why didn't they pick up that one over there? Or over there? Or that one? Or that one?


Well, the others look like they're embedded in the ground. The rock in question (b) is just sitting on the surface waiting to be picked up.



Couple more questions.

If the rover drove over the rock in (a) why is there no disturbance when the wheel hit the ground. It's a very clean track ... like nothing happened.

(b) paper mache rock as described above, couldn't they pick it up and take it home. The science inside should be amazing.

(c) mini-me footprints

[edit on 11-6-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Couple more questions.

If the rover drove over the rock in (a) why is there no disturbance when the wheel hit the ground. It's a very clean track ... like nothing happened.

(b) paper mache rock as described above, couldn't they pick it up and take it home. The science inside should be amazing.

(c) mini-me footprints


More questions, but still no answers?

(a) What do you mean "clean track?" What sort of "disturbance" would you expect? Be specific.

(b) Why paper mache? That unanswered question aside, why pick it up? It's a foot in diameter. It would be heavy and take up a lot of space. What makes it more interesting than any other rock? Remember, the astronauts were trained geologists with specific scientific objectives. What is it about this specific rock that you find so interesting?

(c) The lunar surface is irregular which causes foreshortening. Also, the astronauts sometimes stepped on their own footprints, obscuring parts of the earlier tracks. Isn't all this obvious? What is your theory? Be specific, please.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The questions descended through the "silly" threshhold a while ago. That's why I stopped responding. Every answer has been met with either an obstinate refusal to understand, or a quick change of subject ("what about this?!").

If ppk55 wants to waste his time staring at old pictures and confabulating "X-Files" fairy tales instead of actually learning about his world and how it works and the truly neat things that are possible, well then, I really can't hope to help him. It's just kind of sad - like a sunset that no one watches.

I don't understand why the idea that people can work together, overcome tremendous obstacles and achieve great things is so offensive to some. Why is genuine effort to accomplish a noble goal such a threat to some people's world-view?



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ^anubis^
What gets me going is how come we don't see any stars or other planets in the back ground. Is space really that lonely?

-----
Sorry to be so blunt & this is really not directed at you personally......but, if you don't understand why you can't see stars (and it's a very simple technical reason), then you really don't have any business questioning anything.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


ppk....what is your agenda? Obstinance?


(c) mini-me footprints


You have TRIED this same silliness in the other thread...the answers were given you, yet...HERE it is again?
?

"trolling" is not exactly a new concept......

To review (please note time/date stamp):

Post by ppk55

And ---

The answer (again)...


[edit on 12 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
(a) What do you mean "clean track?" What sort of "disturbance" would you expect? Be specific.


Hey DJW001, no probs. If you don't mind I'll tackle one at a time.

With (a) It appears the rover has just driven over a rock. When the rover's back wheel hit the ground after going over the rock, it should really have created some disturbance and messed up the track a bit. It looks too clean for a thud to have happened.



This is the type of disturbance I thought should occur.



The more I look for tracks behind the wheels, the more I find there aren't any in most of the pics. A few have them but most don't. Also, that wheel in AS15-86-11660 really does look like it's up in the air. Crazy apollo drivers.

edit: here's the source history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 13-6-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



With (a) It appears the rover has just driven over a rock.


Did it EVER occur to you that the LRV might have been DRIVEN up, to that point, then PUT INTO REVERSE??? And backed down....as seen in the photo????

I mean...this is really, really desperate....this 'attempt' (and all of the others)....it reeks of desperation, there is no other way to describe it....

AND...why, oh WHY!?! does that particular "big" rock hold so much fascination to the "hoax" believers????

IT IS A ROCK!!!!

It is big. AND, to a skilled observer, it WAS NOT WORTHY OF COLLECTION!!! Not, in any case, when the TOTAL amount of collected material has WEIGHT, and therefore is important....BECAUSE, they could not "willy-nilly" pick up everything that struck their fancy, and take it back to Earth!

It's like...you are here, on Earth...at a "dig"....looking for something interesting.

You do NOT pick up every rock, even if it' "big'. JUST becasue it's'big'????

Come on....use the brain cells, please.





How difficult is this to understand??? WoW!

( I struggle, sometimes, to remain polite...but utter frustrations must come out, occasionally....)




[edit on 13 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Did it EVER occur to you that the LRV might have been DRIVEN up, to that point, then PUT INTO REVERSE???


Actually it did occur to me, but according to NASA they did drive over that rock.

So why isn't there a disturbance in the dirt in (A)?

from the nasa image library >>>

144:16:27: Note, also, the large rock at the lower right that John drove over just before stopping the Rover. The Rover chassis clearance is about 14 inches (35 cm).



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


I'm still not sure what you're expecting to see.If you look at the track, you'll notice that it is slightly deeper near the rock, then nearly vanishes and re-appears again... as though the rover bounced. Doesn't that count as a "disturbance?" And please explain how you can tell the difference between a real rock and a papier mache rock?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
With (a) It appears the rover has just driven over a rock. When the rover's back wheel hit the ground after going over the rock, it should really have created some disturbance and messed up the track a bit. It looks too clean for a thud to have happened.

It depends on how the wheel hit the gound. If most of the weight was on the opposite corner of the rover (the left front wheel) the right rear wheel would not hit the ground with as much force as in a normal condition. It also depends on the terrain's slope, like when a motocross pilot hits the ground after a jump, they try to hit while on the slope to avoid a bigger hit.


This is the type of disturbance I thought should occur.



The more I look for tracks behind the wheels, the more I find there aren't any in most of the pics. A few have them but most don't. Also, that wheel in AS15-86-11660 really does look like it's up in the air. Crazy apollo drivers.

What are you calling disturbance in that photo?

And the wheel was really up in the air, and the rover was sliding down hill, nobody was driving it at the time.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
And the wheel was really up in the air, and the rover was sliding down hill, nobody was driving it at the time.

If it was sliding, how did Scott have time to pickup this tool in the foreground while it was sliding ? It's stationary and hovering. Weird.




posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Whilst researching another part of apollo .. I found this interesting article from an old newspaper.

news.google.com

What I find interesting are the '15 minute total human space flight experience' reference and how it looked like 'animation'.




new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join