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.

 

Apollo Surface Picture has 10 objects around sun

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Just look at the area around the sun. There are at least 10 objects visible around and in the sun's radiance. If this is a result of compound images then there still has to be more than one object due to the location of each relative to the sun.

www.lpi.usra.edu... JSC2007e045376&zoom=True

Apollo Surface Panoramas

AS12-47-6982 – AS12-47-7006




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by lazimodo
Just look at the area around the sun. There are at least 10 objects visible around and in the sun's radiance. If this is a result of compound images then there still has to be more than one object due to the location of each relative to the sun.

www.lpi.usra.edu... JSC2007e045376&zoom=True

Apollo Surface Panoramas

AS12-47-6982 – AS12-47-7006


Here is a better link ... Its Apollo 12 that I noticed.

www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
i downloaded a lot of the images on this site .. made some tweekings on photoshop ..


and realised how badly retouched those images are .. , especially in the horizon ..

most of the top crosshairs are missing .. , proof that they completly , blackend the horizon up .

theyre doin an awful job



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by fazeone1981
 


What have they seen on moon....?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by fazeone1981
i downloaded a lot of the images on this site .. made some tweekings on photoshop ..


and realised how badly retouched those images are .. , especially in the horizon ..

most of the top crosshairs are missing .. , proof that they completly , blackend the horizon up .

theyre doin an awful job


An example?

PS - sorry for the one liner, but there's not much more to add!!!



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
maybe its a question of exposition , i talked with my boss on this , we use photoshop on a daily basis ..

maybe the needed to tweek the cameras exposition so that the ground wouldnt appear whited out .. or completly white blasted ..

thats a theory that we cant see any stars .. because of controlled exposition ..

maybe thats why the cross hairs are disapearing in the background .. while the blackened horizon is at the same level as the black crosshairs .. on which there disapearing ..



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Zoom into the reflection on the astronaut's helmet in : AS17-138-21055 – AS17-138-21072...

Also... if the stars are so much brighter when viewed from the moon, how are they completely absent in the picture? Even here on earth if u take a picture at night in a well lit area, at least 1 star will still show up



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watts
Even here on earth if u take a picture at night in a well lit area, at least 1 star will still show up


That simply isn't true. Try taking a properly exposed photo in a sports stadium (or similar) under extremely bright floodlights. You won't see any stars.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by lazimodo
 



Just look at the area around the sun. There are at least 10 objects visible around and in the sun's radiance. If this is a result of compound images then there still has to be more than one object due to the location of each relative to the sun.


Are you talking about the lens flares?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I think he's talking about what appears to be dust on the negatives (or the scanner) during scanning.

These artifacts are visible all over the images, they just happen to be more visible in the brighter regions.
edit on 27-4-2011 by healthysceptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by healthysceptic
 

I'm talking a city scene... or better yet, a snow covered field, not where flood lights are shining down directly into the camera from all directions. and the stars are much much brighter beyond our atmosphere. There's no way they would be blacked out the way they are... it doesn't even look natural.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by fazeone1981
 



and realised how badly retouched those images are .. , especially in the horizon ..

most of the top crosshairs are missing .. , proof that they completly , blackend the horizon up .

theyre doin an awful job


Panoramas are made by stitching many separate photographs together. Back when these panoramas were made, they probably used a razor blade, glue and black paint. Yes, of course they blackened the sky, otherwise the top edge of the panorama would be uneven.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watts
reply to post by healthysceptic
 

I'm talking a city scene... or better yet, a snow covered field, not where flood lights are shining down directly into the camera from all directions. and the stars are much much brighter beyond our atmosphere. There's no way they would be blacked out the way they are... it doesn't even look natural.


That's an invalid scenario. The moons surface, and therefore the astronauts, are in the full glare of the sun. The camera is simply exposing accordingly. Starlight under those conditions is many, many times too faint to register. The only relevant thing here is the difference in brightness between the Lunar surface and the stars, which is huge.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


No, not the flaring but the black dots. Dust on a lens would not be in the focal plane, and would be invisible to the film. So if it is an image artifact it has to from some other source. Or they could be objects. They appear in other panoramas but not in all of them.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by lazimodo
 

It honestly just looks like dust which was introduced when they scanned the prints in. I say prints because if they had scanned from the negatives then the dust would appear white.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join