Apollo 15 panorama - matching the rocks to the hi-res LRO image

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


Well, he does seem to get all his information from youtube videos and the rambling blog entries of the insane, so I can see why he doesn't believe things can exist outside the internet.




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Thank you, jra, for these 2 references. These references will be very valuable to all the Apollo investigators.

#1

146:32:34 Irwin: Camera's stopped working.
146:32:36 Scott: It has? Maybe you're out of film.
146:32:41 Irwin: I just put this on! (Pause)


#2

Post flight analysis of the hardware included operational testing, disassembly and inspection, and measurement of battery charge.



jra: Also, weren't you going on about how they left all the camera's on the Moon? It sounds like they brought this one back for study and examination.


Yes I was! I was under the belief that 12 Hasselblads went down to the lunar surface (2 each, 6 missions) and 0 of these items were returned to Earth. I remember that discussion well. www.abovetopsecret.com...

The pro-Apollo side was arguing that the Hasselblads were 'useless weight' and 'empty camera housings'. And I was arguing that the cameras should have been brought back for scientific analysis.

So, this begs the question, whatever happened to Jim Irwin's 70mm Hasselblad that he brought back to Earth?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
In any case, here's what I think. Those old panoramas were stitched from photographic prints (or grainy low-res scans) and looked a bit messy, like this one: www.hq.nasa.gov...
Since the advent of digital age, they made hi-res scans and assembled panoramas that were much better, like this part of the above panorama: www.hq.nasa.gov...
And when it came to chosing which panoramas to upload to Internet, they saw no reason to upload those early ones.


You say the old panorama looked a bit messy. You also say the new hi-res scans were much better.
That's all your subjective opinion, isn't it?

If you take the "old" A15 scans next to the "new" A15 scans this is what you will find... WOW! What a huge difference!


Btw, I think the A15 Dune Crater Phenomenon is interesting and I won't be addressing any A17 panoramas in this thread.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I'm looking at these scanned images from NASA websites. Here is the "old" Dune Crater scan on the left and the "new" Dune Crater scan on the right.



The first thing I noticed is that the "old" scan has a lot of detail on the ground and mountain tops of Mt. Hadley are faded into the blackness of the sky.

The second thing I noticed is that the "new" scan has washed out all the lumpy details on the ground and the edges of Mt. Hadley are digitally enhanced, sharpened, distorted and unreal.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
You can even make your own mosaic, make your own S71-47077 or S71-47080 if you want by downloading the photos and stitching them with your favorite photoshop program, or you can upload them and use Gigapan, like they did here for some Apollo 15 shots:
Wow. Still can't get over this: "Because it's not on the internet, it's a fraud."..........freaking hilarious!


I think that it's better if we look at the individual frames, side by side. That's the only way we can determining what NASA is hiding. The "old" scans have enormous details. The "new" scans seem completely washed out of details.

If you looked at them side by side it becomes obvious that NASA is hiding the facts about what they found at Dune Crater on August 1, 1971.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


This is complete nonsense. If you believe that this is true you must not have looked into the images at all as even the most cursory inspection would notice the massive increase in quality.

This is a 400% zoom of the original:


This is a 100% zoom of the newer scan:


In fact what you are seeing as detail in the older scan is due to the stretching of contrast in the image. This results in lower quality as it causes dark and light areas to be washed out. In the newer images when contrast is stretched to its maximum value, virtually no change in the image is noted. This indicates that the scans were very well calibrated and you can see by the difference in detail:


Please stop deluding yourself. There's a lot of strong evidence to suggest that these Apollo panoramas are legitimate and your arguments are not based in fact nor logic.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Just to show that your point is entirely false. Here is the new scan with significant contrast stretching (destroying detail in the process) and resized down to the same size as the original. As you can see, the detail is still there, just more subtle thanks to the better calibration.


I feel that it's best to open each image in a tab and rapidly flick between them. You can see that even though I've massively reduced the quality of the newer scan, it still is higher detail than the original and shows no barrel distortion.


jra

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The first thing I noticed is that the "old" scan has a lot of detail on the ground and mountain tops of Mt. Hadley are faded into the blackness of the sky.

The second thing I noticed is that the "new" scan has washed out all the lumpy details on the ground and the edges of Mt. Hadley are digitally enhanced, sharpened, distorted and unreal.


For the "new" scan. All you need to do is adjust the contrast of the image which takes about two seconds and then you get your lumpy details on the ground. As for the sharpness of the edges for mountains, that's how it would normally be (if your camera is properly focused). The old image is heavily compressed which is why the edges are fuzzy.

The new "washed out" image has way more detail than that old, fuzzy, compressed images ever did. You just need to learn some basic image editing skills in order to bring them out.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



The pro-Apollo side was arguing that the Hasselblads were 'useless weight' and 'empty camera housings'. And I was arguing that the cameras should have been brought back for scientific analysis.


They were useless weight. When one failed, it became of interest.


So, this begs the question, whatever happened to Jim Irwin's 70mm Hasselblad that he brought back to Earth?


Available on the grey market:

www.rrauction.com...



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


So much for NASA's credibility. The certificate on that camera was written by a guy who worked at NASA and he doesn't even know what mission it flew on!! Grey market, indeed



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



So much for NASA's credibility. The certificate on that camera was written by a guy who worked at NASA and he doesn't even know what mission it flew on!! Grey market, indeed


What does an unknown provenance of an item in an online auction have to do with NASA's credibility?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



So much for NASA's credibility. The certificate on that camera was written by a guy who worked at NASA and he doesn't even know what mission it flew on!! Grey market, indeed


What does an unknown provenance of an item in an online auction have to do with NASA's credibility?



The Dick Williamson dude, who wrote the Letter of Authenticity, is using his prior working relationship with NASA to help the seller sell a very dubious auction item. Kind of like how Richard C. Hoagland uses *his* prior working relationship with NASA to sell his dubious claims.

That auction camera you posted was never on the surface of the moon and it is most assuredly *not* Jim Irwin's Hasselblad that he used to take the partial panorama at Dune Crater. So why did you post it?

What do the people over at ALSJ have to say about this camera up for auction? I'm pretty sure Kip Teague or Eric M. Jones would know the answers.

edit on 11/19/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: to add!



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



That auction camera you posted was never on the surface of the moon and it is most assuredly *not* Jim Irwin's Hasselblad that he used to take the partial panorama at Dune Crater. So why did you post it?


Can you prove otherwise? There were only so many Hasselblads that were modified. It would probably lead to awkward questions from NASA if the seller claimed it was "flown."



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Still waiting for someone to post a legit scan of the original 1971 Dune Crater panoramas S71-47077 or S71-47080 (preferable that it be on a .gov website).

Still waiting for someone to explain whatever happened to Jim Irwin's Hasselblad that 1. he used to take the images of Dune Crater and 2. was returned to Earth for examination (according to sources already posted in this thread.)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by DJW001
 


Still waiting for someone to post a legit scan of the original 1971 Dune Crater panoramas S71-47077 or S71-47080 (preferable that it be on a .gov website).

Still waiting for someone to explain whatever happened to Jim Irwin's Hasselblad that 1. he used to take the images of Dune Crater and 2. was returned to Earth for examination (according to sources already posted in this thread.)



You mean you are pointedly ignoring the fact that there are no copies of it on the internet yet, and that the photo archive is STILL an ON GOING project.

That again, you are ignoring that the original frames are available.

Typical.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by wildespace
Where can I find these panoramas?


That's a very good question wildespace. I'm so very surprised that none of the regular pro-Apollo crowd have stepped forward yet so far with any information about the Dune Crater panoramas that were produced in 1971 by NASA's own admission. These panoramas were assigned unique catalogue numbers S-71-47077 and S-71-47080. See pages 19 and 20 of the pdf for the proof.

apollo.sese.asu.edu...

I will go out on a limb here and make this claim : NASA's S-71-47077 and S-71-47080 are a fraud. They never existed.
And I will wait patiently for someone reading this thread to prove me wrong.



You mean Apollo 15 Panoramas like the ones linked to on this Astrogeology site

Various Apollo Pictures and Panoramas For Hoax Believers Who Cant Make The Effort To Back Their Claims

Also various other sites you can find and BUY prints of the Panoramas just by doing the right kind of search on Google!!!!

For example



or this



or this




Or how about this link comparing LRO images with surface images!

Retracing-the-Steps-o f-Apollo-15


When is it going to sink into YOUR brain that the amount of things that would have to be done to FAKE Apollo are FAR MORE COMPLEX than doing it!





edit on 21-11-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



You mean Apollo 15 Panoramas like the ones linked to on this Astrogeology site


wmd, the link you provided contains many panoramas from various missions and 8 different panoramas Apollo 15.

The link you provided is astrogeology.usgs.gov...

Apollo 15 Panorama - ALSEP Site 65kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - North of the Lander 303kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - VIP Site 325kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - Station 9a 58kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - Station 7 345kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - During the Stand-up EVA 297kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - Station 7 David Scott at the Rover 61kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - Station 2 Mt. Hadley Delta 422kb
The Apollo 15 Dune Crater Station 4 partial pan is missing from your link

The OP started out with Dune Crater and that's the focus of the thread. I repeat, where are the original 1971 Dune Crater panoramas S71-47077 or S71-47080????



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



You mean Apollo 15 Panoramas like the ones linked to on this Astrogeology site


wmd, the link you provided contains many panoramas from various missions and 8 different panoramas Apollo 15.

The link you provided is astrogeology.usgs.gov...

Apollo 15 Panorama - ALSEP Site 65kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - North of the Lander 303kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - VIP Site 325kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - Station 9a 58kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - Station 7 345kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - During the Stand-up EVA 297kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - Station 7 David Scott at the Rover 61kb
Apollo 15 Panorama - Station 2 Mt. Hadley Delta 422kb
The Apollo 15 Dune Crater Station 4 partial pan is missing from your link

The OP started out with Dune Crater and that's the focus of the thread. I repeat, where are the original 1971 Dune Crater panoramas S71-47077 or S71-47080????



And again I REPEAT: they have not been scanned and included in the archives online, which is an on going project.

Are you being dense and acting in an ignorant manner on purpose to try and further a hopeless agenda on purpose?

To most readers right now you are appearing that way, because you are insisting that if it can't be found on the internet, it must not exist, which shows a incredible amount of ignorance on your part.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
You mean you are pointedly ignoring the fact that there are no copies of it on the internet yet, and that the photo archive is STILL an ON GOING project.

That again, you are ignoring that the original frames are available.

Typical.


What's typical is that I asked for the original 1971 Dune Crater panoramas S71-47077 or S71-4708. So far I haven't receive a straight answer about it or what ever happened to Jim Irwin's jammed up Hasselblad that was returned to Earth. That's typical!

On Going Project? Are you kidding? 42 years not enough time?
You've all had your chances in the last few pages of this thread to deny ignorance about the original 1971 panoramas of Dune Crater.

Richard Nixon isn't going to be very happy about this.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by eriktheawful
You mean you are pointedly ignoring the fact that there are no copies of it on the internet yet, and that the photo archive is STILL an ON GOING project.

That again, you are ignoring that the original frames are available.

Typical.


What's typical is that I asked for the original 1971 Dune Crater panoramas S71-47077 or S71-4708.

Not only were you given the numbers of the original Apollo photos that comprised those panoramas so you could make an identical panorama yourself, you were given an answer about those specific panoramas. You continue to ignore that answer. You are being deliberately obstinate and obtuse. It's because of your behavior that I stopped following this thread. Just because something is not available online does not mean it is a fraud or never existed. It really shows how ridiculously irrational, biased, and ill-informed you are about the entire subject, and it's really derailing the whole thread.


On Going Project? Are you kidding? 42 years not enough time?
You've all had your chances in the last few pages of this thread to deny ignorance about the original 1971 panoramas of Dune Crater.

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal has not been around on the internet for 42 years. You are contributing ignorance, not denying it. If you want a scan of the original 1971 panoramas, call NASA's public affairs office and ask for it. There are offline resources for obtaining original NASA footage that is not available online. I've used them successfully before myself. Just because it's not online does not mean it is fraudulent or does not exist. I have a number of photographs in my personal collection from government funded observatories and from NASA that pre-date the internet and are not available online, and I can assure you, they are quite real and not fraudulent. Deny your own ignorance and go do some real research if you want those images.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join