Moon anomalies Apollo 16 Crew Photos

originally posted by: Moohide
So, as they are driving around on the moon, or walking/exploring, would they not need a marker high up to see incase they lose their orientation. With limited oxygen/time and minds on the job in hand, i would have thought they would need a safe guard in case of emergencies?

They had one: The Apollo Lunar Module was 23 feet high and covered with polished aluminum and aluminized kapton. Of course, if it was out of sight behind a hill or something, the astronauts could always follow their own tracks back.

The Portable Life Support System backpacks on the first missions (Apollo 11-14) - when the astronauts were only on foot - were good for 4 hours before they needed to go back to the LM to refill & recharge. The later missions (Apollo 15-17) - when they had the rover - used upgraded suits good for 8 hours.

One of the mission rules was that they could not drive the rover further from the LM than they could safely walk back from. That included the contingency if the rover broke down AND an astronaut's PLSS failed. They had "buddy" hoses to connect one suit to the other so that the one could supply enough air & power to the other during the walk back.

a reply to: Moohide

In addition to Saint Exupery's post above, they also had a very precise timeline with them in the form of suit cuff checklists as well as Mission Control in their ears all the time reminding them of when it was time to move on and what sort of state their consumables (oxygen and water) were in. Each task in the EVAs was practised many times so that they knew how long they would take and what was involved.

There was usually enough slack in the timeline to allow for extra time at places if they found things of interest or things took longer than ancipated, but often this was at the expense of time allowed at other stops elsewhere. The classic example of this is the long walk to the summit of Cone crater in Apollo 14, where a number of extensions were given to allow the astronauts to get to the crater edge, but eventually they had to turn back despite being just a few tens of metres short of their goal (although they didn't know that at the time).

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: mikos123

I have seen images where there appears to be some ET buildings or ships in the background and the black area wasn't actually that black to begin with. Also, you would imagine being in space you would see stars or galaxies way better out there without a cloud or pollution in the atmosphere, right?

Anyways....maybe you can analyze this video too. Let me know what you find

YOU can see stars and Galaxies but one again they don't appear in photos due to EXPOSURE the surface is lit by the Sun so exposures are like daylight shots on Earth. Also Astronauts would have to let there eyes dark adapt ie don't look at the bright surface for at least 20 mins been out taking night shots with friends if a torch beam shines in your eyes you have to let your eyes dark adapt which is a pain when it happens.

Here a picture of the Moon I took correctly exposed.



1/400th of a second f8 iso 400, Sony SLT A37 with a 300mm lens (heavy crop)

At 1/400th of a second and at f8 aperture stars won't show.

Here is a picture correctly exposed for stars




Exposure details Sony SLT A37 f3.5 10 secs at iso 3200 18mm focal length.
The fuzzy blob of light near the top middle is a fraction of the Andromeda Galaxy starting to show in the exposure.It's a wide angle shot and a crop from the full picture which was 4912 x 3264 pixels the picture above is 604 x 307 pixels.

So the picture of the stars iso 3200 more sensitive than iso 400, f3.5 lets more light in than f8 and 10 seconds exposure lets that light hit the camera sensor a lot longer than 1/400th of a second for the Moon picture hope that helps you understand.

a reply to: mikos123

Here is a link Apollo Image Gallery

Here is a nice close up

Your mystery object


Next to the Astronaut

There are many similar images at the above link.

a reply to: wmd_2008

If this were not from an Apollo mission I would pass it off as just an exposure anomaly.
In this case enlarging the photo produced either a different kind of pixellation artifact or a genuine UFO.

a reply to: Cauliflower

But it isn't an exposure anomaly, or a pixelation artifact, or a UFO. It's not even flying. It's the orange marker flag for the geophone.

So humans were driving electric cars on the moon fifty years ago ? The average temperature on the Moon varies from -298 degrees Fahrenheit (-183 degrees Celsius), at night, to 224 degrees Fahrenheit (106 degrees Celsius) during the day. Guess they had real good batteries fifty years ago ?

a reply to: Ove38

Yes. They did.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Passive thermal controls kept the batteries within an optimal temperature range.

e2a:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Batteries are maintained between 4 and 52°C (40 and 125" F), while thermal tolerances for other equipment vary from -34 up to 85°C (-30 to 185" F). These temperatures must be maintained through touchdown. After touchdown, the vehicle has a semipassive thermal control system for the purpose of dissipating heat from operating equipment in the forward chassis area, maintaining the control and display console within its operating limitations, and protecting the crew station from excessive heat. This control system utilizes insulation, radiative surfaces, thermal mirrors, thermal straps, fusible-mass heat sinks, and special surface finishes.

originally posted by: Ove38
The average temperature on the Moon varies from -298 degrees Fahrenheit (-183 degrees Celsius), at night, to 224 degrees Fahrenheit (106 degrees Celsius) during the day.

On a point of pedantry, the unsourced figures you quote are minimum and maximum, not an average. There are average temperature readings available for the missions, they were taken by the equipment that they took there.

a reply to: Ove38

Before YOU type you should do some research and find out when they landed that's a clue.

Here I will save you the effort

The first thing to know is that all trips on to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. It is also important to think about how heat can be transferred to astronauts on the lunar surface.

There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the Sun’s reflection on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts.

The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. This shows that even though huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, lunar astronauts were never actually exposed to them.

It doesn't take a lot of effort to find out but on here some NEVER make the effort.

a reply to: mikos123
from www.evawaseerst.be
Numerous things about our moon are screaming to be solved. That is not a coincidence! Sure that the real rulers know the truth, but they don't want us to know it ... yet. For any anomaly they have a clarification. The Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) comprised a set of scientific instruments placed by the astronauts at the landing site of each of the five Apollo missions to land on the moon. We think that ALSEP helps some pawns of the real leaders through precarious questions posed on conspiracy forums. And if ALSEP cannot help there are always the so-called technical faults or the confusion about what we really see ... By the way, if beings like us with comparable material once landed on the moon one can easily confuse us about the origin of some mystery object. But to us -after a lot of research- some objects or structures on the moon are from an ancient civilization ... from the gods. There are many anomalies but as an example we show you just 10 of them.

a reply to: zandra

I guess it loses something in translation.

This is the actual link

www.evawaseerst.be...

That site can't seem to decide if it believes in the moon landings or not. Either way the video it links to below the text you quote contains a lot of things that don't need any reference to the ALSEP to debunk very quickly, and the link above the text relates to a completely fabricated interview relating to a fake video.

Oh, and there were 6 landings, not 5, which should give you a clue as to the intellectual rigour applied there.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
The images are taken uphill looking towards the ALSEP site.

In this image

www.hq.nasa.gov...

you can see an orange marker on top of a pole - here's a close up:



I believe that's what you're seeing there.

e2a: It's the geophone equipment

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:NASA_LSPE_geophones_Apollo17.jpg

Not to split hairs but the image you link shows a small, maybe 3ft tall, white pole w an inverted light orange triangle marker.
OPs images show a taller almost blue tinted pole with a red cylindrical top, no?

a reply to: CajunMetal

+1

a reply to: mikos123

thats where they set up the science experiments that they taken with them, see picture looking at the LLM

www.lpi.usra.edu...

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: mikos123

I have seen images where there appears to be some ET buildings or ships in the background and the black area wasn't actually that black to begin with. Also, you would imagine being in space you would see stars or galaxies way better out there without a cloud or pollution in the atmosphere, right?

Anyways....maybe you can analyze this video too. Let me know what you find

You are absolutely correct you would SEE stars and galaxies much better on the moon! However a notice how bright the moon is? A camera is not your eye...it cannot adjust for both the light and the dark simultaneously (yet). So we either over expose and get stars or we under expose and get details of the moon. Guess which setting those cameras were set to...

Not saying you said this, but this is often an argument that we didn't go to the moon cause you would have seen the stars which is correct only if you were SEEING, but photographing sorry you just flunked Photography 101

originally posted by: CajunMetal

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
The images are taken uphill looking towards the ALSEP site.

In this image

www.hq.nasa.gov...

you can see an orange marker on top of a pole - here's a close up:



I believe that's what you're seeing there.

e2a: It's the geophone equipment

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:NASA_LSPE_geophones_Apollo17.jpg

Not to split hairs

You kind of are though

but the image you link shows a small, maybe 3ft tall, white pole w an inverted light orange triangle marker.
OPs images show a taller almost blue tinted pole with a red cylindrical top, no?

You're describing an object on the horizon that is out of focus. Here's a zoomed crop of the 189Mb TIFF image available here

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-107-17438



Here's the LRO image of the Apollo 16 site, with an arrow starting at where the photograph was taken pointing towards the main ALSEP site.



and here's a crop of a panorama available here

www.hq.nasa.gov...



looking back towards the LM, with the flag identified.

Here's the live TV of them at the ALSEP site, complete with geophone marker



What else do you think it could be?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: CajunMetal

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
The images are taken uphill looking towards the ALSEP site.

In this image

www.hq.nasa.gov...

you can see an orange marker on top of a pole - here's a close up:



I believe that's what you're seeing there.

e2a: It's the geophone equipment

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:NASA_LSPE_geophones_Apollo17.jpg

Not to split hairs

You kind of are though

but the image you link shows a small, maybe 3ft tall, white pole w an inverted light orange triangle marker.
OPs images show a taller almost blue tinted pole with a red cylindrical top, no?

You're describing an object on the horizon that is out of focus. Here's a zoomed crop of the 189Mb TIFF image available here

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-107-17438

Here's the LRO image of the Apollo 16 site, with an arrow starting at where the photograph was taken pointing towards the main ALSEP site.

and here's a crop of a panorama available here

www.hq.nasa.gov...

looking back towards the LM, with the flag identified.

Here's the live TV of them at the ALSEP site, complete with geophone marker

What else do you think it could be?

I was wasn’t I? Haha

The positions seems to coincide, sure.

But look at the size of the flag in the distance in your image looking back from the geophone marker.
The marker would hardly be discernible given that it’s even smaller than the flag. There’s also nothing next to/behind the mystery object as close as the gold foil clad experiment right next to the marker.

OPs object stands much taller and is shaped differently.

All that aside, and given the images are from the same film canister: could their EVA really have been to investigate that object and set up an ALSEP site afterwards as pretense?

a reply to: abeverage

I gave example pictures and exposure details near the top of this page.

a reply to: CajunMetal


They used Hasselblad cameras on the Moon medium format so large negative size and also some of the best lenses available. The colour helps it stand out apart from that using your theory how would they know that small object was there to land close to it, talk about clutching at straws.