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.

 

Something is Rotten on the Moon and it ain’t the Cheese

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Bug on a lense?
swamp gas?
sure let's ad ginormous cheese cake to the list...



chocolate cheese cake.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

That's why I always look for other versions of the same photo.

If something appears only in one or two versions then it's most likely a scanning problem or the image was altered in some way. If it appears in all versions then it was most likely in the original photo, but even then it could be something on the negative, on then camera or something that happened/appeared during the chemical processing of the negative.

For example, a few years ago I had a list of photos from the Moon that appeared to show some manipulation, so I went looking for other versions, and I reached the conclusion that the altered versions appeared only on the sites that claimed NASA had altered the photos, the versions on NASA sites were not altered.
Except for two occasions, in which NASA really had altered photos on their sites, in both occasions on sites dedicated more to publicity than to science.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I still have the ancient old question why are all photos of space never have any background objects.

Space photos make you belive that space is black with white stars everywhere.

I want to see a moon shot or a spaceship shot that does not blackout the background but shows all the space debris.

Tons of small asteroids, colors gases, other weird stuff floating around.

The notion that when you take a picture of a satellite and everything around the satellite is black is wearing thin.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 08:10 AM
link   
The issue I believe has to do with light exposure. Try taking a photo where you can see the detail of your light bulbs surface while it’s lit and still see small detail surrounding it. It’s not easy. Plenty of amateur photographers capture photos of the moon and similarly don’t catch a lot of other space stuff at the same time.

have a reply to: Bloodworth


edit on 16-1-2022 by Skepticape because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

What you call "scanning artefacts" might be a good way to date the photos if bandwidth or telecommunication technology from space changed over time.

As an esoterically presented history disclosure for some undergruund technology this might even be interesting.

I forget why NASA needed plausible deniability for an entertainment channel.

Disclosure of a covert breakaway civilization might leave me stomping around like a mad seven year old because I wasn't initiated with "the keys" like the gifted children living in their compartmentalized world back in the 1950's.

The Patrick Mcgoohan "take" at disclosure from the early 60's was received largely unnoticed (as predicted).

Portmeirion is a tourist village in Gwynedd, North Wales. It was designed and built by Sir Clough Williams-Ellis between 1925and 1975 in the style of an Italian village, and is now owned by a charitable trust.


Booth points out that McGoohan had outlined the themes of The Prisoner in a 1965 interview, long before Markstein's tenure as script editor on the brief fourth series of Danger Man.


Scotch tape for the inner supportive ribs of dirigibles to prevent corrosion wasn't invented till 1930.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Skepticape

For the sake of completeness of the record, just as they published all the photos from the missions regardless of quality. It's only the pretty 'money shots' that made it into the papers and the photo sets for sale, and many people assume those are the only ones they made available. If they hadn't published it, we'd be having threads about them hiding the photograph, which they didn't.

My later post on this has the description of what went wrong with the development and film.
Ok so why not answer the second part of my question? Why not state the photo is damaged or compromised in some way? They are presenting it as a photo of the moon, but we should assume aspects are flaws? That doesn’t make sense. I also don’t believe they are presenting all the photos they took just for a complete record, only chosen photos. Your first answer doesn’t add up.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Skepticape

If nobody can tell the difference between 1930 archival film footage and Luna telecommunication data.
Why pay the Russians the difference?


edit on 16-1-2022 by fromunclexcommunicate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Bloodworth

As Skepticape said, it's a question of exposure.

If you want to take a photo of a bright area you will not get any faint lights or subtle details in dark areas, and the opposite happens when you take a photo of a dark scene, any brighter area will appear completely white and with no detail.

Taking as example the photos taken by the astronauts on the Moon's surface, they were taken during the day, so how could you see stars in the black sky when you are seeing a brightly lit Moon surface?

The same happens if you try to take a photo of the full Moon, you will see that the faintest stars disappear.

But, yes, there are some photos showing the brightest stars (they were almost normal cameras, not telescopes), like these:

AS17-154-23647


AS17-154-23648


AS17-154-23649



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: fromunclexcommunicate

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean with your post.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Skepticape

Why should they specify?

It's a photo of the moon. It's obviously damaged. Why would it occur to them that "some people might assume it was some sort of massive genuine structure so we'd better point out the blatantly obvious or we'll be accused of something or other"?

It only doesn't add up if you don't want it to.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skepticape
Ok so why not answer the second part of my question? Why not state the photo is damaged or compromised in some way? They are presenting it as a photo of the moon, but we should assume aspects are flaws? That doesn’t make sense. I also don’t believe they are presenting all the photos they took just for a complete record, only chosen photos. Your first answer doesn’t add up.


Most photos of the Moon's surface do not have a description. Some damaged photos do have "damaged" (or similar) as a description.

In the case of the photo in the OP's photo, photo AS08-18-2908, the photo index for that mission has no description, but it has a note for that magazine:

Between frames 2844 and 2845 there are 20 very dark exposures of the lunar surface
These are not numbered and are too dark to be of value no attempt was made to plot
or index these frames.

One of several sources.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Bloodworth

As Skepticape said, it's a question of exposure.

If you want to take a photo of a bright area you will not get any faint lights or subtle details in dark areas, and the opposite happens when you take a photo of a dark scene, any brighter area will appear completely white and with no detail.

Taking as example the photos taken by the astronauts on the Moon's surface, they were taken during the day, so how could you see stars in the black sky when you are seeing a brightly lit Moon surface?

The same happens if you try to take a photo of the full Moon, you will see that the faintest stars disappear.

But, yes, there are some photos showing the brightest stars (they were almost normal cameras, not telescopes), like these:

AS17-154-23647


AS17-154-23648


AS17-154-23649




I read once that places in space can be like being in a dirty pond. Tons of debris all over, sometimes you can barley see.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

You may be relieved to know the Synagogue hostage taker was British.
At least they got that out of the way before the MLK birthday observance.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: fromunclexcommunicate

That's off topic and, to me, completely irrelevant.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 03:39 PM
link   
It looks alot like damage in developing. The roll is unwound in the dark and the operator puts a stainless steel weight on the end fastened with an alligator type grip, then the whole strip is lifted up on motorized arm and lowered into the chemicals in succession.

Think that the damage is a puncture from the weight grip. Then, while being printed, the areas around the puncture would let light through on the enlarger, and that is why they are black but the triangular area of the film is suspended in the cut and shows image.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1


When the moon hits you eye like a big pizza pie
That's amore
🎵



posted on Jan, 19 2022 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

It wouldn't be the first time I've seen bad negatives from moon photos.

The negative process isn't a perfect one and something these things can happen.



posted on Jan, 20 2022 @ 08:21 PM
link   
For me…I’m gonna call the OP….

Thanx for all the input…
👽🛸🍻


edit on 20-1-2022 by Ophiuchus1 because: (no reason given)







 
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join