Nasa Apollo Moon - more anomolies

AS15-87-11839HR.jpg
timestamp 04-09-06
www.hq.nasa.gov...

This photo was referred to in the Lunacy video.

However, there are other anomolies in this photo.
All the anomalies are easier to see in original photo.
This pic is reduced in size for the forum.



Numbers. This begs the questions who, what, when, why, and how?
Jet nozzle almost touching the ground. No appearance of blast waves.
What looks like masking tape.
Dents and buckles.
Trash. Some rusty old stoves, dishwashers
and refrigerators would fit well in this photo.



This pic shows another anomoly from the same scan.
When the gamma is increased, a horizontal line of something
appears in the background. A trick of light?
The LEM has been crudly blacked out for ease on the eyes.

Here's the actual link to that.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

What do you make of the two things that look like photographs in the right foot of the lander. Zooming in the one on the right looks like it has the flesh-colored head of an unsuited person.

I see what you mean about the nozzle almost touching the ground after having looked at the original.

I can only think of one explanation regarding that horizontal line and that is a faulty camera where the shutter is moving too slow at that particular point. This ofcourse means that the shutter has to be a slide shutter.
I would try and look into what kind of camera they used on the missions to see if that fits the description.
If it's not the shutter I would guess...the walls of the studio this was done in.

The numbers...well, that's just the number of the shot aint it? And if you then argue that large format cameras don't hold that many shots, I would again adress the schematics of the mission cam to see if the had one specially build. I mean, one place you don't want to be changing film would be the moon right? Escpecially with those fat fingers...

Otherwise interesting shot. Sure has taken some beating that lem... I don't know what to conclude. I'll go check those cam schemes.

The moon cameras had magazines that held 120 shots if I remember correctly. And those numbers look like they were added when the paper was exposed. I'm not sure what the anomaly here is? Could someone point it out and leave all the comedic commentary like the OP had out of it?

It must be magic how they came to and went from the moon.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
The moon cameras had magazines that held 120 shots if I remember correctly. And those numbers look like they were added when the paper was exposed. I'm not sure what the anomaly here is? Could someone point it out and leave all the comedic commentary like the OP had out of it?

Comedic though it may be, your post appears to be free of any facts. 'If I remember...', 'look like they were...', tells us nothing.

Why would they add a number to the photo? That tells me the photo is 'retouched', i.e. content added after the exposure.

I'm not responsible for developing these images so cant say why they were numbered. I know when handling and archiving a large amount of photos a number catalogue is best.
And the number of photos, I remembered wrong, it was 160 color or 200 b/w.

I've been looking at many of the apollo hq pictures and many of them have similar numbers.
Then I saw this. What are those strange green lines in the image at the low center, pointing towards the rovers wheel? Dirt, markers, bad scanner? Why weren't those retouched when these were scanned... Not a smoking gun or anything that would suggest a hoaxed moon landing, might as well be sloppy scanning.

[Edit] When you boost the saturation those come even more visible and there is at least one in the sky too. Also they're very visible in the blue channel of the photo and there you can also spot similar numbering, 31 in this case.
I'd like to know what that means, since almost all of the have a number beginning with 3.

[edit on 30/6/2007 by PsykoOps]

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I know when handling and archiving a large amount of photos a number catalogue is best.

You 'know' this how? Why not put the number on the back or on the white paper edge surrounding most photos? Why use a transparent font to give it the same color of the 'Moon dust'. What I'm trying to explain is that using that method to number them requires retouching and/or rephotographing the image with the font included.

And the number of photos, I remembered wrong, it was 160 color or 200 b/w.

Cite?

So what do you make of the objects that look like snapshots on the right foot of the LM?

Originally posted by Badge01

Originally posted by PsykoOps
The moon cameras had magazines that held 120 shots if I remember correctly. And those numbers look like they were added when the paper was exposed. I'm not sure what the anomaly here is? Could someone point it out and leave all the comedic commentary like the OP had out of it?

Comedic though it may be, your post appears to be free of any facts. 'If I remember...', 'look like they were...', tells us nothing.

Why would they add a number to the photo? That tells me the photo is 'retouched', i.e. content added after the exposure.

You do know that even camera film today has numbers on it? It's for indexing purposes, nothing too strange about that.
The camera used was a 70 milimeter Hasselblad Electric Camera. I couldn't find anything regarding shutter technique, though they do mention that their biggest concern around these photos were exposure.
As PsykoOps say they took a whole lot of photos. They retrieved some 334 photos from Apollo 7 (not counting blank frames and I know we are talking AS 15 here not 7...). Ofcourse most of these were of questionable quality. Actually only 2 percent were signified as being excellent.

I found this site containing a great many of the original reports from the apollo missions. I know it's a geocity site but the documents seems authentic enough. Unfortunately they are so vast in numbers of pages that I only could concentrate on reading a bit of it

Link:
Apolloman



[edit on 30/6/07 by flice]

I still think to this day that the landing was faked , the images alone prove how fragile and homemade it seemed to appear. The people around that time were so excited and had not actually inspected the footage or the pics they just saw what they wanted to believe was real. The funniest clips that I've seen were from youtube which anyone could look at in their spare time , like the moving flag and the string that reflected light from those "movie lights". One thing I would like to get to the point of is how were they able to take those good pics from the camera that was strapped on their chest."One small step for man one giant lie to mankind"

Here is the descreption of the camera. And I know catalogue is best organized with numbers from personal experience, however these numbers obviously aren't that since they appear in many more shots and always the number '31'. I have no clue as what that is. I guess it might be that the magnifying machine used to expose all of these images has that number embedded in the lens or a filter for some reason. We may never know the logic behind it but I'd hardly think it would mean retouching as it is easily done in exposing phase.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
What are those strange green lines in the image at the low center, pointing towards the rovers wheel? Dirt, markers, bad scanner? Why weren't those retouched when these were scanned... Not a smoking gun or anything that would suggest a hoaxed moon landing, might as well be sloppy scanning.
[edit on 30/6/2007 by PsykoOps]

You've got a good eye to spot the green marks!

Interesting that this photo has the same number "31" as the other shot. Guess that throws out the speculation that it is numbering of the photos.

There's also a strange red glow or light on the tire of the Rover, visible through the fenders and just above the American flag.

Not sure this means much.

Good find, though!

Originally posted by flice

You do know that even camera film today has numbers on it? It's for indexing purposes, nothing too strange about that.

[edit on 30/6/07 by flice]

Except that the numbers should not be the same on each photo since that defeats the purposes of indexing.

I'm not suggesting it leads to anything probative.

I have a theory of those lines though now that I recall where I've seen that color lines before. It could be that the emulsion surface of the paper/negative has been scratched. Strange though that they haven't retouched these.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
What are those strange green lines in the image at the low center, pointing towards the rovers wheel? Dirt, markers, bad scanner? Why weren't those retouched when these were scanned... Not a smoking gun or anything that would suggest a hoaxed moon landing, might as well be sloppy scanning.
[edit on 30/6/2007 by PsykoOps]

Looks a little like bad maintenance of the scanner, but can't be sure.
In the Apollo 7 mission report they actually mention that they don't have the time to screen the photos taken before use xD so yes... slobby is a very good bid

heh, you are right about those numbers. I didn't notice they were both marked with the same number.
That would mean to me that they represent either the number of the camera or the objective used for purposes of telling if equipment is faulty.
It's mostlike the objective then since that would be the only way to imposed the number straight into the frame of the film.

On a side note, I was happy to read the explanation for the disappearing cross hairs. They simply get overexposed when travelling in front of something in the high tonal range, ie. white.

[edit on 30/6/07 by flice]

As i questioned here :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can anybody tell me why there are no links anymore to the pictures of apollo 17 ?

history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by webstra
As i questioned here :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can anybody tell me why there are no links anymore to the pictures of apollo 17 ?

history.nasa.gov...

There you go

Apollo images
Strange the links on nasa don't work. But hey, they could be rearranging them or something...

I laughed at this one, hehe. He actually did a few of those, just like all amateurs have done at some point ;-P

image

EDIT:

Regarding the horizontal line... this image below kinda supports my notion that the camera might have been faulty in it's shutter. If it travelled 1/100 of a sec slower at the top part that would create the effect we can see when brightening it in photoshop.


Image with error

[edit on 30/6/07 by flice]

What is wrong beeing an amateur ?

You must be a NASA specialist

But thanks for the link. It's a different photo

AS17-148-22756 :





But still the same ducktape.

Oh My God...do you see what i see...it is the same picture only upside down !

[edit on 30-6-2007 by webstra]

[edit on 30-6-2007 by webstra]

[edit on 30-6-2007 by webstra]