Astounding Moon Footage! Did NASA Want You To See This?

Originally posted by jedimiller

Also, the film is developed on earth. not in space. and yes, if ther is any small object on the film it will appear as it is moving, because the film is moving very, very fast. At numerous speeds. this would cause the fur/hair to move with the shoot.

Jed, to cut a long story short, officially the Apollo 8 did NOT carry a movie camera. This is what they had on board..

The onboard cameras for the Apollo 8 mission were modified Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, with 80-millimeter and 250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lenses. For certain photographs of the lunar surface, a 60-millimeter lens with a reseau was used. Use of this lens and reseau is apparent in the views that show crosslike fiducial marks. For analytical purposes, black-and-white emulsions were determined to provide a higher degree of resolution and image clarity than the color emulsions; therefore, much of the photography is black-and-white.
www.lpi.usra.edu...

So what we're seeing are just animated frames of consecutive photographs from the image strips. So which is this film you contend that's moving 'very very fast' resulting in hair moving around?

And then, who's hair is that supposed to be? Where did it come from? I'm sure you are aware of the sterilization norms and Standard Operating Procedures for environmental purity of the image processing labs at NASA, JPL, etc. As they say, even a germ needs an Access Card to enter the lab!

Cheers!

Originally posted by mortalengine

Originally posted by spikedmilk
reply to post by internos

 

So, I think understand what might be goin on there. We're seeing a reflection being "interrupted" by another reflection from the various pieces of the surveyor equipment resulting in the broken effect. That makes sense right?
nice pics btw

Is this what we're believing then ? ...pity we couldnt have come up with something slightly more realistic...

Hi, mortalengine.
Spiledmilk was talking about this post

Originally posted by mikesingh
The onboard cameras for the Apollo 8 mission were modified Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, with 80-millimeter and 250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lenses.

That doesn't tell you exactly what type of film they used. it looks to me like an 8mm film camera, and those are very prone to defects and weather problems. but you are a good debunker, so I give you credit for that. cheers!

[edit on 28-11-2007 by jedimiller]

Here’s another shot of the ‘Smokestack’ from the Apollo 8 mission. I’ve enlarged it in the second pic.


Courtesy: NASA
AS8-14-2383
www.lpi.usra.edu...



Note an ‘object’ in the sky which I’ve also circled. Could be dust on the lens, but near impossible to verify that it is so!

Cheers!

reply to post by internos


thanks internos, howya doin btw? so what do ya think? am I off or wayyy off? I'm just wondering, and what's your take of the whole 'sun' deal? One extremely well lit and well placed placed lamp or the closest sun you've ever seen?

Originally posted by spikedmilk
reply to post by internos

 

thanks internos, howya doin btw? so what do ya think? am I off or wayyy off?

I'm just wondering, and what's your take of the whole 'sun' deal? One extremely well lit and well placed placed lamp or the closest sun you've ever seen?

Frankly, i have no clue. Who can tell?
I've just noticed that the lenght of a part of the Surveyor's arm match more or less the reflection in AS-12-48-7102.
But taht's just a clue.
______________________________________

reply to post by mikesingh

Mike the closest crater is Fauth.

If we draw a line between its center and the target, we know approximately were to cross the crater drawing a line on the map with an acceptable margin of error:

It should be somewhere within the two green lines, IMHO, but to be sure i'd say within the blue ones.


[edit on 28/11/2007 by internos]

Originally posted by jedimiller

Originally posted by mortalengine
Anyway, I never listen to people who feel the need to qualify their opinion by first stating their level of education in the matter.

That's ok. I just said it because it was the hardest class I ever took. opening the film in the dark room was hard, then going into the dark room and trying to expose the film on paper and trying not to overexpose and destroy the image. all the chemicals and hard work. Making the prints, large size prints. it was a hard long class. does that qualify me to absurd claims? perhaps.

You're making your film class sound like rocket science or something.

I've done photography myself mostly b&w stuff.
Loading the film from the bulk loader into the little film canister, shooting pics. Then poping the canister again so you can load it onto the "ravioli" or film holder so you can then drop it into some developing canister. Which isn't so easy cuz you're either in the darkroom or using a black box.

Then once that's devoloped going in and making prints with the enlarger. using the dektol, stop bath, fixer hardenter to develop your prints.
It's not all that hard. It was alot of fun when I did all that stuff.

Does that qualify you or me to be a professional photography expert? Not in the least.
Just means we can shoot film and do our own prints.

to everyone else. great thread keep the pics coming.

reply to post by internos


This may help get a better fix on the location:

I think the anomaly could be at Montes Carpatus



[edit on 28-11-2007 by sherpa]

[edit on 28-11-2007 by sherpa]

This looks to be the same photo as above, but slightly sharper, but the "tower" can not seen.
upload.wikimedia.org...


[edit on 28-11-2007 by CEDRICtheFOETUS]

Originally posted by grey580
Does that qualify you or me to be a professional photography expert? Not in the least.
Just means we can shoot film and do our own prints.

Sure, and yet I'd value your opinion on isues in film-based photography over somebody's who never handle the film and/or developed the film and prints themselves. I've done it for a while (B/W) and I've seen enough artifacts in the photo material first hand to keep an open mind... Towards artifacts

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by grey580
Does that qualify you or me to be a professional photography expert? Not in the least.
Just means we can shoot film and do our own prints.

Sure, and yet I'd value your opinion on isues in film-based photography over somebody's who never handle the film and/or developed the film and prints themselves. I've done it for a while (B/W) and I've seen enough artifacts in the photo material first hand to keep an open mind... Towards artifacts

True we'd probably could tell the difference. But I'd rather have an "expert" take a look at things.
It's sorta like getting a second opinion from someone that really knows what he's talking about.
At least we hope he knows

reply to post by sherpa


Sherpa, i agree
it should be Monte Carpatus, Gay-Lussac or Gay-Lussac A, not beyond:
the far border of what looks to be the closer crater (and in this case it would be Gay-Lussac A if i'm correct), is clearly BEHIND the "Kangaroo", IMHO. But it could be one of the many reliefs in Monte Carpatus: the perspective isn't clear enough IMHO ..


Besides, i've found other images like the one CEDRICtheFOETUS posted (thank you CEDRICtheFOETUS )
and the "Kangaroo" isn't visible at all (i post this one);
www.honeysucklecreek.net...

Basically, the only photo in which that "Kangaroo" exists is pia00094 in different resolutions but always the same shot: it's also the most bright object in the whole photo
Anyway..

U.S. Geological Survey: Lunar Orbiter Digitization Project
astrogeology.usgs.gov...

This is the LO III scan status (nearside)
astrogeology.usgs.gov...

And this is the LO V status (nearside)
astrogeology.usgs.gov...

Maybe something will come out from there


[edit on 28/11/2007 by internos]

simple explanation here...chalk it up to light refraction/dirty lenses/or grainy resolution/small aperture...nothing there indicates to me in any way that its a structure.

Originally posted by mikesingh

So what we're seeing are just animated frames of consecutive photographs from the image strips.

No, we're not. What we're seeing is an animation of screen grabs from a TV show, "To the Moon". The creators of the TV show used a single Apollo 8 photo, AS08-14-2393, and zoomed-in on it to create the illusion of motion.

Mike, if this were actual video or "animated frames of consecutive photographs" then please offer an explanation as to why the Earth is getting larger during the animation.

Originally posted by jedimiller
it all goes down to how careful you are while developing the film in the dark room.

Ummmm okay sure thing... Good research there...

Ummm pray tell just how did they develop the film from the Lunar Orbiters 'in the dark room" ? I would LOVE to hear your theory on that one...

And by Apollo they had Hassalblad 70mm full color images so ummm are you sure you have your facts straight?

Either that or these are a hoax

Originally posted by mikesingh
I had posted this earlier on the john Lear forum recently. Here’s a pic of the famous Copernicus crater on the Moon. On the far side there seems to be a massive tower!

Sorry Mike have to shoot this one down and let it R.I.P...

Jack found us the original that the Copernicus PIA00094 was taken from (after clean up) I am surprised that they left it in though considering how much they 'cleaned up'



But take heart at least it is irrefutable proof that they DO INDEED ermmmm 'clean up' photos

Original 4.5 meg image



(December 15, 16, 1965), Hasselblad 500C 70 mm camera

Here is a listing of the cameras and films used by NASA

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

PSSST Hey Jedi... the films on the LO spacecraft were developed onboard and the original films crashed on the moon



[edit on 28-11-2007 by zorgon]

[edit on 28-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
Jack found us the original that the Copernicus PIA00094 was taken from (after clean up) I am surprised that they left it in though considering how much they 'cleaned up'
But take heart at least it is irrefutable proof that they DO INDEED ermmmm 'clean up' photos

Original 4.5 meg image

Zorgon, thank you for providing this conclusive info
That was my fear since that object wasn't where it should have been in other pictures. And i noticed too that it was too bright if compared to the rest of the photo.

Originally posted by CEDRICtheFOETUS
This looks to be the same photo as above, but slightly sharper, but the "tower" can not seen.

Nope not the same photo...

Originally posted by internos

Zorgon, thank you for providing this conclusive info

Yes! Thanks, Zorgon! That's a keeper as I'm sure this case will come up again.

reply to post by zorgon


Thanks Ron! So that settles it! I can at least get a good night's sleep now!!

My poor Kangaroo! Sob!!

Cheers!



[edit on 29-11-2007 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by IAttackPeople

Originally posted by internos

Zorgon, thank you for providing this conclusive info

Yes! Thanks, Zorgon!

That's a keeper as I'm sure this case will come up again.

you should keep more than the part that you happen to agree with apriori, but all such topics presented by Zorg and so on, for which a reasonable argument has been established, even if it doesn't agree with your past assessments. i mean, convince me that you are actually interested in the truth and not just "what the public deserves to know." we deserve to know the truth about these topics, as we ARE PAYING FOR THEM. my dollars are worth as much to me as the next person's.