apollo 11: 100% perfect picture without seeker

reply to post by Saint Exupery


good link.
good post.
thank you.

Now, I know where the 500 EL Data Camera have a trigger.
It's not noticed on the article. But it's on the picture of Jim Novell.

This camera had to work in the extreme conditions of space, with vacuum and temperatures varying from 120° C in the sun to minus 65° C in shadow.

Interesting.

They also confirm some basic facts:
- you don't have seeker.
- you can't look down through the helmet.
- camera is fixed on chest
- manual setting of camera

So not so easy but the answer to the succes rate is explain by the training.

No so long time ago, I was thinking it was a video camera

OK for star.
I'll try.

reply to post by mixmix


I can honestly say that it's very difficult to respect a "source" that is unable to correctly spell the word Photo. It calls into question everything this source states.

In the article, he discusses the photo of the astronaut's family that was dropped on the moon in a small plastic bag. He says this is impossible because the photo would "convolve," which means it would roll up. That's absurd. What would possibly make the photo roll up on its own?

[edit on 22-12-2009 by andrewh7]

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

I prefer to take a common sense approach though.

That's the good approach.

just 2 comments,

So far the only two reasons to the above question I've ever gotten are: "To win the space race with the Russians" and "To keep us from knowing about the aliens" both are wild speculative theories that have no evidence attached to them.

aliens, ancient civilisations are speculatives theories.
I'm agree.
But this thread is not about moon landing speculations (lots of threads)
just
about EVA pictures success rate.

"To win the space race with the russians"
U.S was loosing it with spoutnik, y.Gagarin, ...
so not so speculative.

Not to mention the fact they actually built the Saturn V and designed all the equipment to go to the moon, why design all that if they never intended to go? Did they shoot the Saturn V into space empty?

China is currently developing rocket to go to the moon.
ATS reader will say it's for nuke.
Saturn V is rocket with no head.

is it common sense ?

How experienced photographers made perfect and faked "moon fotos" with a camera without
automatic device Hasselblad 500 EL - the astronauts were no photographers

Hmmm, he can spell photographers, but no photo.

Why is it impossible to center the American Flag without a seeker. Just point your chest towards it. I don't think it would be that hard.

Because its NOT. I was a professional photographer and that site is utter BS and does a huge dis-service to the U.S.A. Now I know why Buzz Aldrin punches people in the face, because they are morons.

You do not have too and in many cases purposely don't use a viewfinder when your a professional photographer.

Strap a camera on a dogs head and you can get great photos that are "centered". If thats his argument its downright embarrassing.

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
A few points, because I am in a hurry:

For starters, here is an excellent website about the lunar Hasselblads...

Thanks for the link.

I found these passages interesting:

Focus
The focusing system was similar to a lot of consumer compact cameras of the era. The f-stop was kept relatively high (the lowest being ƒ/5.6). Combined with the wide-angle lens (60 mm) this results in a relatively large depth of field (increasing with increasing f-stops). This meant the astronauts only had to get the focusing distance approximately right to get a sharp image. Instead of an infinitely variable focus ring, it was divided into three preset positions: near, medium and far...

So, focus should not have been a problem. There only needed to be three focus settings to get sharp images.

Framing
The 500 EL Data Cameras did not have a viewfinder, as the astronaut’s helmets restricted movement too much for it to be useful. Instead the lens was fitted with a simple sight that the astronauts used to point the camera in the right direction. This is of course not a very accurate method, so the astronauts were trained in pointing the camera all through the preparations for the mission. They would bring along cameras for simulations, take photographs and review them afterwards. The crew was even encouraged to bring along Hasselblad cameras on private trips to familiarize themselves with the equipment and perfect aiming the camera.

It sounds like aiming the camera was someth8ing they practiced quite extensively. With the proper practice, there is no reason to doubt that many good pictures could be taken.


[edit on 12/22/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by andrewh7

What would possibly make the photo roll up on its own?

I will say that the surface temperature is about 100C or 212F, normally if it's a platic cover, it will roll.
So I search on ATS, then google, no answer.

Did somebody know the answer ?

Originally posted by mixmix

They also confirm some basic facts:
- you don't have seeker.

The Zeiss Biogon lens gave the Hasselblad a field of view of ~57 degrees. Such a wide-angle is pretty forgiving of errors in aiming.

- camera is fixed on chest

The mounting was not rigid. The attachment point was a vertical bayonet on the front of the Remote Control Unit (RCU), and is visible in this side view and this front view. The camera had a vertical slot on the back, and the astronauts could easily slide it on and off of the bayonet. This 16mm film frame shows Buzz (on the left) holding the camera in his right hand and taking the famous series of photos of his boot print.

The RCU itself was not rigidly mounted to the front of the astronaut's chest. It hung from straps (also visible in the pictures). Looking at the entire roll, I see a lot of images that are tilted to the left. I think that Neil was grabbing the handle with his right hand and lifting slightly as he squeezed the trigger. This would cause the observed tilt.

- you can't look down through the helmet.

I would kind-of dispute this. In the side view photo above, you can see Aldrin's face, and it look to me like he should have a clear line-of-sight to where the camera would be if it were on his RCU bracket.




[edit on 22-12-2009 by Saint Exupery]

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Saint Exupery]

How many estimated stars are there?

And how many are in them pictures. Yup zero! None what so ever ! The pictures are blatently faked! how can you explain no stars in space?

he said there's no thrust crater under the Lem,i believe because of the height of the Lem i think the small crater if any is out of the frame in the near front,and he said there isn't any dust on the foot,but you can see the dust splatted out from a central point as though caused by the thruster.The astronauts trained taking photos by just point and click,and the photos could have been cropped if he thinks they are positioned to perfect for point and click.

reply to post by theflashor


The exposure times of the photos on the moon were not long enough to capture the faint light of stars.

When you see a photo from Earth with stars in it, the shutter is held open for quite a few seconds, even over a minute. A normal photo the shutter is only open for a fraction of a second.

OP you make some interesting points, some of which I think can be disputed, and some I don't have the technical expertise to question.

But my issue, is that you have said "categorically faked 100%" about the photos. That may be your belief, but you have left no room for error in your interpretation.

Maybe a better way would be to ask questions about the matter and then discuss, instead of a rigid statement which tends to have a knee jerk opposite reaction with some people. Particularly when you have based your opinion on so many assumptions and not facts.

Merely my 2 cents, but interesting subject matter.

Cheers

[edit on 22/12/0909 by Krusty the Klown]

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by aspx
why cant Hubble take direct pictures of the moon landing yet Hubble can see billion light years away

Its called GOOGLE - can you read that? Good, you might try use it before telling people here to F-off.

Hubble was not designed to take images of the moon - its not a big camera hanging around that can be pointed at the moon - its a specialised space telescope designed to photograph distant light.

The rest of your post is rather disgusting and I have reported it.

How did they fit that Big moon car into that Little lunar lander???

Ya know folks.. On this page of the same site ( click Next at bottom a few times) there is a discussion about the live tv footage from the moon.

www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...

Interestingly - It tells how Big tv cameras were in the 60's, they could not be portable and there could be No electricity for the cameras on the Moon.

"And it's strange that there is not one single "moon foto" showing a "moon astronaut" making films with a big TV camera."

"And how should be hold a radio communication over a distance of 380,000 km? A satellite has today about 300 km maximum distance from the Earth. When we admit 500 km maximum and would reinforce the radio signal from the moon to the Earth with satellites we would need a chain of 760 satellites to transmit the radio signal. Add to this the Earth is turning and all satellites would have to turn corresponding to the Earth's turn. So a radio communication from the moon to the Earth is not possible at all."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This whole site is great.. it brings out Lots of stuff like these Tv camera ideas I haven't heard before.



[edit on 23-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]

[edit on 23-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]

Originally posted by andrewh7
reply to post by mixmix

 

I can honestly say that it's very difficult to respect a "source" that is unable to correctly spell the word Photo. It calls into question everything this source states.

Your joking right? This was the 60's. Popular camera slang used the word foto all the time.

Also this was translated from another language into english. The translator could have taken this liberty in jest.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]

Transmissions from the moon were received by Earth based radio telescopes trained on the moon, not satellites.

The transmissions from the first moonwalk were received here in Australia live through a dish at Honeysuckle Creek.

The astronauts did not carry TV cameras, they carried still cameras and moving image film cameras. The TV images you are talking about were from cameras mounted on the LM.

Very limited footage was broadcast live, not all the iconic images we know of today.

No offence, but you need to brush up on your science and your history.

"Radio" range signals are received from space every day, they form the cosmic background radiation signals that produce the static on your radio and TV.

[edit on 23/12/0909 by Krusty the Klown]

[edit on 23/12/0909 by Krusty the Klown]

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
Transmissions from the moon were received up by Earth based radio telescopes trained on the moon, not satellites.

The transmissions from the first moonwalk were received here in Australia through a dish at Honesuckle Creek.

For a very good and funny movie on the above watch The Dish
www.imdb.com...

It is a good movie, the only discrepancy with it, is that the dish in the movie is based on the telescope in Parkes and not Honeysuckle Creek, which actually carried the real transmissions.

A totally different location in Oz.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown

No offence, but you need to brush up on your science and your history.

No offense, but you need better reading comprehension skills. I didn't say I agreed with they guy.. just that I hadn't heard those arguments before.