Who took this photo on the moon ?

I am probably going to hate my self for posting this but as I was searching for visor reflections I came across two images which contain what appears to be a big honking search light (light source?) among Apollo 11 EVA training photos. It may have been covered before but since "sets" and "lighting" were recently discussed, I felt it relevant. (Other images show it in background. Also some interesting lighting variations. A few even show movie cameramen probably shooting training / archival footage.)

CHRLZ please don't tase me bro.

located here: www.apolloarchive.com...

(Image S69-31167HR + S69-31196HR )


(On trailer with tarp?)



They are quite large to facilitate zoom in.

Probably a logical explanation but in the spirit of Gen Patton: “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.”

[edit on 29-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by kinda kurious
I am probably going to hate my self for posting this

No self-loathing is permitted here - refer to the T&C.

Although this stuff is drifting a bit off topic... and here I go, helping it along.. shame on me.

...I came across two images which contain what appears to be a big honking search light (light source?) among Apollo 11 EVA training photos.

And I think that is pretty much exactly what it is. I also *think* it may have been intended to experiment with the effects of low sunlight angles in the EVA simulations - but I'm no expert on this aspect of Apollo. If it *was* used for that, it clearly wasn't enough. The astronauts in post mission briefings commented several times on the lighting conditions during the EVA's being 'problematic'.

It may have been covered before but since "sets" and "lighting" were recently discussed, I felt it relevant.

Maybe not to the thread topic, but it's a nice find.

CHRLZ please don't tase me bro.

No tasin' here, mate. It's a good find. You've hopefully noticed that I only tase those who barge in claiming to be experts, and post stuff that clearly shows the exact reverse.

You, however..? Ya post interesting stuff, ask questions, listen, and use the old noggin... Nice to see you are setting an example for others to follow (if only...)

Getting back to the floodlight - if you are doing EVA sims on Earth, then you'd hope they would try to emulate the likely conditions as best they could. Hence a big floodlight to emulate the low sun would be a wise thing to do.

But if you want to extrapolate that and say they used that sort of device for hoaxing the mission, you'll run into *big* problems. The main one being a really simple effect - 'penumbra'. Even if the floodlight was way over the other side of a huge warehouse, it still doesn't compare to the Sun's almost parallel rays and tiny angular size.. A flood will cause clearly visible penumbral effects, ie defined lighter 'edges' around the shadows. The sun does not (well, that's not entirely true, but it's near enough). You can even use the penumbral effects to determine the angular size of the object putting out the light... Every shadow in every single Apollo surface shot shows the lack of penumbra that can only come from sunlight.

Definitely not floodlighting. Anyway, I'm getting distracted.. I need to get back to the image analysis. I *haven't* forgotten...

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
Whilst I agree on some of it the main point is incorrect.

No, it is not.

So if I look at his helmet face full on you will see in the reflection both sides of my face but if I'm looking at an angle it cannot possibly show both sides of the face as it can't see them.

This is correct.

So what we have in the photo is a man standing at an angle that is not straight on to the visor

This is correct.

and since his camera has to be pointed at the visor

This is INCORRECT.

The camera CANNOT possibly be pointing DIRECTLY at the visor as THE VISOR IS NOT CENTERED in the picture.

Look at the photo again.
It is a perfect square. In the center of the square is the tripod. As pointed out, the camera is chest mounted, therefore the photographer MUST be facing directly at the TRIPOD. The astronaut is to the left of center. Therefore, the left shoulder of the photographer is closest to the astronaut. As mirrors reverse images seen in them, the photographer should appear in the visor as if his right shoulder were closest to the astronaut. Which it does.






[edit on 29-4-2010 by GuyverUnit I]

I think this will help.
Is it self explanatory or does it need commentary?







[edit on 29-4-2010 by GuyverUnit I]

Originally posted by GuyverUnit I
the camera is chest mounted, therefore the photographer MUST be facing directly at the TRIPOD

This is potentially INCORRECT.
And you really should read back a little more before posting from the hip, or take the time to educate yourself on the nature of the camera and chest mount. The camera was ABLE to be used on a chest mount, but it was also ABLE to be easily removed, and was handheld for some shots.

So your conclusion is not necessarily right, unless you have information that for this image, the camera was in fact mounted on his chest. Do you?

It COULD have been, but at this point we don't know that - so if you have some evidence, perhaps relevant video footage - please post it.

(Now, I'm sorta pre-empting a very important aspect of this image that I will be raising later in a lot more detail, but, never mind...)

There is also the VITAL issue that although the photographer astronaut's camera must have been facing the centre of the IMAGE, he is NOT being *reflected* from the centre of the image. The visor+reflection is obviously right up at the extreme top left of the image. Also, he was quite nearby (the curved visor exaggerates his distance), so perspective comes into play.

So the reflected image that you see is obviously coming from a very significant angle - the visor is 'seeing' the astronaut from that angle - definitely NOT straight on.

I'm going to come back to this later with some examples of what I mean, (indeed, you could experiment with this issue using one of those little stick-on convex car mirrors.. but I hope this gives some food for thought, and begins to explain what is happening to make the PLSS hard to see..

FTR, having now looked at this in some detail, I do believe that the astronaut IS close to straight on, BUT ONLY RELATIVE to the image frame, NOT his reflection

(So the camera may well be chest mounted!! - aren't I a hypocrite..)

He can indeed be straight on to the image frame, that doesn't mean he is straight on to any curved reflection that is not centred!!

Think about it.


More later, sorry to tease..

Originally posted by webpirate
Yeah, and it seems to be the wrong angle too if the camera is mounted on his chest....very weird. Nice find

No it's not the wrong angle.

Those Hasseblad cameras are chest mounted but they have a wide field of view.

The two cameras they had (LM2) were equipped with 60-millimeter focal length lenses; the other had a high-resolution 500-millimeter lens (LM1). These cameras were battery powered, semiautomatic, and, for most operations, attached to the astronauts' pressure suits at chest height.

I am not sure if you are in to photography, but it is well within range to take a picture like that as the 60 mil has a wide field of view. (if you have ever taken pictures with a standard 50 mill camera, at about 20 feet away, you can get a pretty detailed picture. I don't see why there is any confusion, unless you are looking for mysteries, where there are none.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

A few other points. I am not sure if you are trying to infer that this is not a moon shot or this wasn't taken on the moon, or we didn't land on the moon, but then explain where the 200 lbs of moon rock came from, that any scientist can request and do studies on?? Where did it come from?

Anyone who does scientific study on the moon knows this fact.
news.therecord.com...


Also explain this. If any of you are in to amateur astronomy, you know we stuck a mirror on the moon.

science.nasa.gov...

You can bounce a laser off the moon mirror and by monitoring it, you can tell exactly how far the moon is drifting away. Explain how the moon mirror got there, if we didn't visit the moon

So I am not too sure, what you are trying to get at with this question.

My suggestion to most of the questions on this forum, is .... its not bad to ask questions. Its the bane of human existence to ask WHY??

But you need to do the research first. Just looking in to an issue without understanding the science behind it, you will find conspiracies in everything.

To even infer we didn't go to the moon or this picture wasn't taken on the moon, you need to have a base in mathematics, or photography, or even a base in knowing all you can about the apollo missions. Which bases have you studied???

If you don't start with a solid base, you can find a conspiracy in everything.

There are too many David Koreshs' in this world. Why add yourself to this list???

Study and use occams razor as your guide, then decide what you want to assume. Not the other way around.

Good luck

Originally posted by ppk55
Only 2 people landed on moon via Apollo 17.....

history.nasa.gov...

Their cameras were chest mounted, fixed, no viewfinder Hassleblad cameras.
So if the guy in the vest (in the reflection) was looking straight ahead, who took the photo ?

Simple solution: They carried the cameras on their chests, but that doesn't mean they had to stay there. Probably took it off, put it on a tripod and hit the button.

I don't think you've got any mystery here.

Originally posted by GuyverUnit I

I think this will help. Is it self explanatory or does it need commentary?

Very nice work! I'm a 'visual' person. That required some effort beyond just typing. Somehow a single star isn't enough.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/efb2e2ceddf8.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 30-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

the way they took a picutre of them both with out another person its called a camera tripod.

reply to post by ppk55


There were several fixed camera mounts on the lander. It really amazes me sometimes. Apollo 13 was being tracked by Amateur astronomers by telescope when it blew the side panels. On track to the Moon. All the thousands of people involved and still some folks want to make it a movie lot program with pictures we would have trouble faking with software we use today. And still nobody talks??? We are talking about people here right? With papers that would pay big bucks for proof, right? And still nobody talks??? As stupid as our government is? Right!



[edit on 2-5-2010 by DavidDCSA]

Originally posted by DavidDCSA
There were several fixed camera mounts on the lander. It really amazes me sometimes.

Yes there was a camera on the lander, the only problem was the lander was quite a long way away. Also, I don't think it was a stills camera, it was a TV camera or a 16mm film camera.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7db6dd072264.gif[/atsimg]

Regardless, the photo in question was taken by Schmitt with a stills camera according to NASA.

If you want to check it out ... here's the link to the tech details of the photo.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

So how did the astronaut in this pic take THIS photo ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d82b360b43f7.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55

Isn't this what we've been discussing? You just reposted a close-up of one section of the photograph. It was taken by the astronaut in the reflection. There's been page after page of proof of that. Just scroll up to the diagram above.


[edit on 3-5-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ppk55

 

You can see his backpack look at his shadow in the helmet reflection!!!

Looks like something on his chest as well look at shadow!!

Hardluck guys Photography is a blackart to some on here.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by wmd_2008]

So if you look at the in-frame astronaut and the size of his pack, you can see it extends well beyond his shoulders ( it's unmistakably large). When you look at the reflected astronaut, he has NO PACK! Yet somehow his shadow does. And before anyone say " he was turned at an angle, and you could not see the pack", I say, go try on a large backpack at an outdoor/sporting goods store, then check yourself in one of the stores mirror. See if ther is an angle where the pack magically disappears and report back to the group. If your lucky, the store might even have a fisheye lens, try that too.

In my eyes, at minimum, the original photo has been airbrushed, enhanced, manipulated, or whatever the current term is for it now.

reply to post by oldmeatwad


You just skipped over the entire thread, didn't you? Go back and read through the whole thing. We discuss convex mirror reflections, grayscale, emulsion and scanning resolution, etc.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by oldmeatwad

 

You just skipped over the entire thread, didn't you? Go back and read through the whole thing. We discuss convex mirror reflections, grayscale, emulsion and scanning resolution, etc.

Must have missed it - what page?

Must have missed it - what page?

Here:

posted on 26-4-2010 @ 02:41 AM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:

OK, my analysis begins.

I'm going to go through this very slowly, step by step, probably dragging it on (interminably) over several days. Why?

Simply to give the opportunity for anyone to add, debate or object to each step of the process. And I won't proceed until there is general agreement - although if anyone argues points without demonstrating a correct alternative approach, or who uses non-repeatable methods or cannot cite credible references.. I'm afraid I won't be taking that too seriously.


First of all, let's clarify the 'Conundrum'.


In the NASA Apollo image AS17-141-21608, taken during the Apollo 17 mission on a Hasselblad 70mm still film camera fitted with Zeiss Distagon 60mm lens and loaded with Kodak 3401 Plus-XX black and white film, there is (according to Nasa) a reflection in astronaut Eugene A. Cernan's visor showing Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, who took the photo. The reflection *appears* to show Schmitt angled away somewhat from the scene, and does not clearly show his PLSS (backpack) - although the shadow does appear to show a backpack.

The full image is linked here as a high resolution film scan:

history.nasa.gov...

The area in question is near the top left. That is the highest resolution scan found to date.

Here is the area in question, at ACTUAL pixel size:



Here it is again, enlarged using no interpolation, showing the actual scanned pixels clearly:



NOTES
=====

1. Any other enlargements shown on this thread that do NOT have this pixelated quality, have been generated by software that uses interpolation routines. Interpolation, by definition, means that the program has 'guessed' the added pixels, and smoothed out the image. Such added detail is NOT valid data, and cannot be used for valid image analysis or forensics.

The ONLY way to extract more detail from the original film image would be to rescan it at higher resolution. However, the image is already showing film grain along with blurring, either from a focus error, camera movement, or lens aberrations. So it is most unlikely that rescanning at a higher resolution would add any useful information.

2. The reflected astronaut figure is quite unclear and appears to be approximately 55-59 pixels high (more about this later) and 17-22 pixels wide. It is not possible to clearly resolve or identify details on the astronaut that would be below aproximately 3-4" (75-100mm) actual size.

3. It is evident that parts of the astronaut are at or below the same brightness level as the background lunar regolith.
The regolith has greyscale values of approximately 110-120, but reaches >150 in some places.
The astronaut's greyscale values range from ~70 (shadowed areas of legs/boot) up to ~180 (sunlit helmet).


Thus endeth part 1. To be continued...

Informed and educated comments, and constructive criticism most welcome. I'm most happy to be corrected by those better informed than me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are additional posts throughout the thread.

reply to post by oldmeatwad


Here is another view of Cernan from the front: AS17-140-21391

Note that the only corner of the backpack showing is mainly visible because of the contrast between the shadowed front of the pack and the sunlight mountain in the background.

Here is the same photo, reduced in size until the image of Cernan is only 50-60 pixels tall:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a069629290b.jpg[/atsimg]

Note that, even with the more favorable contrast and without the convex distortion and other imperfections caused by the reflection, the backpack is nearly impossible to resolve.

A mounted camera is the only possibility besides a third party,
there is no way the reflected man is the photographer, and i
cant beleive the lengths some have gone to inorder to prove
otherwise. Also there is no way the reflected person has any
equipment on his back. The shadow he casts is correct in
relation to his direction and direction of light, it is his left arm
by his side that looks like a shadow of something on his back
and his right arm is pointing in the direction of the tripod.
Those that think a convex reflection can somehow turn ones
shadow but not their body need a little help.

reply to post by lestweforget


Have you actually read the thread? Do you understand why that close-up of the helmet in the post before yours is irrelevant? The OP cropped the photo in order to create the illusion that the reflection was wrong.