Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts

Originally posted by easynow


"this conversation can serve no purpose anymore"

Easynow,

I think he just wants to argue, but in order to do that we are going to need your thoughts and theories.

Your decision to not impart bias and engage in front-loading in your posts has put a damper on things.

Had you chose to do otherwise, this discussion could have borne fruits in the form of tedious argumentations. Damn you for sparing us that. Damn you.


edit:



[edit on 15-7-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


I guess you are being sarcastic, but what you write is very true. Without exchange of thoughts there is no discussion.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Without exchange of thoughts there is no discussion.

And no one else can make you type your thoughts.

So if someone posts a picture and people posts their thoughts but you don't because you would rather ask the picture poster about his thoughts then you are missing out, and could have used your time to contribute something of value to the more pertinent discussion at hand.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


But there isn't any discussion in the first place so there is nothing to miss out from. All I am trying is to initiate a discussion. But there isn't any interest in one so I will just move on.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by -PLB-]

reply to post by Exuberant1

I think he just wants to argue, but in order to do that we are going to need your thoughts and theories.

seemed that way didn't it,

i'll try and be more entertaining next time

Hi, I mentioned some anomalies with this photo back a couple of pages, but now another has surfaced.

I've created an animation to illustrate the point.

Considering 27 photos were taken between these frames, I find it amazing the sun and lens flare are just about identical between these photos 27 frames apart.

This means the astronaut would have had to replicate the exact conditions for both photos. I find this a little dubious as it's obvious the terrain is different, meaning his elevation etc has varied.

And of course the astronaut has moved location as the lander disappears. Quite the accomplishment.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5eeeb742340.gif[/atsimg]

Please check the source link below so you can see the 27 different shots between frames.

source: www.lpi.usra.edu...

The 2 frames are AS12-46-6739 and 6766

edit: I should add, even with a view finder, which they didn't have, trying to line up an identical shot like this would be extremely hard. This is a one in a million.

Unless, just unless, the sun and lens flare were added in later.

For the full high res originals, they are here ..
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 23-7-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


Someone actually dubbed you with a star for that?

Fan club of one?

>SIGH<

This is really starting to get annoying...you need to do some ACTUAL and REAL study, instead of this sort of crap...

...anyway, saying that two examples of lens flare are:

...just about identical between these photos 27 frames apart.

...is ridiculous. It's like saying someone is "almost pregnant".

They are NOT "identical"...otherwise, they would be ... errmmm ... "Identical," wouldn't they???

They are 'similar'....and not surprisingly so, because they are ONLY 27 FRAMES APART!!! A matter of a scant few minutes' time, between shots. The Sun's relative motion across the sky would be virtually nil, without equipment to measure its angle of change...just "eyeballing" it.

This means the astronaut would have had to replicate the exact conditions for both photos.

What? What, what??

:shk: Like I said this gets more ridiculous each time.

Like you said...the sun and lens flare are "just about" the same...close, but no cigar. ALL that means is the astronaut happened to have his camera oriented in almost the same angle in each photo.

Doubt very much he was trying to do that, it is co-incidence.

BESIDES!!! WHY wouild anyone (ahem) 'artifically add" the lens flare effects, and THEN do it on two negatives 27 frames apart, and not expect someone to 'notice'???

Therefore, this OTHER speculation on your part, is laughable:

Unless, just unless, the sun and lens flare were added in later.

Your logic fails, terribly. Is it your single-minded endeavour to make some sort of "name" for yourself? Ego-driven fantasy??

You base your ENTIRE 'claim' on mere assumptions, absent any facts....you have NO IDEA what you're talking about! It has been obvious since you've begun this fruitless "quest".

Believe me, it's been over FORTY years...better people than YOU have tried and failed..failed iserably, to find any discrepancies, or what you seem to hope...so-called "smoking gun" evidence of some falsification of ANY sort.

Even these examples are FROM THE SAME camera magazine!! You, yourself, indicate and accept that! The individual negatives weren't "switched around" by the astronauts!


This may not be the place, but have you considered professional advice? You might wish to inquire with your primary care physician.....

Originally posted by ppk55
Considering 27 photos were taken between these frames, I find it amazing the sun and lens flare are just about identical between these photos 27 frames apart.

I don't.

First of all, if the Sun is more or less in the same relative position then the result will be more or less the same, so we will get another lens flare that looks more or less like the previous one.

Also, the way you wrote it, it looks like those two photos are the only photos that show the Sun like that, but the truth is that there are 12 (I think) photos showing lens flare on that magazine, almost 8% of all the photos in the magazine, so I don't consider that amazing.

This means the astronaut would have had to replicate the exact conditions for both photos. I find this a little dubious as it's obvious the terrain is different, meaning his elevation etc has varied.

He just had to point the camera in the same way, and if you look at the photos you will see that most of them have the horizon at the same level, so it's not surprising that the Sun was also more or less at the same level.

edit: I should add, even with a view finder, which they didn't have, trying to line up an identical shot like this would be extremely hard. This is a one in a million.

It's easier than you think, it just takes a little practice, I have done that myself some times, but obviously with a common camera.

Edit: corrected a "the" to "there", as it should be.

[edit on 23/7/2010 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by ArMaP
First of all, if the Sun is more or less in the same relative position then the result will be more or less the same

Hi, it appears the sun moved from 7.6 to 8.4 degrees elevation between frames 6739 and 6751. I wonder what it was on frame 6766. Perhaps about 2 degrees.

Originally posted by ArMaP
the truth is that there are 12 (I think) photos showing lens flare on that magazine, almost 8% of all the photos in the magazine, so I don't consider that amazing.

There at least 20, and that is not what I find amazing. What I find amazing is how an astronaut without a viewfinder can match the sun and lens flare perfectly between 2 photos, 27 frames apart, and taken from a different location.

Originally posted by ArMaP
He just had to point the camera in the same way, and if you look at the photos you will see that most of them have the horizon at the same level, so it's not surprising that the Sun was also more or less at the same level.

If you look at the compiled pans from nasa regarding these images, you can clearly see every photo had to be repositioned up or down to create a level horizon.

This means the astronaut did not take even one of them with the horizon at the same level as the previous frame.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/55eb4a18b8a5.jpg[/atsimg]

Also consider that before taking the 2nd photo with the replica sun and lens flare, Conrad went for a little walk.

From nasa lunar surface journal
116:26:05 Conrad: I'm going to head down into the crater a little bit for this set of pans...Whoops, (garbled)

116:26:14 Bean: Watch yourself; it's easy to slide.

As Pete mentioned at 116:26:05, he walked a short way down into Surveyor Crater to take his 8 o'clock pan.

So ... considering the sun changed position, none of the photos were taken with a level horizon, and the astronaut headed down into a crater for the final photo ...

How could he snap 2 photos with an identical sun position and lens flare ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5eeeb742340.gif[/atsimg]

sources:
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

edit: more sources

The 2 frames are AS12-46-6739 and 6766
www.lpi.usra.edu...
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 24-7-2010 by ppk55]

Originally posted by ppk55
If you look at the compiled pans from nasa regarding these images, you can clearly see every photo had to be repositioned up or down to create a level horizon.

I know, I have tried to make some panoramas myself.

This means the astronaut did not take even one of them with the horizon at the same level as the previous frame.

Having two consecutive photos with the horizon at the same level is less likely than having two separate photos with the horizon at the same level.

Imagine this situation: you are on a beach, looking at a sunset over the sea. Behind you, in the distance, are some hills. You took a series of photos to create a panorama, and in one of those you have the Sun in a specific position. After that you move to another area, climbing a little of one of those hills opposite to the Sun, and take another series of photos. As is natural for humans you stand as vertical as possible, so when you take another photo of the horizon it has a strong chance of being at the same height in the frame as in the other photos. What may be more difficult is to have the Sun in the exact same direction (horizontally) in the frame, but looking at the far away horizon, without any reference except the Sun, it's highly likely that you, even unaware of it, use the Sun as a marker to start your series of photos, on both occasions, so the probability of having the Sun in exactly the same position is not as unlikely as it may look at first.

How could he snap 2 photos with an identical sun position and lens flare ?

You should never underestimate the possibility of a coincidence, they do happen, with a higher frequency than most people acknowledge.

reply to post by ppk55

Hi, it appears the sun moved from 7.6 to 8.4 degrees elevation between frames 6739 and 6751. I wonder what it was on frame 6766. Perhaps about 2 degrees.

How did you determine this figure?

Originally posted by ppk55

How could he snap 2 photos with an identical sun position and lens flare ?

[edit on 24-7-2010 by ppk55]

Walk 100 meters forward?




[edit on 24-7-2010 by cushycrux]

Originally posted by cushycrux
Walk 100 meters forward?

Don't forget .. down a crater .. kind of important.

Also, from personal experience, if you move just 1 degree left or right the entire lens flare angle changes. That's the nature of lens flare. It's an amplified result.

If you look at the tiny little lens flare spot beneath the sun, you will notice this doesn't move even one nanometre. (See above animation)

I'm all for coincidence, but in this case I think the sun and lens flare was added in later.

edit for djw re sun angles .. check the sources listed above

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55



The operative words, below, are "I think"...

I'm all for coincidence, but in this case I think the sun and lens flare was added in later.

...however, I don't think you're "thinking" at all!

WHY would it be deemed necessary to "add in" the sun flares???

Makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

It is really mind-boggling, this obsession you seem to carry.... :shk:

Ya know....the original negatives still exist, in storage. THEY cannot have been "altered" in this manner. Your "thinking" is seriously flawed......

reply to post by weedwhacker


Ok let's make it clearer... the 'sun' and lens flare WERE added in later.

Have you looked at the tiny, tiny lens flare spot just beneath the sun?
(see above)

I'm sorry but there is no chance in hell you could line up this tiny, tiny spot, 27 frames later without a viewfinder. It's absolutely impossible.

Do you see the tiny lens flare just beneath the 'sun' ? The one almost attached.
Do you realise how hard it would be to replicate that exactly 27 photos apart ?

It doesn't move even one nanometre. Coincindence ??

edit: changed sun to 'sun'

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


??? "nanometre"? You do know what that word means, right? Oh, just hyperbole....

It doesn't move even one nanometre.

I see it move quite a bit, in your .gif animation example.

Coincindence ??

Yes. Partly, also when you consider the camera was likely, in BOTH cases, still mounted onthe Astronaut's chest mount...all he needed do was adopt the same natural stance each time (the suit, when you "relaxed" inside it, would go to a default shape) and, by judging the angle of the Sun, as viewed from within his helmet and visor, he could pretty accurately recreate the same angle.

Though, probably not his intention, in this case...just a chance coincidence. Nothing more.

(It is highly likely that, viewed from within the helmet, the Sun was blocked, or just at the edge, of his visor's viewing angle. He could have intentionally placed the Sun right at the edge, so it shielded his eyes...but the camera lens would not have that shielding. Any number of possibilities exist...)

Pretend your head is inside a helmet. Look at photos of the EVA suits, for examples.

Try putting on a Scuba mask, as an example too.....





[edit on 26 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by ppk55
Have you looked at the tiny, tiny lens flare spot just beneath the sun?
(see above)

I'm sorry but there is no chance in hell you could line up this tiny, tiny spot, 27 frames later without a viewfinder. It's absolutely impossible.

It changes position relative to the sun, it is non-identical. There's nothing impossible about it.

It doesn't move even one nanometre. Coincindence ??

A nanometer is not even a relevant metric for this image and yes it does move.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


Ok let's make this really simple.

Look at the tiny lens flare beneath the sun.

No, not the sun, the tiny lens flare beneath the sun.

Now ask yourself ... if you went outside and took a photo of the sun... then walked into a crater ... and tried to take the EXACT same photo of the sun including lens flare (27 photos later.) Could you line up that tiny little dot just beneath the sun?

Oh, I forgot to mention, you didn't even have a viewfinder. So what are the chances you could lineup that tiny little spot beneath the 'sun' ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5eeeb742340.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by ppk55
Now ask yourself ... if you went outside and took a photo of the sun... then walked into a crater ... and tried to take the EXACT same photo of the sun including lens flare (27 photos later.) Could you line up that tiny little dot just beneath the sun?

It's not in the exact same spot, in fact the whole chain of the lens flare changes between the two pictures; your claim is a lie. There is no reason at all to claim that they were added in later.

Oh, I forgot to mention, you didn't even have a viewfinder. So what are the chances you could lineup that tiny little spot beneath the 'sun' ?

Pretty good; the cameras were chest mountable and you're not going to get parallax with respect to the sun from stepping into a crater. Just stand up straight when taking both pictures.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ppk55


edit....double, double post exposure!

[edit on 26 July 2010 by weedwhacker]