Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts

reply to post by ppk55

edit: can anyone at all find one apollo photo from the surface, taken by the astronauts on any mission that looks anything like the shot from the probe ??

Is this the sort of thing you have in mind?

history.nasa.gov...

It's funny how lighting angle can change the appearance of things.

reply to post by ppk55


Firstly, the explanation link you posted does nothing except EXPLAIN how two people can think they're looking at he same distant terrain feature (call it 'mountain', or 'hill', whatever) and without distinctive, obvious identifiable differences, they might each be referencing something else.

Misidentification of mostly featureless terrain in the distance, on an alien planet, with none of the usually encountered visual cues, like on Earth, to estimate distance....this proves WHAT, exactly??


NOW, the probe photos from 1966 versus the EVA photos?

It's been pointed out to you, repeatedly. Look at the shadows. They indicate the Sun's postion relative to the horizon, at the time of each picture.

With a more oblique angle of sunlight, more detail will be shown. Not to mention, variations in exposure settings, and camera design.

ANOTHER thing to remember, about film cameras especially, is something called Depth of Field. Know it?

A combination of lens type (focal length), aperture setting and shutter speed all combine to alter the sharpness of backgrounds (or, conversely, foregrounds) depending on whether you are focusing on the back- or foreground. The advent of "Point-And-Shoot" type cameras use an overall averaging, in order to make them more versatile. This will result in less detail, in background usually.

As to the Hasselblads, you'll have to research more into them, and ask those who are more expert in photography...my knowledge is just basic, as outlined above.

BTW, to get the best DoF, one needs the smallest aperture possible, given the available light and exposure setting...lower light, means longer exposure times, for a given aperture size. SO, fo rinstance, in phtographing miniatures, best results are with LONG shutter times, which means some sort of fixture, like a tripod, to prevent blurring from camera shake....the Astronauts' Hassies were designed to be a sort of adaptable "Point-And-Shoot" -- user-adjustable, but only in limited ways, not like could be done in a studio, by a professionl, with full equipment and accessories....

Originally posted by DJW001
BTW, which mountains are those in the Orbiter photo that you cropped? It would be nice to see that enlargement in its original context. After all, we have no way of comparing the scale of the two images, do we?

It's from Springer's thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's a few more to check out there as well.
It's Copernicus.

I would appreciate it if you could find one surface photo that matches the detail of the probe photo above ? Because I can't.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55

It's Copernicus.

But surely Copernicus is a crater? A deep, steep, rayed crater. So you're asking why mountains seen from the surface look different from a crater seen from orbit.

Originally posted by DJW001
But surely Copernicus is a crater?

Yes it is, and they landed right near another one.

The Apollo 17 landing site is in a spectacular location called The Valley of Taurus-Littrow on the southeastern edge of the Sea of Serenity (Mare Serenitatis). Sometime about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago, a mountain-sized asteroid or comet hit the Moon and blasted out a basin nearly seven hundred kilometers in diameter. Around the rim of Serenitatis, great blocks of rock were pushed out and up, forming a ring of mountains. NASA

So those 'mountains' the astronauts described could have been just that. Before NASA decided to change what they described. See above post.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a17d4f85ed24.jpg[/atsimg]

Also, djw, could you please find an image that's not a closeup and something that just slightly resembles the probe image above.

reply to post by ppk55


I admit, I am puzzled at your intransigence here....

Your very own posted images, in comparison, show that ONE is taken at altitude (~49 km) whilst the other is taken from ground level, yes??


Can you not see how (leaving aside, for the moment, that the vistas shown aren't EVEN THE SAME AREA!) ...you are not evenmaking a vlaid comparison, at all....

It's as if....I used google earth and chose a mountain range in Australia, got a street-view angle and looked at the image...then flew past Ayer's Rock, on another day, another time, at altitude, took a picture, and compared the two!

reply to post by weedwhacker


All I'm asking for is one image that provides the same detail as the probe image above. The astronauts supposedly took 6000 images, so surely just one could provide as much detail in the background.

reply to post by ppk55

It's amazing what lighting can do. When the Sun is high you don't see much detail, when its' low, you do.

www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...



[edit on 6/22/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by ppk55

Also, djw, could you please find an image that's not a closeup and something that just slightly resembles the probe image above.

Do you mean something taken with a telephoto lens so that the depth of field jumbles everything together like the Orbiter photo? Or just something that shows the same texture, like this:

history.nasa.gov...

Your examples are comparing apples and oranges. Different terrain, different focal lengths. Incidentally, what makes you think the photos are "close ups?" How can you determine the distance and scale of anything on the airless, visually chaotic lunar surface?

reply to post by Phage


Guess the astronauts on all 6 lunar surface missions just lucked out with the lighting huh. Not one photo that resembles the probe photo above?

What a bummer to return home from all 6 missions with worse photos than a crappy probe years earlier could take.

reply to post by ppk55


Maybe it will sink in if you look at how images taken HERE on Earth can vary greatly...just two (you can look for more, on your own, to aid in understanding):

Just so we understand the topography, this is the area shown in the Orbiter photo. It is taken at a low angle:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The terrain is clearly very uneven, quite dramatic, in fact.

This is the area the Apollo astronauts landed in. Notice how placid it seems in comparison:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

It's as though you put a picture of low, rounded, tree covered Green Mountain next to a picture of towering, jagged snow covered Mount Everest and claimed one of them must "faked."

reply to post by ppk55


You don't see detail in the Apollo 15 images? Perhaps it's a case of only seeing what you want to see or maybe it's a matter of opinion. I think the images returned by Apollo are great. But since only two of the missions landed near any mountains, that's what we get.


Oh, I see, you expect all the terrain on the Moon to look alike. Kind of like it does on Earth. I understand your disappointment.

[edit on 6/22/2010 by Phage]

I like this one!! From the Apollo 15 mission.

The question is though, how the vehicle got there, cause there are no tracks on the ground.. Neither in front nor in the back..

reply to post by Hellas


Well, you could help yourself (and everyone) by following some of the links in this post.

Once you determine the photo number, and magazine it came from, you can research it through the LSJ information, and find out a lot....

[edit on 22 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Hellas

That's a terrible version of the image.
Here's a better one.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

And here's the part of the panorama immediately to the left. You can see the tracks behind the rover.
www.hq.nasa.gov...


[edit on 6/22/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Hellas
I like this one!! From the Apollo 15 mission.

The question is though, how the vehicle got there, cause there are no tracks on the ground.. Neither in front nor in the back..

Thanks Hellas ! This photo is of the most amazing quality I've seen.
4MB. Wow. Good find !

And you're right, there are no rover tracks. What the ?

Have you got any more ?

[edit on 23-6-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


ppk....did you ignore Phage??

Do you not understand WHY the tracks may, or may not, be easily visible, depending on angle?? Height of camera, relative to the slope of the ground, and proximity, etc, etc...?

FWIW....IF you look at the wider photo, to include the panorama, you can see tracks in the distance, since they show up due to the way the terrain lays...

Edit... Tell me that these trucks aren't in dirt, and should leave easily visible tracks?? (Oh, and the trucks WEIGH a heckuva lot more than the LRV, too...so should leave deeper impressions):





[edit on 23 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Phage

I think the images returned by Apollo are great. But since only two of the missions landed near any mountains, that's what we get.

Absolutely, the images of Apollo are amazing!

No matter what anyone says they keep me busy day after day.

reply to post by Hellas

The question is though, how the vehicle got there, cause there are no tracks on the ground.. Neither in front nor in the back.

Imagine being in the bulky hard-suit the moon fairing astronauts were in on the surface. When the rover stopped and they disembarked the LRV The walked around the rover, kicking up the dust and moon dirt disturbing the tracks.

It isn't like being on earth at all, they had tough times navigating the suits and the terrain, just watch the videos showing the astronauts falling as they walked around.

No tracks? Right, easy to refute, they stopped the tracks to death with their feet!