Skull found on Apollo 11 Photograph

reply to post by guyfrom2007


I missed this question, it's easy enough to answer:

Originally posted by guyfrom2007

Why does the earth look so small from the moon as compared to the size on the moon seen from earth, when the earth is many times larger than the moon.

It is the lens focal length that were used. YOU are only seeing the Earth, relative to the rest of what's in the photo, by viewing a photo taken with various cameras and a variety of lenses. IF you were there, yourself, and looking at Earth with the naked eye, then it would look larger than the Moon does, from here.


Look at this:

Lens Focal Length Comparison

Some important observation I have made in the pictures i have seen so far are as follows:

1. Only some of the pictures have stars in the background sky.
2. There has been quite a lot of diffing / sledging at various places.
3. A blue orb / star in the Apollo 11 pictures not observed so far in the Apollo 17 pictures.
4. Relative small size of the Earth in the 12 o clock position.
5. The Sun flashes down on the module but the rest of the sky is dark.

Hope to add to this list.

WHY is this still being discussed?

Really. . cmon.

reply to post by ProudBird


I understand Focusing of the Camera lens. Yet, in the snap that I observed and posted, the module is of normal and in background to that is the earth in the 12'0 clock position or near about that.

So if the focus was as you mentioned, the other background images should also appear smaller.

I am not an expert her but just making a point.

reply to post by guyfrom2007

1. Only some of the pictures have stars in the background sky.

Understand photography, apertures, exposure settings and ambient lighting conditions, and you will understand this. Easy to prove to yourself, with your own camera. Pick a very clear night, with the bright Moon out. Set your camera exposure to take a picture of the Moon. Then, look at the picture....and see if any stars show up.

There are other ways......go to a brightly lit field at night. Set the exposure on the camera so you will get good pictures under those lights. Then, step out of the lights, don't change the camera settings, and take a picture of the stars. You will NOT see them in the finished photo.

2. There has been quite a lot of diffing / sledging at various places.

? Have no idea what that means.

3. A blue orb / star in the Apollo 11 pictures not observed so far in the Apollo 17 pictures.

Those are not actually there....they are optical effects of the lens, and lighting angles.

4. Relative small size of the Earth in the 12 o clock position.

Relative size explained....lens focal lengths.

5. The Sun flashes down on the module but the rest of the sky is dark.

?? The "sky" is a vacuum. What else would it look like???

reply to post by guyfrom2007


"Focal length" and "focus" are not the same thing. Maybe if you had some classes on photography, it would be easier to understand.

Problem today is, too few people have ever had any hands-on experience with SLR cameras, or any camera with interchangeable lenses, and have no experience with anything but "point-and-shoot", and even worse....ALL they have ever used is a digital camera, and always set to "Automatic".... Sigh......

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by guyfrom2007

 

1. Only some of the pictures have stars in the background sky.

Understand photography, apertures, exposure settings and ambient lighting conditions, and you will understand this. Easy to prove to yourself, with your own camera. Pick a very clear night, with the bright Moon out. Set your camera exposure to take a picture of the Moon. Then, look at the picture....and see if any stars show up.

There are other ways......go to a brightly lit field at night. Set the exposure on the camera so you will get good pictures under those lights. Then, step out of the lights, don't change the camera settings, and take a picture of the stars. You will NOT see them in the finished photo.

I can understand that. But if there are two pictures of the same spot and the resolution is the same, if one picture has stars the other should also have.

2. There has been quite a lot of diffing / sledging at various places.

? Have no idea what that means.

Sorry. I mean't digging as if to destroy evidence.

3. A blue orb / star in the Apollo 11 pictures not observed so far in the Apollo 17 pictures.

Those are not actually there....they are optical effects of the lens, and lighting angles.

These are there in different pictures in the same location and sometimes in different.

4. Relative small size of the Earth in the 12 o clock position.

Relative size explained....lens focal lengths.

That way the background size should also reduce.

5. The Sun flashes down on the module but the rest of the sky is dark.

?? The "sky" is a vacuum. What else would it look like???

Yet there are pictures where the sky is bright when the sun shines down and in other pictures it is focusing light in a particular spot. I

reply to post by guyfrom2007


Because they are different pictures, taken at different times...how old are you...

You've had the same things explained to you over and over again. You are either too young to comprehend what is being told to you...or, you are laughing your azz off, seeing how many pages you can push this thread to.

Neither says anything good about you.

In one picture, there are two large rocks with sort of cave like entrance.







Both the rocks are from the same location and picture.

reply to post by guyfrom2007

Yet there are pictures where the sky is bright when the sun shines down ....

You are seeing glare, from the lens!!!

Really....there cannot be a person alive who is rational who does not understand this concept.

reply to post by guyfrom2007


Now you claim a "cave", on a rock that is the size of a loaf of bread (if that large)??

OK, it's official.

I suggest this thread should R.I.P.

Don't be to harsh on our rock discoverer, perhaps he just missed out on all the rock craze in the 70's, and is just trying to capture the excitement of finding the perfect rock, happily existing amongst friendly confides of days past.



Perhaps the discovery of a whole community of shy rocks trying to conceal their menial community foundations they didn't want spoiled by outsiders.



Or perhaps one just wishes what mystical powers one could gain by owning their own rock of the moon.



Of us who were around during the release of such cherished rocks brings warm fond memories back to us. Do you remember when you got your first rock?


Well I sure do, we connected with the rocks, we gave them persona.


We found it comforting to raise rock families.


To give them significance.


Mystery.


And intrigue.


We often wondered if our own rock was native, or extraterrestrial in origin.


We tried to understand them as a life form.


We found creative uses for our pet rocks.


And also found some of the rock's limitations.


And we were appalled at the IMITATIONS.


But we powered on to classify the different rock races and their natural abilities to hold firm to their commitments.


Yes we had stray rocks amongst the bunches.


"But he's just a Kid". We forgave them for their shortcomings.


But hey, she at least choose a Fender. But back to my rock story, we so entrenched ourselves in rock that meant everything to us for a while it seems.


Such a noble and lasting tribute to lost loved ones rocks serve.


So don't lose all hope that you missed having your very own pet rock.



There is always hope that someday the perfect rock will be stumbled upon by one when one least's expects it.



Nah, next week kids we will analyze the Magic 8-Ball, Outlook, not so good.

Even Q is disappointed, and that says a LOT coming from the omnipotent prankster he is.


Good lord, OP. Pareidolia, ever heard of it? They're rocks. The depressions, wear, light & shadows--are just that. Just because the dang thing can resemble something humanoid doesn't mean it is something humanoid.

reply to post by Illustronic



See there nothing wrong with theads like this
It has unleashed your creative genius:-)
This is top top stuff;-)

reply to post by guyfrom2007


Have a look at the link below this shows the effect focal length of a lens can have on what you see.
Its a gif of a series of pictures, the photographer has changed lenses, focal length used from 24-840mm
Look at the buildings in the background do you think they.

1) Start to suddenly grow

2) Get up and move themselves closer to the photographer.

The Earth in the moon pics is the correct size for the focal length used.

plus.google.com...

As for your rocks with caves YOU have heard of shadows

I am not going to reply to some of the boisterous comments on this thread and just ignore them as they have no better work to do than reflect their own stupidities on other threads.

Anyway, my job here is to analyze and post pictures that have some interesting features and some of them or even all of them might be nothing more than rocks with imaginary features or shadows and some of them may have plausible technical explanations and i welcome those from those who comment.

Not everyone who is on ATS have a technical education or even the basic knowledge and these explanations will certainly benefit them including myself.

Having said all this, I keep an open mind and keep searching in the pictures i analyze and post those which I feel merit closer scrutiny.

If I have posted one picture here, there are ten others which I haven't as they do not meet the curiosity quotient that I have defined and I have simply marked them as strange for more detailed analysis later.

And I have ignored those pictures that seem interesting but are of low resolution.

I am going to post a link here now that made me start this thread and I am just looking for the smoking gun.

map.nasa.gov...

I do not know what this message means. Again I leave it for people to read.

Thanks

not sure about the skull but the complete absence of a blast crater or ANY type of blast from the exhaust is 100%

Not there!

Despite the feet-print and the drag marks indicating there's at least 1-2" of dust with 25 feet of the exhaust..

anways..

Originally posted by guyfrom2007
reply to post by ProudBird

 

If you check at both the original photograph and another Photograph that I have posted, two things are clear.

"Clear" - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

First Picture shows Neil Armstrong pointing at the Skull shaped rock.



Second Picture shows the are where the rock was found being dug up.

.

For starters, you have the photos in the wrong order.
The second picture is AS11-40-5872 (Hi-res).
The first picture is AS11-40-5873 (Hi-res) - The next consecutive frame on the roll.

First Picture shows Neil Armstrong...

No, it doesn't. That's not Neil Armstrong. Armstrong took the photos of Buzz Aldrin.

Here is the 16mm DAC footage of Armstrong taking the two photos. First, he takes a few steps away from the TV camera, stops, and takes AS11-40-5872 of Buzz setting-up the swiss Solar Wind Experiment:


(I highlighted the area of the rocks in question, next to a small crater)

Then he moves 7-8 steps closer, stops, and takes AS11-40-5873 as Aldrin turns away from the SWE:



Then the both head back to the LM to get the flag

...pointing at the Skull shaped rock.

No. Here is the video of the same events. AS11-40-5872 is taken at 4:39. AS11-40-5873 is taken at 5:06. As we all can see, the camera simply captured Buzz's arm in mid-gesture as he turns away from the SWE.

Second Picture shows the are where the rock was found being dug up.

Wrong again. What you call the "dug up" area (one of the things you said was "clear") is a small crater. In AS11-40-5872, you can see the same rocks are there:




Zoom




Zoom

Incidentally, at the 0:57 second point in this section of the DAC footage, Neil Armstrong casually walks right through the area where these rocks are. This and subsequent foot traffic obliterated the area.

AS11-37-5467 (Hi-res)

Now, I do not want to guess why NASA did not notice this odd photo...

It was not - and is not - odd.

...and also if this rock was indeed a skull why did they not announce it publicly.

Because it was not a skull.

reply to post by Saint Exupery


Thanks for your remarks.

You are right the place that was dug up was in the first picture and the Skull shaped rock was there near the dug up crater.

And you might be right regarding who was in the picture.

But my final comment on these picture remains the same. The small rock looks like a skull and specially like the skull of a small person and his shoulders as if he is buried there in the lunar sand.

This is a odd piece of rock and I pointed out the various things that I noticed. Some of them such as the dug up idea is wrong but does still take away from the fact that the rock was in the position where the place was dug up and the Astronauts were involved with activity in the area.

And it might also be correct to assume that the dug up area is merely a small crater.

Am I the only seeing life / Fossil of creatures on the Moon. I found this picture in the Apollo 17 image set today.




Position in original image.




I can understand if one picture (supposedly a rock) in one set looks like a lizard like creature. But there are one to many and in different image sets from different missions.

Surely this cannot be tricks playing in my head or my eyes.

Original Image