Here's an image from Apollo16. Notice anything strange? I bet you can't (Except for the astronaut who seems to be a cut and paste job anyway!!! Jeeeez!)
(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1046/apollo16.jpg)
Now let's turn up the contrast and brightness....and bingo! Three shining orbs in the sky!! (Scroll right) Stars? If so, then where are the others? Also notice something on top middle of the image. Another strange something!
(http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/563/apollo16a.jpg)
WTF are those things? Yeah, Ok, just stars or perhaps that ubiquitous glitch in film processing!!
(http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Surprise/pumpkin-008.gif)
Cheers!
Mike. :)
Spot lights in a studio... In my opinion.
Quote from: Mikesingh on January 11, 2012, 06:11:57 AM
Here's an image from Apollo16. Notice anything strange? I bet you can't (Except for the astronaut who seems to be a cut and paste job anyway!!! Jeeeez!)
(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1046/apollo16.jpg)
Now let's turn up the contrast and brightness....and bingo! Three shining orbs in the sky!! (Scroll right) Stars? If so, then where are the others? Also notice something on top middle of the image. Another strange something!
(http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/563/apollo16a.jpg)
WTF are those things? Yeah, Ok, just stars or perhaps that ubiquitous glitch in film processing!!
(http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Surprise/pumpkin-008.gif)
Cheers!
Mike. :)
Mikey, considering the deep black
shadows cast by the LM and the small rock in the foreground, where is the one for the astronaut???? Those blobs of light could be anything, but it does make one wonder if they are something other than what we were led to believe;
after all, we are lied to about everything, anyway, especially by Never A Straight Answer.
8)
seeker
Quote from: the seeker on January 12, 2012, 09:43:48 AM
Mikey, considering the deep black shadows cast by the LM and the small rock in the foreground, where is the one for the astronaut????
That guy is jumping and it seems he's about a couple of feet high. Now the next question is, how come there's no Moon dust kicked up during his impacts?
And no footprints? His shadow is probably on the right some distance away as he's not on the ground.
But he sure looks pasted on!! ::)
Cheers!
Quote from: Mikesingh on January 11, 2012, 06:11:57 AM
Here's an image from Apollo16. Notice anything strange? I bet you can't (Except for the astronaut who seems to be a cut and paste job anyway!!! Jeeeez!)
How can I notice anything strange if you only posted the altered image and not the original?
The photo ID would also be a good idea, as far as we know it could be done by you. ;)
Quote from: ArMaP on January 22, 2012, 09:49:11 PM
How can I notice anything strange if you only posted the altered image and not the original?
The photo ID would also be a good idea, as far as we know it could be done by you. ;)
Hy ArMaP. I Think this is the original image:
(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/hires/as16-113-18339.jpg)
Nasa ID: as16-113-18339
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/html/as16-113-18339.html (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/html/as16-113-18339.html)
Quote from: Pimander on January 12, 2012, 12:40:13 AM
Spot lights in a studio... In my opinion.
Pimander, we share the same opinion. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on January 22, 2012, 09:49:11 PM
How can I notice anything strange if you only posted the altered image and not the original?
The photo ID would also be a good idea, as far as we know it could be done by you. ;)
WTF? I had posted the original at the top! But it disappeared! Here was the link but it doesn't seem to work now! :-\
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1046/apollo16.jpg
Anyway RUSSO posted an image above., but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the right one. Will get back with the original Apollo 16 image.
Ah! Here it is....
(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg249/scaled.php?server=249&filename=apollo16.jpg&res=medium)
Cheers! :)
Quote from: RUSSO on January 23, 2012, 12:49:29 AM
Hy ArMaP. I Think this is the original image:
Nasa ID: as16-113-18339
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/html/as16-113-18339.html (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/html/as16-113-18339.html)
Thanks for that.
Quote from: Mikesingh on January 23, 2012, 05:09:16 AM
Anyway RUSSO posted an image above., but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the right one. Will get back with the original Apollo 16 image.
Why, because it doesn't have the 3 "orbs"?
Where did you find that image?
From what I have seen, most "anomalous" NASA photos are from private sites, while NASA sites have better versions.
PS: and those "orbs" look more pasted on the image than the astronaut. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on January 29, 2012, 09:18:17 PM
From what I have seen, most "anomalous" NASA photos are from private sites, while NASA sites have better versions.
So why are the foreground and the background both in focus on most of the Apollo pictures if the Hasselblad had a narrow depth of field? Or where some of them taken in a studio? Or is that BS?
Quote from: Pimander on January 29, 2012, 09:45:24 PM
So why are the foreground and the background both in focus on most of the Apollo pictures if the Hasselblad had a narrow depth of field? Or where some of them taken in a studio? Or is that BS?
The only way for a camera to take pictures with both the foreground and background in focus, is for it to be 'focused to infinity'.
As an example, have you seen the HUD videos from say the F/A-18?? They are taken with a CCD camera (focused to infinity) looking through the HUD and show the Reticles and distant objects all in focus.
You can get the same effect with a 'pinhole' camera.
Will have to look into the Hasselblad, but I am sure I can see a focus reticle ring and therefore that camera couldn't take those pictures!
That's what I thought. I also remember seeing the Hasselblad spec and just can't remember for sure but the analysis by a photographer was that it could not have taken all of the pictures. They might have been a hoaxer so I'm interested to see what you find.
Hi guys
Mike that was a quick debunk LMAO great work RUSSO, ArMap or was it ?
Glad to see you around again Mike you too ArMap
My clue that something is wrong with that astronaut is the position of His feet... When someOne jumps, the toes tend downward, yet the foot on Our right (His left)) looks like it's standing on something. I just can't imagine why He would jump and pull His foot up like that.
EDIT to add: Here (if I get the pic in - first time trying) I have drawn a line from His foot to where His shadow begins, defining the angle of the sun. I copied the angle from the base of the flag to the ground and find it points to a place on the flagpole shadow. The bulge from the flag starts where the arrow is, further to the right.
If I failed picture insertion... You'll either have to take My word for it or do it Yourself.
[attachment deleted by admin]
I think you could move that pink line a bit higher and it would more or less reach the shadow. If the ground isn't perfectly flat that will effect where the shadow appears too.
I like the type of approach but that example is not convincing. Sorry.
Apollo 16 Photographic EquipmentQuoteThe cameras stowed in the lunar module were two 70mm Hasselblad data cameras fitted with 60mm Zeiss Metric lenses, an electric Hasselblad with a 500mm lens and two 16mm Maurer motion picture cameras with 10mm lenses. One of the Hasselblads and one of the motion picture cameras were stowed in the modular equipment stowage assembly (MESA) in the LM descent stage.
QuoteThe LM Hasselblads had crew chest mounts that fit dovetail brackets on the crewman's remote control unit, thereby leaving both hands free. One of the LM motion picture cameras was mounted in the right-hand window to record descent, landing, ascent and rendezvous. The 16mm camera stowed in the MESA was also carried aboard the lunar roving vehicle to record portions of the three EVAs.
4 types of Camera were in the Lunar Module:
1. 16mm Battery Operated Camera (movie) 10mm Lens
2. 70mm Hasselblad Camera (still), 80mm Lens, 250 mm Lens, 105 mm UV Lens, 70mm Film Magazines, 70 mm UV Film Magazines
3. 70mm Lunar Surface Hasselblad Data Camera (still), 60mm Lens, Polarising Filter, 70mm Film Magazines
4. 70mm Lunar Surface Hasselblad Camera (still), 500mm Lens, 70mm Film Magazines
http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/02photoequip.htm (http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/02photoequip.htm)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_16/photography/ (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_16/photography/)
Quote from: Pimander on January 30, 2012, 10:31:40 AM
I think you could move that pink line a bit higher and it would more or less reach the shadow. If the ground isn't perfectly flat that will effect where the shadow appears too.
I like the type of approach but that example is not convincing. Sorry.
Hmmmm... I know the image I managed to get up (it is shrunken so much) is difficult to see. If the line remains where it is, there is clearly (in a larger image) a nice, straight shadow on the ground. The bulging starts where the arrow is. If I move the line up so that the start of the shadow bulge is intersected, it crosses the flag about 1/4 of the way up. I did not save the layered file so working with it a challenge.
Anyway, even accounting for ground variance, the lines just don't give the same angle. No matter how hard I try to come up with a solution. (Yeah, the line to the shadow of the flag is not exactly on the flag juncture and should be moved a small ways to the right - but nowhere near enough to touch on a place where the shadow is ambiguous.)
Thanks for looking and offering Your conclusions. [smile]
Quote from: Pimander on January 29, 2012, 09:45:24 PM
So why are the foreground and the background both in focus on most of the Apollo pictures if the Hasselblad had a narrow depth of field?
Why do you say they had a narrow depth of field? Taking photos in the Sun in what looks like a beach, they were surrounded by a strong light, so they could use the camera with the smallest aperture possible, resulting in a big depth of field.
Unless I am mixing things up again. :D
QuoteOr where some of them taken in a studio?
Why would a studio camera have a bigger depth of field, shouldn't it be the opposite?
Quote from: ArMaP on February 01, 2012, 01:06:33 AM
Unless I am mixing things up again. :D
Why would a studio camera have a bigger depth of field, shouldn't it be the opposite?
Yes. That's what I meant. Are we confusing each other here??
This image is a perfect example of the type of film tricks that Jay Wiedner discusses in his documentary 'Kubrick's Odyssey'. You can quickly discern the front screen projection and thus any artifacts in the sky are likely associated with it
(http://www.sacredmysteries.com/public/images/image020.png)
(http://www.sacredmysteries.com/public/images/image022.png)