Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.

[smartcooky]

Yeah....they were the ones where Kubrick's pet cat walked across the soundstage just after a stage-hand dropped a light onto the ground when he tripped over one of the wires that suspended the astronauts....   

Oh. I thought he tripped over the "C" rock 

[raven]

Yeah....they were the ones where Kubrick's pet cat walked across the soundstage just after a stage-hand dropped a light onto the ground when he tripped over one of the wires that suspended the astronauts....   

Oh. I thought he tripped over the "C" rock 

You'd think he'd . . . C it coming.

[nomuse]

Thanks Peter.

I'd like to point out I didn't search thru all the images and decide on these two specifically to prove a point.  I found the first 2 with a black sky and over exposed them to reveal artifact not present in the original scan;with the naked eye (though one of them I count 16 dots.)

What I haven't expressed here is that I have given NASA more credit that they are due it seems.  I did not expect a catalogue of what can be regarded as THE most important photographs since the invention of the camera, to be released to the public covered in dandruff and Pubic hair.

So far and using this as a starting point, this has been my only error.  To re-iterate;Not considering the images I was viewing were not perfect specimens.

The rest that has come to pass is an over zealous attempt to treat me as a Tin Foil hat wearing, Basement living with parents no friends paranoid lizard licking banjo playing sister sexing Nob Jockey.......

I'm only half of those things for a start.  The rest is just a Conspiracy to undermine my intelligence and intergrity as a Tree Hugging Philanthropist.   

But it's all good.  I have my answers.

Thanks.

Read some old threads. Is always a good thing to do before posting on a new board.

At least once a month a new poster comes on, acts nice, is "just asking a few questions" about some specific and somewhat intriguing idea. And before a dozen posts have gone by that person has started a Gish Gallop of tired old hoax claims, is starting to throw around terms like "Disinfo agent" and "astro-not" and is refusing to answer questions. And within the week they've gotten angry, started swearing and otherwise breaking the TOS, and end up either getting banned or flouncing off.

The regulars here are simply too used to the pattern. You come on looking like a duck and quacking like a duck and it is going to be an uphill battle not to become duck soup.

[nomuse]

Heh.  I didn't realize the forum software had gotten tired of Duane's old insult and auto-corrects it now. Let us just say that "astronaut" was not the word that I was describing.

[Peter B]

I'd like to point out I didn't search thru all the images and decide on these two specifically to prove a point.  I found the first 2 with a black sky and over exposed them to reveal artifact not present in the original scan;with the naked eye (though one of them I count 16 dots.)

What I haven't expressed here is that I have given NASA more credit that they are due it seems.  I did not expect a catalogue of what can be regarded as THE most important photographs since the invention of the camera, to be released to the public covered in dandruff and Pubic hair.

So far and using this as a starting point, this has been my only error.  To re-iterate;Not considering the images I was viewing were not perfect specimens.

The rest that has come to pass is an over zealous attempt to treat me as a Tin Foil hat wearing, Basement living with parents no friends paranoid lizard licking banjo playing sister sexing Nob Jockey.......

I'm only half of those things for a start.  The rest is just a Conspiracy to undermine my intelligence and intergrity as a Tree Hugging Philanthropist.   

But it's all good.  I have my answers.

Thanks.

Regarding scans covered with dandruff, et cetera, well, welcome to the world of government science. Sure, it'd be great for NASA to be able to afford the best quality equipment for scanning the photos and the most experienced technicians to take their loving time over the process. But as NASA is a government agency they have to do what they can with the money Congress gives them. As long as the original films are securely preserved for posterity then budget limitations are usually going to mean that "near enough is good enough" is going to have to be sufficient for scanning the images for public consumption.

It may seem odd to you that NASA can throw away tens of millions of dollars developing some piece of hardware or software for a boondoggle rocket (the Space Launch System, a.k.a. the Senate Launch System) while people scanning photos of genuine historical importance are scrambling to find tens of thousands of dollars to afford decent scanning equipment. Well, that's because NASA's budget is itemised by Congress, so NASA is required to spend the money in their budget exactly as Congress says so.

If those priorities don't accord with what you think they should be, join the queue. You're welcome to try to convince Congress to change their budget priorities. But, as a non-American, Congress people aren't going to line up to seek your vote.

Perhaps I could put things another way. My gig is payroll. My email in-box currently has over 100 emails sitting in it. Many of these items are very simple requests from employees which would only take a few minutes to resolve. But they currently sit there unresolved because they're not my highest priority. Quite a few employees don't agree with my priorities because quite a few of those emails are follow-ups asking why I haven't responded to them.

So why haven't I answered requests like telling people when their next lot of personal leave is due, or if I can cancel the period of leave they entered incorrectly, or what's the procedure for applying for maternity leave? The reason is that I've been concentrating on what I consider to be the high priority items: changing an employee's hours to part-time so she doesn't get overpaid; entering an employee's new contract so he actually gets paid; inquiring with a supervisor whether an employee has returned from an extended period of unpaid leave as their leave record suggests, to ensure she doesn't get overpaid. After all, inquiries about stuff can be answered at any time, but if I mess things up and someone gets overpaid or underpaid, it angers the employee and makes a lot of work for me.

Same sort of thing with NASA: its job is to do aeronautical and space science for the US government. Scanning photos of historical events to provide nice digital images for the public would be great, but if it comes at the expense of delaying the Space Launch System by another couple of months, then NASA and the Great American Voting Public wouldn't be pleased.

[smartcooky]

Regarding scans covered with dandruff, et cetera, well, welcome to the world of government science. Sure, it'd be great for NASA to be able to afford the best quality equipment for scanning the photos and the most experienced technicians to take their loving time over the process. But as NASA is a government agency they have to do what they can with the money Congress gives them. As long as the original films are securely preserved for posterity then budget limitations are usually going to mean that "near enough is good enough" is going to have to be sufficient for scanning the images for public consumption.

It may seem odd to you that NASA can throw away tens of millions of dollars developing some piece of hardware or software for a boondoggle rocket (the Space Launch System, a.k.a. the Senate Launch System) while people scanning photos of genuine historical importance are scrambling to find tens of thousands of dollars to afford decent scanning equipment. Well, that's because NASA's budget is itemised by Congress, so NASA is required to spend the money in their budget exactly as Congress says so.

Additionally, those negatives and transparencies of Apollo surface operations were all taken over a period of three years between 1969 and 1972, but high-resolution digital scanning of negatives hasn't been around for very long. I would be guessing, but I think those negatives would have been 20-30 years old or more before they were first scanned at anything like a high- resolution.

For anyone interested in the scanning process, here is a good read

http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/ABOUT_SCANS/

Of particular interest to Icarus might be these comments

These films have been in deep storage for almost three decades*; prior to that, they were exposed to the space environment, developed, and occasionally used for research activities. Consequently, the preserved film stocks have, in some cases, acquired foreign material which must be removed. Prior to scanning, each film roll is therefore gently, non-abrasively cleaned using exacting procedures set forth by the NASA-JSC curatorial staff. Absolutely no abrasive techniques are used in the cleaning of these films to preclude the possibility of damage to these priceless historical treasures. As a consequence of this precaution, the cleaning process only removes debris that is loosely adhered to the film stock (e.g. dust and lint) but any strongly adhered debris are simply left on the film.

Prior to exposure, the film in the Apollo mapping camera system was held by pressure against a glass plate containing the reseau marks. Subsequent analysis during image reprocessing revealed that foreign debris was present in the optical path of the camera system, and can be seen in the photographic exposures. While the image processing steps undertaken as part of this effort may have removed some of these blemish features, users should be aware that blemish features exist in many of the images.


(* - almost three decades with this article being written in 2013 means that the negatives were not put into the cold storage facility deep until after 1983. I wonder how they were being stored  for the previous 11 - 14 years?)

[ka9q]

If Icarus1 is still interested and reading, I can tell him that we've addressed the topic of random dots on the Apollo imagery several times in the past. The discussion included a complete description of the structure of color photographic film and how physical abrasions of different depths would produce artifacts with different colors: blue for a superficial penetration of the emulsion and white for a much deeper one.

We've also discussed the details of the so-called "missing master tapes" from Apollo 11.

So rather than explain it all yet again, I suggest that he first go search the archives. Then we can answer any remaining questions.

[Grashtel]

Heh.  I didn't realize the forum software had gotten tired of Duane's old insult and auto-corrects it now. Let us just say that "astronaut" was not the word that I was describing.

IIRC it is something that Lunar Orbit manually added to the forums autocorrect due to finally getting fed up of hoax promoters using it here

[Zakalwe]

What I haven't expressed here is that I have given NASA more credit that they are due it seems.  I did not expect a catalogue of what can be regarded as THE most important photographs since the invention of the camera, to be released to the public covered in dandruff and Pubic hair.

There's a fair bit of the old "If I ran the zoo.." routine in that point.

[onebigmonkey]

Apart from being a little puzzled as to why a 'professional photographer' is so baffled as to why digital scans of old photos that were exposed for a bright lunar surface don't reveal stars at his command, I would suggest that Icarus1 looks at the Apollo photographs that were deliberately taken to show stars.

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/starryskies.html


e2a: The length and movement of shadows is also entirely consistent with mission timelines:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/shadows/shadindex.html

[bknight]

Heh.  I didn't realize the forum software had gotten tired of Duane's old insult and auto-corrects it now. Let us just say that "astronaut" was not the word that I was describing.

He is still at it, although probably only in YT, where un-moderated threads allow him to be with similarly uneducated individuals.

[HeadLikeARock]

Two great posts by Smartcooky and Peter B.

Just wanted to add, regarding the argument from some CTs that NASA would never allow any of their precious photos of Apollo to become contaminated, the same people would be up in arms if all the photographic imagery was pristine. We know that for a fact, because the likes of Jack White and Aulis were using the (false) claim that all the Apollo photos were perfectly exposed as proof that they never went to the moon.

For some reason they forgot to mention https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5904.jpg and the countless dozens of other images that were of dubious quality.

Good quality photos = proof Apollo was faked
Poor quality photos  = proof Apollo was faked

[Glom]

These stars though? Were they actually identified? As one was identified as Vega and was seen to be in a different position in the subsequent image? Or was it just dots of some kind were seen and different dots were seen in the next frame?

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Pyramid on the Moon https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20680HR.jpg is classic.

Sometimes the same people who claim Apollo was hoaxed claim this image as proof for aliens on the Moon.

 

[Zakalwe]

These stars though? Were they actually identified? As one was identified as Vega and was seen to be in a different position in the subsequent image? Or was it just dots of some kind were seen and different dots were seen in the next frame?

I think that Vega would have been out of the field of view. Deneb appears to have been in the FoV. Capturing it, on the other hand....