Thousands Of Photos By Apollo Astronauts Now On Flickr

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
None of these have been processed but are downloadable in high resolution, so you can fire up Photoshop and have some fun with them.

A cache of more than 8,400 high-resolution photographs taken by Apollo astronauts during trips to the moon is now available for viewing and download. Kipp Teague, who created the massive image repository Project Apollo Archive in 1999, recently uploaded new, unprocessed versions of original NASA photo scans to the image sharing service Flickr.
 
Take that Moon Landing conspiracy theorists...!!!!

johnny20cash20finger202.jpg
 
mzs_biteme said:
Take that Moon Landing conspiracy theorists...!!!!
Click to expand...

I guarantee there is a site out there already where someone has gone through them already. Meticulously pointing out all the inconsistencies and whatnot. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.
 
Fun said:
I guarantee there is a site out there already where someone has gone through them already. Meticulously pointing out all the inconsistencies and whatnot. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like the lack of Stars, people forget cause the pics were taken on the moon, that stars only show up at night, why? Cause the brightest Star in our sky is the Sun, same goes for the sky on the moon in the daytime there, the only difference? No atmosphere to scatter light, so shadows and Sky are Black, not Blue, no matter how much magnification or processing is done, you won't see anything.

My mothers handiwork is up there on 6 copper plaques, She did touchup work, under the steps of the lower stage of the 6 LEM's that landed on the Moon.
 
My father in law worked on the LEM and F-14's at Grumman way back when.

All these moon landing conspiracy theorists need to die in a fire.
 
felt said:
Seems to work just fine for me..What problems are you having (like I care)?
Click to expand...

I'm not having any problems with Flickr because I refuse to visit them. However, when a website loads megabytes of ads, trackers, javascript, social crap, and other spammy content just to load ONE IMAGE I consider it awful.
 
Rob94hawk said:
My father in law worked on the LEM and F-14's at Grumman way back when.

All these moon landing conspiracy theorists need to die in a fire.
Click to expand...

Simpletons who can't allow themselves to question things because of personal bias need to .... well think... and hopefully NOT die in a fire. :eek:

Jack White was a photography analyst of great repute who compromised his academic standing for scrutinizing the Apollo moon landing photos. He believed that all of the landings were staged--just on the photo forensics alone. Check out these photos and draw some conclusions...

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm

http://www.aulis.com/nasa4.htm


Russian photo expert, Vsevolod Yakubovich:

https://www.youtube.com/results?sea...e+moon.+Was+it+a+RC+model?+(Extended+Edition)


Prof Hadley's report on the Apollo 15 mission containing many fake photos...

http://www.aulis.com/pdf folder/hadley_study.pdf


I have always maintained that even an unphotogenic astronaut would have come up with the idea to take a photo from a vista--it is common sense! How come not a single photo ever taken from a hill or low mountain top showing a panoramic showcase of the moon's landscape? Obviously it could not be done believably in a studio setting...
 
Okay. Here we go. Vital proof that there were no Apollo moon landings based on photographical enumeration--and common sense!


Each astronaut had his own camera on every mission. It was a square-format specially-built Hasselblad. It was mounted on a chest-plate for the astronaut to operate. The astronaut had to manually set the shutter speed and apertures while wearing bulky, pressurized gloves, without being able to see the controls. The cameras had no viewfinder, so the astronaut could only guess at what was being photographed, despite so many well composed, professional shots having been made. Each camera had a bulk film magazine holding more than a hundred exposures. The film (Kodak Ektachrome color film) had a very narrow exposure range, which required perfect aperture and shutter settings, because according to NASA, the cameras did not have automatic exposure capability.

It is important to know that although each man had his own camera, they almost never used them at the same time. Usually one of them was photographing the other doing some task. Therefore having two cameras DID NOT TRANSLATE TO TWICE AS MUCH TIME FOR PHOTOGRAPHY, as one might assume...

TIME AND MOTION STUDY (By Jack White)

For more than three years I have been collecting and analyzing nearly all the significant photos from the Apollo missions. These official photos are readily available on multiple NASA websites for downloading. Recently I noticed they were taking up many gigabytes of memory on my computer's external hard drive, so I began organizing them and deleting duplications. I did a rough estimate of the number of Apollo photos, and was amazed that I had thousands!

I visited several official NASA websites to find HOW MANY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN on the surface of the Moon. Amazingly, NASA AVOIDS THIS SUBJECT almost entirely. Two days of searching documents and text were fruitless. But Lunar Surface Journal, one of the sites, lists every photo with its file number. So I undertook to make an actual count of every photo taken by astronauts DURING EXTRA-VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA), the time spent on the surface out of the LEM.

Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:

Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a total of 5771 exposures.

That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their time on the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available:

Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let's look at those other activities to see how much time should be deducted from available photo time:

Apollo 11....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 12....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment (spend time trying to fix faulty TV camera), establish contact with Earth, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations, inspect the unmanned Surveyor 3 which had landed on the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve Surveyor parts. Deploy ALSEP package. Find/document/collect 75.7 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 14....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack and assemble hand cart to transport rocks, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations. Find/document/collect 94.4 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 15....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions). Find/document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Apollo 16....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions, including new ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/document/collect 208.3 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Apollo 17....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages. Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time:

Apollo 11...subtract 2 hours (120 mins), leaving 031 mins for taking photos
Apollo 12...subtract 4 hours (240 mins), leaving 230 mins for taking photos
Apollo 14...subtract 3 hours (180 mins), leaving 385 mins for taking photos
Apollo 15...subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 750 mins for taking photos
Apollo 16...subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 854 mins for taking photos
Apollo 17...subtract 8 hours (480 mins), leaving 844 mins for taking photos

So do the math:

Apollo 11.....121 photos in 031 minutes........3.90 photos per minute
Apollo 12.....504 photos in 230 minutes........2.19 photos per minute
Apollo 14.....374 photos in 385 minutes........0.97 photos per minute
Apollo 15...1021 photos in 750 minutes........1.36 photos per minute
Apollo 16...1765 photos in 854 minutes .......2.06 photos per minute
Apollo 17...1986 photos in 844 minutes .......2.35 photos per minute

Or, to put it more simply:

Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds
Apollo 12........one photo every 27 seconds
Apollo 14........one photo every 62 seconds
Apollo 15........one photo every 44 seconds
Apollo 16........one photo every 29 seconds
Apollo 17........one photo every 26 seconds

So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos in so short a time?

Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.

The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible...made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts. Imagine...1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon – that's one picture every 50 SECONDS!


Do you need further proof Earthlings????????
 
mzs_biteme said:
\not sure if seriuos....

If so...
get20a20life_gif.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes this is the level of IQ I knew I would be dealing with. Do you not have it in you to even try to respond with intelligence? I just dropped a lot of research done by people who have careers based on this line of work. You cannot pick even one small point to refute?
You chose a cartoon instead of words? Really a cartoon? Come on, pull up your big boy pants and say something of intelligence.
I dare you ;)
 
funkydmunky said:
Jack White was a photography analyst of great repute
Click to expand...

Jack White's testimony before the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations, regarding the backyard pictures photos of Oswald and his rifle:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I see that you have taken a ruler and placed it by Oswald's body and also by his rifle; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, do you believe that an object photographed can be measured simply by placing a ruler against the image in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you measured the object in this photograph, what did you do beyond using the ruler?

Mr. WHITE. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Without giving any account to other factors?

Mr. WHITE. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?

Mr. WHITE. No.

[...]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, you have made reference to several points in these photographs that suggest that Oswald's head is disproportionately----

I withdraw the question.

That the body of Oswald is not consistent in the various photographs in light of the head size; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing.

[...]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.

Mr. WHITE. All right.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?

Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----

Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

Full Transcript
 
evilsofa said:
Jack White's testimony before the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations, regarding the backyard pictures photos of Oswald and his rifle:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I see that you have taken a ruler and placed it by Oswald's body and also by his rifle; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, do you believe that an object photographed can be measured simply by placing a ruler against the image in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you measured the object in this photograph, what did you do beyond using the ruler?

Mr. WHITE. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Without giving any account to other factors?

Mr. WHITE. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?

Mr. WHITE. No.

[...]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, you have made reference to several points in these photographs that suggest that Oswald's head is disproportionately----

I withdraw the question.

That the body of Oswald is not consistent in the various photographs in light of the head size; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing.

[...]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.

Mr. WHITE. All right.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?

Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----

Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

Full Transcript
Click to expand...

Good work evilsofa. You will be promoted. Now for your actual test, what exactly about Jack White's Moon photography analysis are you even trying to debate?
Good derail attempt though. Hoping you bring your "A" game in the future.
Pleeeease!
 
I took a look at the Lunar Surface Journal to see why White was so shocked that astronauts on the moon took lots of pictures. Imagine that, someone on a tourist trip to the Moon might be inclined to take pictures of where they were. You'd almost think that taking pictures was one of the primary objectives of their mission.

Hm, what is that thing that NASA does whenever they explore new worlds? THEY TAKE PICTURES! I wonder, if you ever asked Jack White why the astronauts went to the Moon, what would his answer be?

So, looking at the LSJ, I see that right from the beginning, a large number of their photo sets are panoramic - whereby you stand in one place and take a dozen or two pictures as you turn around. White apparently imagined that the astronauts would stop once every 50 seconds, take a picture, then move on. But that's not how the astronauts did their photo work. That's not how any tourist or shutterbug or paparazzi or ordinary person takes pictures.

You know what? I don't think Jack White ever watched people take pictures.
 
Your doing well. Avoiding real answers like a pro.
Still waiting. Yawn...
Wanna get into actual camera/film specs?
Haha I know that answer. So quit the cuteness and hit some direct points.
Nubmer #1 is?
Your absolute free pick is......
 
evilsofa said:
Jack White's testimony before the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations, regarding the backyard pictures photos of Oswald and his rifle:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I see that you have taken a ruler and placed it by Oswald's body and also by his rifle; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, do you believe that an object photographed can be measured simply by placing a ruler against the image in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you measured the object in this photograph, what did you do beyond using the ruler?

Mr. WHITE. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Without giving any account to other factors?

Mr. WHITE. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?

Mr. WHITE. No.

[...]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, you have made reference to several points in these photographs that suggest that Oswald's head is disproportionately----

I withdraw the question.

That the body of Oswald is not consistent in the various photographs in light of the head size; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing.

[...]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.

Mr. WHITE. All right.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?

Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----

Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

Full Transcript
Click to expand...

Good work evilsofa. You will be promoted. Now for your actual test, what exactly about Jack White's Moon photography analysis are you even trying to debate?
Good derail attempt though. Hoping you bring your "A" game in the future.
Pleeeease!
 
Move out of your parents basement.
Get a life.
Don't breed and contaminate the gene pool.
 
Rob94hawk said:
Move out of your parents basement.
Get a life.
Don't breed and contaminate the gene pool.
Click to expand...

Yabba yabba, and you intellectual incite is?
Seriously? Give it a try at least. What are you afraid of?
I do not think the people who are reading this are as dumb as you hope. And you should hope real hard.
 
funkydmunky, how many photos would have been able to be taken in a short period of time? lets say lets fucking taking pictures till we die for the next 30 minutes... maybe that way they took then and not every 50 seconds, which will not allow you to complete any other task...
 
Hey dumb fucks, you can SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES where the Apollo landings occurred on the Moon because there are these things called telescopes that can SEE the moon landing sites, FROM EARTH! /gasp! The sites don't decay in space and you can see the descent stage, moon buggy tracks, everything! With your own fucking stupid eyes. Please do science and humanity a favor and kill yourself.

http://www.universetoday.com/93983/...best-look-ever-at-the-apollo-15-landing-site/

http://www.space.com/16798-american-flags-moon-apollo-photos.html

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/obse...how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/
 
funkydmunky said:
Simpletons who can't allow themselves to question things because of personal bias need to .... well think... and hopefully NOT die in a fire. :eek:

Jack White was a photography analyst of great repute who compromised his academic standing for scrutinizing the Apollo moon landing photos. He believed that all of the landings were staged--just on the photo forensics alone. Check out these photos and draw some conclusions...

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm

http://www.aulis.com/nasa4.htm


Russian photo expert, Vsevolod Yakubovich:

https://www.youtube.com/results?sea...e+moon.+Was+it+a+RC+model?+(Extended+Edition)


Prof Hadley's report on the Apollo 15 mission containing many fake photos...

http://www.aulis.com/pdf folder/hadley_study.pdf


I have always maintained that even an unphotogenic astronaut would have come up with the idea to take a photo from a vista--it is common sense! How come not a single photo ever taken from a hill or low mountain top showing a panoramic showcase of the moon's landscape? Obviously it could not be done believably in a studio setting...
Click to expand...

My father was stationed on the USS Wasp, which participated in the recovery of both Gemini and Apollo capsules. He has some INCREDIBLE black and white polaroid photos of the recoveries!

The conspiracy theorists (I hope you are not one!) can eat shit and die! It is an INSULT to the thousands of men and women who worked on the project to say that they were faked! It happened. We have PROOF that it happened (photographic evidence of the items left behind by other spacecraft sent to the moon). If you are STILL in denial about the facts, too bad. You are entitled to your own opinion, as they say, but NOT your own facts!
 
funkydmunky, I too used to doubt, and it is quite clear that some photos were ham handedly doctored.

Then I learned about Larry Baysinger
 
For me, another way of looking at the conspiracy theories is that, it's actually a testament to what a great job NASA and everyone involved did when they landed on the moon. They went beyond all expectations and did a job so well that many people still couldn't believe it is real even today.

For the rest who are not into conspiracy theory, I'm sure many was inspired by what was achieved back then when they witness this mankind's greatest adventure being executed. I hope I would have a chance of experiencing such a time myself IF we could go to Mars within my lifetime.
 
JokerCPoC said:
Yeah, like the lack of Stars, people forget cause the pics were taken on the moon, that stars only show up at night, why? Cause the brightest Star in our sky is the Sun, same goes for the sky on the moon in the daytime there, the only difference? No atmosphere to scatter light, so shadows and Sky are Black, not Blue, no matter how much magnification or processing is done, you won't see anything.

My mothers handiwork is up there on 6 copper plaques, She did touchup work, under the steps of the lower stage of the 6 LEM's that landed on the Moon.
Click to expand...

Also the cameras just aren't sensitive to pick up their light considering the surrounding light source, i.e. the Sun. Their light source is too far away, too small to pinpoint on cameras.

You can replicate the same thing on Earth, just take a picture during the day, look! No Stars! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top