ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Reality of Apollo => Topic started by: AstroBrant on August 17, 2017, 02:33:14 PM
-
Has anyone actually counted the number of still shots taken by Apollo astronauts on the moon's surface, (including the ones from inside the LMs)? I've always been uncertain about this and don't feel like counting them. If nobody knows, I will take on the unenviable task. Perhaps it won't be as bad as I think.
Clear skies,
Brant
-
The Apollo Image Atlas summarises the location of each magazine's imagery, so you wouldn't necessarily have to count them all :)
-
Didn't Apollo 12 leave some film magazines on the surface also?
-
It's about 10,000 isn't it?
-
Images Surface Orbital Other
18,667 6,506 9,135 2,988
I made up a spreadsheet of the figures for Hasselblad images from Apollos 7 to 17 at the Apollo Image Atlas:-
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/
It has totals for each mission and the figures above are the grand totals of those. It doesn't include figures for the mapping and panorama cameras, 35mm Nikon camera or the Apollo Lunar Surface Closeup Camera (ALSCC).
The figures at top don't add up, but the problem lies with the LPI figures. For instance, one magazine from Apollo 12:
Magazine Q AS12-50-7325 to AS12-50-7459 [140 color images (0 surface; 58 orbital; 77 other)]
Sample (the formatting will be lousy here, but a close look will give you the idea):
No. * Mission * Magazine * From * To * Film * Location * Images * Surface * Orbital * Other
98 * Apollo 16 * UU * AS16-104-17001 * AS16-104-17052 * B & W * * 52 * 0 * 0 * 52
107 * Apollo 16 * A * AS16-113-18279 * AS16-113-18382 * Colour * Lunar orbit & post-landing * 104 * 87 * 17 * 0
112 * Apollo 16 * NN * AS16-118-18857 * AS16-118-19022 * Colour * * 166 * 0 * 125 * 41
* Apollo 16 * * * * * * 2801 * 1782 * 814 * 205
If anyone would like a copy of the spreadsheet in Open Office format, send me a personal message with email address.
-
Thank you for the replies.
Kiwi, that covers my question and more. I should have specified Hasselblad images. The figure of 6506 will suit my purposes. For years I have been debunking Apollo hoax claims on YouTube and writing comments where I mentioned the number of Hasselblad images taken from the surface, but was never confident in it. The number I have seen used several times is "over 5700". I thought that might be a little high, so it was a surprise to find out that it was 6506.
-
Onebigmonkey,
Four more posts and you're a Saturn! I'll use this opportunity to rave about your web page again. Folks, if you haven't seen it, you really must.
-
Thank you for the replies.
Kiwi, that covers my question and more. I should have specified Hasselblad images. The figure of 6506 will suit my purposes. For years I have been debunking Apollo hoax claims on YouTube and writing comments where I mentioned the number of Hasselblad images taken from the surface, but was never confident in it. The number I have seen used several times is "over 5700". I thought that might be a little high, so it was a surprise to find out that it was 6506.
That is a hellovalot of photos for the fakers to photoshop without Photoshop!
-
The most official way would be to read documents that cover photography of each mission.
Do you count panoramic camera and metric camera photos in your list? the combined from AS15, AS16 and AS17 are about 6000 photos for the panoramic camera alone.
Also some mags are missing from even official sites, or sites that have an archive of recently scanned film.
Mag 80 comes to mind, I have contacted someone that claims to have high resolution scans of it, but he doesn't want to put them online.
Quite recently I converted mag 123 to JPG and uploaded it to archive.org.
-
Onebigmonkey,
Four more posts and you're a Saturn! I'll use this opportunity to rave about your web page again. Folks, if you haven't seen it, you really must.
Lol :D
By way of thanks for the fulsome praise I can reveal that I've spent the past few weeks scanning all the stamps, envelopes, postcards, newspaper articles and whatnot that ebay has provided for me and assembled them on this page:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/ephemera.html
Wherein there is a tenuous link to this thread as I tend to collect this stuff because they are contemporaneous records of the images, not modern scans of them.
People might like the 'Special publications' one - in between the numerous newspaper special editions there are some more specialist things (the 'Bee-Hive' in house magazine for United Aircraft in particular).
One interesting thing I discovered is that the first recorded use I've found of Apollo 11's returned images is from a newspaper published in the UK on July 30th - a day before most other UK papers and meaning that they had access to them on July 29th.
-
Onebigmonkey,
Four more posts and you're a Saturn! I'll use this opportunity to rave about your web page again. Folks, if you haven't seen it, you really must.
Lol :D
By way of thanks for the fulsome praise I can reveal that I've spent the past few weeks scanning all the stamps, envelopes, postcards, newspaper articles and whatnot that ebay has provided for me and assembled them on this page:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/ephemera.html
Wherein there is a tenuous link to this thread as I tend to collect this stuff because they are contemporaneous records of the images, not modern scans of them.
People might like the 'Special publications' one - in between the numerous newspaper special editions there are some more specialist things (the 'Bee-Hive' in house magazine for United Aircraft in particular).
One interesting thing I discovered is that the first recorded use I've found of Apollo 11's returned images is from a newspaper published in the UK on July 30th - a day before most other UK papers and meaning that they had access to them on July 29th.
You'll like the scans I have done:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BxS3Nsrmk63ec2dqZmdQd21GZ1k
And these photos of AS star photography from a book:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1349.0
-
Thank you for the replies.
Kiwi, that covers my question and more. I should have specified Hasselblad images. The figure of 6506 will suit my purposes. For years I have been debunking Apollo hoax claims on YouTube and writing comments where I mentioned the number of Hasselblad images taken from the surface, but was never confident in it. The number I have seen used several times is "over 5700". I thought that might be a little high, so it was a surprise to find out that it was 6506.
That is a hellovalot of photos for the fakers to photoshop without Photoshop!
It sounds like a lot, but all you need is a slide-rule sweatshop. It's probably deep below Area 51. Parallel slide rules rule!
-
Thank you for the replies.
Kiwi, that covers my question and more. I should have specified Hasselblad images. The figure of 6506 will suit my purposes. For years I have been debunking Apollo hoax claims on YouTube and writing comments where I mentioned the number of Hasselblad images taken from the surface, but was never confident in it. The number I have seen used several times is "over 5700". I thought that might be a little high, so it was a surprise to find out that it was 6506.
That is a hellovalot of photos for the fakers to photoshop without Photoshop!
It sounds like a lot, but all you need is a slide-rule sweatshop. It's probably deep below Area 51. Parallel slide rules rule!
Oh, Photoshop "slide Rule" Edition... hadn't heard of that one!
-
Thank you for the replies.
Kiwi, that covers my question and more. I should have specified Hasselblad images. The figure of 6506 will suit my purposes. For years I have been debunking Apollo hoax claims on YouTube and writing comments where I mentioned the number of Hasselblad images taken from the surface, but was never confident in it. The number I have seen used several times is "over 5700". I thought that might be a little high, so it was a surprise to find out that it was 6506.
That is a hellovalot of photos for the fakers to photoshop without Photoshop!
It sounds like a lot, but all you need is a slide-rule sweatshop. It's probably deep below Area 51. Parallel slide rules rule!
Oh, Photoshop "slide Rule" Edition... hadn't heard of that one!
You see, the HB's are correct only the top Escalon of the Apollo program know ALL. "They" were even clairvoyant to envision Photoshop before it was programmed. ::)
-
That is a hellovalot of photos for the fakers to photoshop without Photoshop!
That's a hell of a lot of photos for the fakers to fake WITH Photoshop! But seriously, I've seen it claimed the Apollo visuals were faked with 3D CGI. Yeaaah. ::)
-
That is a hellovalot of photos for the fakers to photoshop without Photoshop!
That's a hell of a lot of photos for the fakers to fake WITH Photoshop! But seriously, I've seen it claimed the Apollo visuals were faked with 3D CGI. Yeaaah. ::)
Hoax believers: "No way could they have flown to the moon with those primitive computers!"
Also hoax believers: "NASA faked the whole thing with computers!"
-
That is a hellovalot of photos for the fakers to photoshop without Photoshop!
That's a hell of a lot of photos for the fakers to fake WITH Photoshop! But seriously, I've seen it claimed the Apollo visuals were faked with 3D CGI. Yeaaah. ::)
Hoax believers: "No way could they have flown to the moon with those primitive computers!"
Also hoax believers: "NASA faked the whole thing with computers!"
A specific case of the more general HB contradiction whereby they dismiss the difficulty of successfully staging a hoax by saying something along the lines of, "NASA can do anything... except fly to the Moon."
-
I had a looksee at Apollo 11 and 12 in the wake of claims on YouTube that the astronauts couldn't physically have taken "so many photos"; hoax theorists tend to ignore the speedy "click-turn-click-turn" of a panorama, and the number of shots that were taken simply to wind on a few frames at beginning or end of a magazine. These are only the EVA photos, and discount those taken from inside the LM.
Apollo 11 EVA photos;
120 in 151m - 1 every 75 secs, including panoramas of 12+11+13+12+8 = 56 shots, plus 7 frames wound at end of film before changing magazine (making 63)
So, broadly speaking, (120 minus 63 = ) 60 or so individual (non-panorama, non end-of-film) photos over 2h31m, an average of 1 every 1m 15s.
======================================
Apollo 12 EVA photos
4 magazines over 2 EVAs
557 in 7h50m (470m) including panoramas of 15+17+18+15+8+7+19+20+24+30 = 173
So ... generally, 325 individual photos in 470m - average 1 per 1m45s
-
I had a looksee at Apollo 11 and 12 in the wake of claims on YouTube that the astronauts couldn't physically have taken "so many photos"; hoax theorists tend to ignore the speedy "click-turn-click-turn" of a panorama, and the number of shots that were taken simply to wind on a few frames at beginning or end of a magazine. These are only the EVA photos, and discount those taken from inside the LM.
Apollo 11 EVA photos;
120 in 151m - 1 every 75 secs, including panoramas of 12+11+13+12+8 = 56 shots, plus 7 frames wound at end of film before changing magazine (making 63)
So, broadly speaking, (120 minus 63 = ) 60 or so individual (non-panorama, non end-of-film) photos over 2h31m, an average of 1 every 1m 15s.
======================================
Apollo 12 EVA photos
4 magazines over 2 EVAs
557 in 7h50m (470m) including panoramas of 15+17+18+15+8+7+19+20+24+30 = 173
So ... generally, 325 individual photos in 470m - average 1 per 1m45s
Have you researched the time for the trip around Surveyor Crater enroute to Surveyor III?
-
I have often pointed out to them that I routinely take more photographs on holiday.
As well as the panorama shots they also tend to ignore stereo pairs and other multiple shots of the same thing.
Many of the photographs taken during the J missions were continuous sequences taken in transit on the rover, eg magazines 108-110 on Apollo 16.
-
Have you researched the time for the trip around Surveyor Crater enroute to Surveyor III?
No. Do tell.
-
Have you researched the time for the trip around Surveyor Crater enroute to Surveyor III?
No. Do tell.
Well I was thinking while walking they might have been less likely to take any images, so that time might cut down the total amount allowable for images in your average. Of course they would have stopped at interesting spots to take images and do sampling.
-
Of course, don't forget a couple of things:
- A number of images were scheduled into the EVA timeline
- It was drilled into them that film was cheap but sending people to the Moon was expensive, so unexposed film returned to the Earth was wasted opportunity & money. Even a poor shot gave some information (well, perhaps except for those occasional accidental shots where all we see is a blurry image of an arm or something).
-
From https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_missions/Apollo_12_mission/hl_apollo12.html
The second EVA started at 13:54 Australian Eastern Standard time, visiting ALSEP and Head Crater before arriving at Bench Crater at 15:00. Sharp Crater at 15:16, Halo Crater 15:44, Surveyor III 16:15, Block Crater 116:58, End EVA 17:44. I haven't checked ALSJ to get image timeline.
-
I had a looksee at Apollo 11 and 12 in the wake of claims on YouTube that the astronauts couldn't physically have taken "so many photos"; hoax theorists tend to ignore the speedy "click-turn-click-turn" of a panorama, and the number of shots that were taken simply to wind on a few frames at beginning or end of a magazine. These are only the EVA photos, and discount those taken from inside the LM.
Apollo 11 EVA photos;
120 in 151m - 1 every 75 secs, including panoramas of 12+11+13+12+8 = 56 shots, plus 7 frames wound at end of film before changing magazine (making 63)
So, broadly speaking, (120 minus 63 = ) 60 or so individual (non-panorama, non end-of-film) photos over 2h31m, an average of 1 every 1m 15s.
======================================
Apollo 12 EVA photos
4 magazines over 2 EVAs
557 in 7h50m (470m) including panoramas of 15+17+18+15+8+7+19+20+24+30 = 173
So ... generally, 325 individual photos in 470m - average 1 per 1m45s
Your formula only works if the Hasselblad 500 EL/M could only take 1 photo every 60 seconds.
Is this correct?
No
Per Hasselblad specs, the normal Hasselblad 500 EL/M could take 1 photo every second. I am not sure about the NASA modified ones. Either way, they did indeed take multiple photos within one minute. They did this often even outside of panorama's.
-
Your formula only works if the Hasselblad 500 EL/M could only take 1 photo every 60 seconds.
... they did indeed take multiple photos within one minute. They did this often even outside of panorama's.
I'm sure they could. All I'm pointing out is that the number of photos were easily achievable, and not, as claimed by flatties, impossible.
Perhaps I'll rephrase;
Apollo 11 EVA photos;
The EVA lasted 151mins, during which they took 120 photos.
On raw average that is 1 every 75 secs, however this total includes panoramas consisting of 12+11+13+12+8 = 56 shots, plus 7 frames which they wound at end of film before changing magazine (56+7 making 63)
If we discount the rapid panoramas and end-of-film, then broadly speaking, we have (120 minus 63 = ) 60 or so individual (non-panorama, non end-of-film) photos over that 151m, giving them an average of 1m 15s to take each one, which is easily achievable.
-
There is one more nail in hoaxers' coffin: NASA still has negatives which can be compared to published images to see if they are meaningfully altered.
Lurky
-
Those negatives (and transparencies) would of course be fakes.
-
Those negatives (and transparencies) would of course be fakes.
Of course :( That does beg the question: why pictures on the Net are photoshopped if they are scanned from images that are developed from faked negatives. Of course average hoaxie doesn't knowe there were/are film cameras in addition of todays digital cameras.
-
Those negatives (and transparencies) would of course be fakes.
This is irony?
It's hard to figure out who's on which side sometimes :(
-
Those negatives (and transparencies) would of course be fakes.
This is irony?
It's hard to figure out who's on which side sometimes :(
Um, no Glom was making a sarcastic statement. In that since they exist then they would still be fake in the eyes of the HB crowd
-
Um, no Glom was making a sarcastic statement. In that since they exist then they would still be fake in the eyes of the HB crowd
In that case, I would have said "yes", it is irony, but in any event, I understand his position now.