EARTHRISE
Re: EARTHRISE
besides, flip Bill's famous Apollo 8 shot back...
& its actually Apollo 11's, anyway...
At this point i have no fkn clue whats goin' on.
if anyone knows which mission/spaceship/spaceman
shot which or what shot, hit me up !!!
Re: EARTHRISE
Apollo 11 Earthrise - How One Photo Proves it was Real
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGc0sdo32is
well this videos 'proved' Apollo 11 was 'real'...
so, all thats left to wonder, is why "EARTHRISE" takes barely 5 minutes,
& why the 'moon' dont hardly move, why so static ? '120km below'.
The answers to that then, must be:
"EARTHRISE" to "EARTHSET" from the moon takes under an hour,
and Apollo 11 was a helicopter hovering at a fixed point
above the moon, rather than the usual Apollo moon 'orbits'
where the 'moon-terrain' positively races by below.
sure...
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGc0sdo32is
well this videos 'proved' Apollo 11 was 'real'...
so, all thats left to wonder, is why "EARTHRISE" takes barely 5 minutes,
& why the 'moon' dont hardly move, why so static ? '120km below'.
The answers to that then, must be:
"EARTHRISE" to "EARTHSET" from the moon takes under an hour,
and Apollo 11 was a helicopter hovering at a fixed point
above the moon, rather than the usual Apollo moon 'orbits'
where the 'moon-terrain' positively races by below.
sure...
Re: EARTHRISE
just for good measure, heres the "first 2 ever" "EARTHRISE" 'SHOTS' by 'MAN' again - 'APOLLO 8'
In under 1 minute, 58 seconds to be exact,
the 'moon' 'terrain' has raced miles beneath,
and the "EARTHRISE" is streaking through space.
If Sunrise to Sunset on Earth ran at the same rate as this,
1 days' daylight hours - the full East>West parabolic traverse,
would last almost exactly 20 minutes,
and so 1 full Earth rotation 'day' would be approx 40 minutes.
Re: EARTHRISE
* * * * *
Apollo 12 VERSUS Apollo 14 "EARTHRISES"...
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... e#p2369019
ultra props to hollycrap
Apollo 12 VERSUS Apollo 14 "EARTHRISES"...
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... e#p2369019
ultra props to hollycrap
Re: EARTHRISE
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
APOLLO 11 "EARTHRISE" @ 2X "REALTIME" SPEED (i.e. 30, not 60 SECONDS)
full 5-shot Earth emerges/rises sequence
Apollo 8 "EARTHRISE" 2-shot sequence, '58 seconds apart'
Apollo 11, first & last "EARTHRISE" shots
Re: EARTHRISE
Hey Buzz, stop wasting precious camera-film on that Earthrise,
you've just rattled off AS11-44-6547 > AS11-44-6559, wasting
12 shots in under 1 minute on the sooo boring "EARTHRISE";
lets take some shots of the LM instead...
12 shots, 60 seconds. that'll do, who wants to look at boring
shitty "EARTHRISE" TM pictures anyway?
Screw the camera to the wall-mount and set the 1-sec exposure
to get some shots of the stars...
nah, who wants to see boring shitty stars pictures? are you nuts?
later, back on Earth...
Buzz, what happened to the missing "EARTHRISE" photos AS11-44-6548,
AS11-44-6550, AS11-44-6552, AS11-44-6554, AS11-44-6555, AS11-44-6556,
AS11-44-6557, & AS11-44-6558 ? whys there only 5 shots ?
Neil, i got so bored waiting for the 60 seconds stoopid "EARTHRISE" to happen,
i killed time taking 8 shots of your ass.
Re: EARTHRISE
If you take the reddish-brown blob in the upper-left of the Earth as a reference point in the 5-shot sequence above, you can see that even though the camera's position relative to Earth has changed significantly, our view of the planet has not changed at all. It really does look like a 2-D image 'scrolling' to the heavens.
Re: EARTHRISE
from the Full Hasselblad Magazines...
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
AS11-26-5366 > AS11-26-5381 - 16 'CONSECUTIVE SHOTS'
so... Buzz's 16 'CONSECUTIVE SHOTS' cover almost 24 hours, nearly 1 whole Earth rotation... sure !
he took 10 million photos over 6 days, but only these 16 in like, say 22 1/4 hours ?!?
course he did ! ...yeah, thats right !
Re: EARTHRISE
Apollo 16 - did the Earth move for you ?
Re: EARTHRISE
great shots of the crescent moon-rising !
Apollo 15 sequential - "EARTHSLUMP"
AS15-88-11989 > > > AS15-88-11997
Re: EARTHRISE
Fake images are fake
How the *censored* can people believe them to be real?
How the *censored* can people believe them to be real?
Re: EARTHRISE
Did you notice that all of the earth rise photos are taken from lunar orbit? This is because when observing from a fixed point on the lunar surface, the earth appears fixed in the lunar sky - it does not rise or set. It is because of gravitational, or 'tidal', locking; and is the same reason why we can only see one side of the moon from the earth.
Re: EARTHRISE
Is the the lunar surface in orbit? Your first two sentences imply that!Sunkat wrote:Did you notice that all of the earth rise photos are taken from lunar orbit? This is because when observing from a fixed point on the lunar surface, the earth appears fixed in the lunar sky - it does not rise or set. It is because of gravitational, or 'tidal', locking; and is the same reason why we can only see one side of the moon from the earth.
I take it you mean theoretically observing the Earth from the lunar surface?
Re: EARTHRISE
brianv wrote:Is the the lunar surface in orbit? Your first two sentences imply that!Sunkat wrote:Did you notice that all of the earth rise photos are taken from lunar orbit? This is because when observing from a fixed point on the lunar surface, the earth appears fixed in the lunar sky - it does not rise or set. It is because of gravitational, or 'tidal', locking; and is the same reason why we can only see one side of the moon from the earth.
I take it you mean theoretically observing the Earth from the lunar surface?
Hi Brianv
I don't see how my comment implies that but of course I am not saying the surface is in orbit. You cannot observe an earth rise from a fixed point on the lunar surface
No, I do not mean theoretically as it is a basic astronomy fact- you could say theoretical for a 'human' To be observing from the lunar surface, but that is not the point I was making
Cheers
Re: EARTHRISE
...you were supposed to introduce yourself per our forum's rules here? http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=838Sunkat wrote:Did you notice that ...