Wobbegong

Well, maybe they went to the moon but I'm not sure the photos were snapped there, either that or their lab technicians were stoned! I've been browsing the archive at Flickr and March To The Moon and finding a lot of artifacts like these duplicated and 'dancing' rocks within the shadows found in 2 images taken less than a minute apart on Apollo 12. There are literally hundreds of them, especially in Apollo 11. Often I'll find artifacts in MTTM taken from scans of the original images that have been photoshopped out in Flickr so it appears that someone is aware of the problem.

Thanks for your input, I'm surprised Hasselblad didn't rectify the problem. Surely they would've been aware during testing of the cameras and lenses and their reputation was at stake. I've been looking at many lens flares and they are rather inconsistent, fiducials closest to the sun or flare can be barely affected but others further away are D&D like AS12-46-6729, shown here singly and in context with the preceding 2 images. There's no strong flares in the first 2 but then there's this strange vertically cut lens flare that begins a few mm from the edge of the transparency. Three fiducials are duplicated, except for the one closest to the flare. Then there's AS14-67-9368 where we have one wildly D&D fiducial, the other one is perfect. The antistatic electrode appears duplicated, flipped and smudged. The lens flare which surrounds the sun in so many other images appears to be neatly cut horizontally and only surrounds the bottom third! I've wrote to NASA and Hasselblad some time ago regarding this, no answer despite there being literally 100s of images like this.

But don't you think they would've rectified the reflection problem after Apollo 12? It occurs right up to Apollo 17. Apologies, didn't mean to rock the boat but I've been looking at the archive for a few years and I'm at a loss to explain how some of the images came to be. For example this sequence from the Flickr archive. There's no duplicated fiducials and the first image the borders are clear and crisp, the middle, the frame, except for the right hand side is extremely distorted and the sun bleeds over the borders. The anti-static electrodes are elongated and distorted and in the last image it returns more or less to normal and continues so for the remainder of the magazine. This effect seems confined to sun up or near sun images and if you look at the center image scanned off the original film roll you'll see the light bleeds all the way to the sprocket holes on the right. On the left there appears to be the edge and top corner of a faintly duplicated transparency bisecting the sprocket holes. What caused this? The harsh lunar conditions or sloppy lab/duplication work?

Hello, thanks for the feedback. The reason I came here is because whenever I ask these question of Apollo fans or detractors I often get conflicting, emotional and angry replies. I used to do silver halide photography with an Olympus OM-1 back in the day and I do find the Apollo images rather curious. I'd like to know what these strange curving parallel lines are on this image from Apollo 13. They appear on 6 images in this magazine only, I doubt it's something on the window as everything is in focus and look like an artifact that's part of the reseau plate. Here's a clearer view and you'll notice there's a large, somewhat askew cross quartering the image. I really appreciate your feedback but if you don't want to get involved with such questions I'll leave at that if you wish. Thanks so much!

Hello Can anyone tell me why there are so many duplicated and distorted fiducials on Apollo images. I'll post one example but there are literally dozens of them. In this image there are four duplicated and distorted fiducials surrounding the sun. How does this happen, thanks!