Could anyone show me a link or even better the actual photograph (of below) but in a high resolution format please.

edit; try again...

This ok bro?

edit 2...

Or this?

I'm afraid this might not be a great deal of help for the collection is vast but here is a great source for Apollo images. You can click on the image name which brings up a thumbnail. Next to the thumbnail is a button to click for the Hi-res image. Frustratingly the galleries are not viewable as a page full of thumbnail images, only individually.

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

I have spent many an hour trawling through the collection but I have not come across that image. I was specifically looking for pictures of the Omega Speedmaster Professional watch being worn in action as I own one and have an interest in both mechanical watches and the Apollo moon landings. Do you have any idea which mission the image is from? If we knew on which Apollo mission that picture was taken we could narrow down the search somewhat. They must have set up a tripod to take that image with a timer or is the image doctored and a second astronaught added into the picture?

here is some really cool ones from panoramas. Apollo 11 12 14 15 16 and 17

http://www.panoramas.dk/moon/mission-apollo.html

Hey belial...

That photo is a sham, pal.
Not real...a creative little joke.

Papaver,
As I indicated, belial's little thumbnail is of a fake picture. You won't find it in the Apollo archive, because it was never actually taken. Pete Conrad actually had a Hasselblad timer with him, and he was intent on making a picture of he and Al Bean on Apollo 12 out by the Surveyor...just to confound the daylights out of people. Unfortunately, it became lost in a sample bag and they didn't have time to go searching around for it because timelines were rather stringent.

But there were no camera tripods, and no shots of astronauts standing together taken on Apollo lunar excoursions. It would've been pretty cool if Pete could've taken his picture...it would probably be one of the more famous Apollo Moon photos...and of course, probably fodder for lots of hoax arguments as well!



But as I indicated, it was never taken, and any such picture as belial has posted above is a fake ( a creative edit, in this case, of the famous portrait of Buzz Aldrin taken by Neil Armstrong).



You have to look pretty carefully at EVA photos to get some half decent images of the Omega Speedmaster being worn on the sleeve. But there are quite a few there, EVA and interior shots:

For Instance:

AS12-48-7071
Showing the watch on the left suit sleeve...


...a high res image will allow you to read what time it was!

AS11-36-5396
Showing Buzz Aldrin wearing his Speedmaster inside the LM...

Thankyou for the explanation and the pictures, MID.

It blows my mind to view picures of men on the moon and I bought a Speedmaster both because I know a good mechanical watch when I see one and also because of the NASA connection. I know the current Speedmaster I wear doesn't have exactly the same movement as those worn to the moon (cal.321) but at least I can be certain that the newer cal.861 is still a genuine Astronoughts watch and passed the same NASA torture tests as the .321. I allow myself a little "artistic licence" when gazing at the dial of this beautiful watch and think of the Apollo programme.

It also amuses me to think that I am using the same device that helped to save the ill-fated crew of Apollo 13 when I time a boiled egg or pizza in the oven!

Incidently the Russian Cosmanaughts wore and still wear the modern cal.861 Speedmaster for their missions.

Thanks again,

Pap

You're most welcome, Pap.
I can understand the attachment to the watch. I am wearing one as we speak. It's a reminder of excellence...and a time past which meant alot to me.





Ah, whatever on the movement. Omega changed it long ago, and that generally means improvement. Some of the astronauts in Apollo likely had 861s in their watches at one point. But you're correct, it's still the only watch to pass the "torture tests", whether it was a 321 or the current 861, and it is of course still issued to EVA crewmen (the Speedmaster X-33 is issued to IV crewmen these days, which is a digital quartz model).

I think part of the reason for its selection, other than the fact that you can beat it to death and it always works well, was its simplicity. There are no unreadable markings, its uncluttered...it looks like an analog aircraft instrument...it's easy to read and easy to use (you don't have to stare at it to see what you're trying to see). Most other high-zoot watches are too fancy, way too cluttered on the face, and of course, got a bit tired and failed the tests. Most of the other models tested were automatics as well, which was thought at the time to be a problem in zero g, and they came with these sapphire crystals that could break and cause pieces of glass to be floating about. The Speedmaster Professional still has an acrylic compound crystal, which you're going to have a hell of a time breaking.

...as a pilot, it always amuses me to see some of these wacthes they have today with all this stuff that's un-usable on the faces...flight computer bezels that you need glasses to actually see, and stuff like that. Alot of times, it's hard to tell that it's a watch at all for the clutter and the color schemes involved (I need reading glasses to see the face of a Brietling!). When you're in the soup on final approach and you've begun descent and the chart says 2:20 at 450 FPM at 90 KTS to MDA...you want to be able to quickly look at the watch and see 2:20, not have to look for it!



Yes, that's a kick, isn't it?!
...think of that egg as the LM DPS firing!




Any time!

Thank you MID, looks like i have been had (again)

No problem!

It's actually a creative joke based upon the picture that REBEL linked to, and believe it or not, that was posted here at one time or another by someone who wanted to use it as proof of a hoax!

lol! I just picked the first couple of Moon Landing ''photos/Pics'' that looked ok on Googley Googley Google Search.

I gotta say it tho MID if it hasn't already on this entire forum, Photoshop® or rather Adobe® Photoshop® CS3 Extended (professional) has killed off any credibility of genuine photography out there as say for evidence & or conclusive proof. I mean sweet jesus how do ya pick the difference of what is real & what isn't anymore???.............''Its basically all photography shot to hell''.


As an example, one of these is fake....which one?

The one on the right?

IDK Alex but i found it here, your guess is as good as mine.

==============================================


2 more that have baffled experts & the public alike since the first Apollo Missions...

Anyone pick the fake in these next two?...

You certainly have a point REB...

This makes it really tough. Although there are certainly tell-tale signs that something might be amiss in a photo, like that one that belial had posted of two guys on the Moon at the same time in the same frame.


In the case of the flag pictures you post, it's a little tougher, because they are both obviously the same flag in seemingly mirror images.
However, there are a couple of things which would lead me to think the right one is the bogus picture, with a caveat:


1. The star field on an American flag is navy blue, as on the left, not royal blue, as on the right.

2. The flag stood at head level when erected on Apollo missions. Thus, one should expect that the horizon when photographed from a chest level Hasselblad would appear below the level of the flag...unless their was a mountain in the distance. Note that the ground behind the flag in the right hand picture rises to a level almost to the top of the flag, which implies that theres a huge slope that extends out some 4 miles from the flag and rises steadily to thousands of feet. No such terrain existed at any Apollo landing site.

3. Note the size of the Resseau mark in the center of the right photo. This appears to indicate that the background on the right photo had the flag super-imposed upon it, and that this background is actually a crop of a small part of another photo, and also note that the footprints around the base of the flag in the photo are very large in relation to the flag. They're about a size 15 shoe...and no one had feet that big on Apollo (couldn't really, since such a person would've been 7 feet tall, and unable to qualify as an astronaut at that height!).

4. The biggie....the shadows on the right flag are in the wrong places...preceisely. The sun in both shots is coming from the left and rear of the flag. The shadow on the star field in the lower right corner of the right hand flag couldn't be there with the sun at that angle...

It's possible to tell if you look very carefully at these things.
But you're right, these tech devices to tend to render photgraphic evidence in doubt if you don't really know what you're looking at, and the person doing the photoshopping is really careful.

Fortunately, most of them aren't very careful!


Now, the caveat is, we're only seeing crops of both pictures...

The one on the right could be a very close crop of a photo shot from a distance, which could show a horizon at an elevated angle, depending on the terrain the photographer stood on. It could also be from the other side of the flag...which can't be seen from this cropped version....

It looks like the Sun's coming from a similar angle in both pictures, but....it's possible, due to a close crop (which seems probable to me) that we're looking at a different angle and that shadow in the right frame could be out of context because we can't see the whole picture...


Quite a quandary I'd say!