It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

page: 14
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Nothing at all its like a brain surgeon trying to tell you how to fix a car.




posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

What was Nixon's role, in your opinion, during the Gemini missions and before? You seem to imply he had his hand all over the Apollo hoax, so where was he in the previous missions? Thanks!


Nixon's role during Gemini was outside of the government and much more difficult to grasp. I am more inclined to suspect that Nixon had some involvement with Surveyor program because the various "intimate financial" relations between Nixon & Howard Hughes... Hughes being the maker of communications satellites and Surveyor moon landers.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

I clicked on the Aulis link and there's plenty of other examples of lateral movement of the Apollo photos.


the writers conclusion is that it was done in a studio of upto 300m.. and a projection screen 100-120m away..

some of the images were also taken while taking video footage..

taking video footage will mean they had to have filmed in a vacuum (if we ignore gravity completely for the time being) which means..

the largest vacuum chamber in the world is 30m in diameter.. the largest vacuum chamber is 4x smaller than what the writer predicts..



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

People interested in real history should read this link:

www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...

and the pages that follow it, which details the role of Australia's Parkes radio dish in receiving not just the Apollo TV signal but also telemetry and communications from Apollo 11 throughout the entire mission. The entire document can be found here:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

There is also this

www.honeysucklecreek.net...

Mr Nafzager seems pretty convinced they went to the moon , he calls Aldrin a national hero.

Quite a few of the people who worked at Honeysuckle and Parkes are still around. Ask them where the dish was pointed when it got the signals. Once you have that answer you could also ask how long Parkes was used to receive signals during the EVA. Here's a hint: during the orbital missions of Gemini and Apollo 7 and 9, they would be on contact for up to 20 minutes before handing over to another station.

www.honeysucklecreek.net... has a lot of useful information about Australia's role on all the Apollo and Gemini missions.

The Emmy was not for Nafzager, it was for the Apollo 11 broadcast from the moon and he accepted the award on behalf of NASA as one of the key personnel in charge of the Australia side. You can read more about the TV set up for Apollo here www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

I clicked on the Aulis link and there's plenty of other examples of lateral movement of the Apollo photos.


the writers conclusion is that it was done in a studio of upto 300m.. and a projection screen 100-120m away..

some of the images were also taken while taking video footage..

taking video footage will mean they had to have filmed in a vacuum (if we ignore gravity completely for the time being) which means..

the largest vacuum chamber in the world is 30m in diameter.. the largest vacuum chamber is 4x smaller than what the writer predicts..


Even better than that OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.c was determined to show Apollo was fake and made a wrong assumption about how the images should look. He assumed lateral movement but because the images are from panoramas it's rotational motion, basic trigonometry explains how distant objects would appear to move a large distance for a SMALL rotational value.



What's more worrying is the degree that members on here DON'T seem to recognise what happens in the world around them and the Apollo Hoax threads show this this up time and again. Some on here should get out more and they would understand no stars in pictures, how shadows work etc etc.
edit on 28-4-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-4-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

This Russian, whose alleged PhD candidacy in a mystery subject seems very difficult to confirm, also gets round a lot of the problems with his analysis by basically making stuff up. He plucks numbers out of thin air then works backwards. If this is the standard of his research I suspect that the 'c' will never be removed from the letters he has invented after his name.

He also doesn't seem to know how they would have come up with a realistic studio mock up without knowing where any of the details in the image were, given the relatively poor coverage of Hadley Rille by Lunar Orbiter.

The finer landscape details in the Apollo image are confirmed by LRO and Chandrayaan.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

Wrong, mtns that are supposedly miles away are merely 150m away. Your conclusions about the vacuum chamber are ridiculous. So, if your calculations about the moon gravity are correct, why does it look so funny when you plug in what the earth's numbers should be? Shouldn't it look like earth instead of astros on meth? The rest is you guys, once again, attacking a man's credentials instead of his work.

I don't believe a vacuum chamber was needed. Just slow motion which is somehow so Magic its fooling more people than it should, sadly. You don't move in slow motion on the moon, in fact, your arms and legs would have never moved faster until you adjust to the gravititational differences. Yes, you would fall at a different rate after leaping, that's it. I honestly can't believe this many self proclaimed experts are duped by the simplest of camera tricks.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

Wrong, mtns that are supposedly miles away are merely 150m away.


No - the calculations by this alleged Russian expert (go ahead, try and find him) are false and based n incorrect methodologies and assumptions.



Your conclusions about the vacuum chamber are ridiculous.


You base this on what exactly?


So, if your calculations about the moon gravity are correct, why does it look so funny when you plug in what the earth's numbers should be? Shouldn't it look like earth instead of astros on meth?


That's precisely the point - if you put the correct values in to compensate for the supposed slowing down, it looks wrong. It loks wron because the footage is not slowed down, never has been, you have fallen for an incorrect cultural meme.


The rest is you guys, once again, attacking a man's credentials instead of his work.


I'm attacking both. He is claiming expertise that he doesn't have and qualifications that don't seem to exist.



I don't believe a vacuum chamber was needed.


There's that 'belief' thing again. The soil and dirt do not behave as if they are in an atmosphere, they behave exactly as they should in a vacuum, and under 1/6 gravity too.


Just slow motion which is somehow so Magic its fooling more people than it should, sadly. You don't move in slow motion on the moon,


Precisely, and they do not.



in fact, your arms and legs would have never moved faster until you adjust to the gravititational differences.


You know this as a fact how? You think the suits didn't impede their movement at all?



Yes, you would fall at a different rate after leaping, that's it. I honestly can't believe this many self proclaimed experts are duped by the simplest of camera tricks.


You would indeed, and this rate of fall can be measured and calculated. As you seem to proclaiming yourself an expert, feel free to do some calculations and prove your point - you have access to the same material as anyone else. Off you go.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

If you have a camera take pictures and show us he is right. Parallax is measured from 2 points on a straight line , images taken for a panorama are rotaional from a point so objects in the distance can appear to move a measurable distance as the gif I posted shows.

I have taken/looked at/processed images for 35 years from fully manual film SLR's to all singing all dancing digital ones today that I still use in manual mode even to focus for certain subjects. The expert in the link has supposed to have studied metallurgy
what does that have to do with photography & optics please tell us?
edit on 28-4-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

You can see that the mountains are a backdrop and the line of foreground separation is present in every photo, on flat ground!

s.hswstatic.com...

That picture is almost hilarious now. You guys still believe math proves we went but I could make a scientifically correct film with a 50 ape, and that proves nothing other than a production can be scientifically correct. If you can't understand that, then this is really telling.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

You can see that the mountains are a backdrop and the line of foreground separation is present in every photo, on flat ground!

s.hswstatic.com...

That picture is almost hilarious now. You guys still believe math proves we went but I could make a scientifically correct film with a 50 ape, and that proves nothing other than a production can be scientifically correct. If you can't understand that, then this is really telling.


You use math when quantifying something so it can be analysed logically to draw conclusions, which is especially important when whatever the specific thing being analysed is subject to opinion.

The only thing I've learnt, with all due respect, Bobby - is that you don't have any experience in photography. Depending on lighting and distances you can take perfectly genuine images which can look completely photoshopped because of how the image is recorded and how you perceive it. How it 'looks' to the untrained eye is irrelevant as to the reality of it. Maths comes into it as it can offer a more in depth analysis so no one has to rely on anyone's opinion.

It is the hoax believers that have to provide proof, and they've failed time and time again. There's a completely ridiculous thread now by some oddball who refers to himself in the third person about how many and what moon rocks the Netherlands have, which is hinging on the words from a newspaper. I seem to get the impression the hoaxies can't accept that the media may have misunderstood something or made a mistake, yet when the same media states as a fact that humans have landed on the Moon it's suddenly unreliable.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

Wrong, mtns that are supposedly miles away are merely 150m away. Your conclusions about the vacuum chamber are ridiculous.


how so?? you just said that the mountains are merely 150m away.. are you saying the projection screen is not 150m away??


So, if your calculations about the moon gravity are correct, why does it look so funny when you plug in what the earth's numbers should be?


because in real life, ONLY the gravity is less, which means the pull on your foot as you walk is less, which means it is difficult to walk or run as fast as you would on earth (the movement is still the same speed but it would be pointless to move your feet faster if they dont make contact with the ground).. you would be surprised by how much you take gravity for granted in your every day life..


Shouldn't it look like earth instead of astros on meth? The rest is you guys, once again, attacking a man's credentials instead of his work.


no it wouldnt, when you walk, when you take a step, its gravity that pulls your foot towards the ground.. on earth when you take a step you need to move your foot quickly to "catch your body weight" as you walk, when gravity is lower and you have nothing to hold there is nothing to move your foot faster to the ground, you basically need to suspend your foot and wait while it hits the ground.. it is why they found the "bunny hop" easier to move around..

having said that moving your body parts about doesnt rely on gravity as much and the body can still move just as fast as it could on earth..


I don't believe a vacuum chamber was needed.


you dont remember the videos that were posted earlier in the other thread?? you even worked out yourself that a vacuum was needed..


Just slow motion which is somehow so Magic its fooling more people than it should, sadly.


yes i agree this slow motion BS theory is fooling more people than it should..


You don't move in slow motion on the moon, in fact, your arms and legs would have never moved faster until you adjust to the gravititational differences.


your body can move just as fast on earth as on the moon.. muscles move the body not gravity.. taking steps is predominantly gravity controlled..


Yes, you would fall at a different rate after leaping, that's it.


now you are getting there slowly!! what happens when you take a step?? what brings your foot down back to the ground??

in a sense walking is slow miniature leaping..

running is also kind of leaping..


I honestly can't believe this many self proclaimed experts are duped by the simplest of camera tricks.


p.s. do you find this statement a tad bit arrogant?? you cant believe that soo many experts are wrong and you are right??

edit on 28-4-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: AgentSmith

Mr. smith, that picture is hilarious. We both know it but we have different opinions about Apollo. It always comes down to someone is an expert and someone else isn't, with the Apollo side. My sister is a scientist. She also teaches Pharmacy at a prestigious university in the south. She isn't magical and she's prone to the same fallacy/misunderstanding as the guy who is in belief about the queen/Dutch moon rock. I believe many just side with NASA because it makes them feel part of an elite group of minds and they don't want to be on the other side. It's sad, that nobody has even been a fraction of the way to the moon since 1972 and we are here arguing about a mythical piece of dust and how fast it falls. I mean really!?? You can't be intellectually honest and not question Apollo. You haven't nor myself verified anything. All we've done is analyze data, photos, film. All of which are controlled mediums. I can feel this argument turning towards a hostile tone, not you, I just feel it and if I'm responsible, I'm sorry. I'll try better not to be
edit on 28-4-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

You can see that the mountains are a backdrop and the line of foreground separation is present in every photo, on flat ground!

s.hswstatic.com...

That picture is almost hilarious now. You guys still believe math proves we went but I could make a scientifically correct film with a 50 ape, and that proves nothing other than a production can be scientifically correct. If you can't understand that, then this is really telling.


Your posts seem mostly to consist of "I think this looks funny" with absolutely nothing to support that idea.

Define what you mean by 'foreground separation', then point out where it is. Please try to bear in mind that the LM there was photographed from a number of different angles, including from points you can see in the distance. Use a decent quality photo and not low resolution rubbish like the one you linked to:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Magazine 88 also contains images of the CSM taken from lunar orbit with identifiable lunar features beneath it, and time and date specific images of Earth.

Then explain to us how they supposedly produced some sort of set that they managed to film themselves driving around in for hours on live TV and where all the rocks and craters are a perfect match for photographs taken decades later by probes from a number of other countries when they had no idea what was on the ground.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

Dude, you obfuscate every argument I make and I don't know if you intentionally do it or not. I can't even respond to that. I get where this is going and I think it's time to let someone else have the stage for a bit. Maybe they'll have better luck against this posse.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AgentSmith

Mr. smith, that picture is hilarious. We both know it but we have different opinions about Apollo. It always comes down to someone is an expert and someone else isn't, with the Apollo side. My sister is a scientist. She also teaches Pharmacy at a prestigious university in the south. She isn't magical and she's prone to the same fallacy/misunderstanding as the guy who is in belief about the queen/Dutch moon rock.


the thing is, she is an expert in her field.. she would be able to tell the difference between sugar and other white powder substances..

she would NOT be considered an expert in geology..



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

Dude, you obfuscate every argument I make and I don't know if you intentionally do it or not. I can't even respond to that. I get where this is going and I think it's time to let someone else have the stage for a bit. Maybe they'll have better luck against this posse.


what are you talking about??

im describing the physics of walking.. look it up.. during the alking motion, we use our feet to push the body upwards and forwards, gravity pulls the foot back down to the ground..

what happens when that same gravity is now less?? you cant force your foot back to the ground.. thats not how physics works..

that is why it looks like theyre walking in slow motion.. but their movements are still capable of moving just as fast as normal.. which is why when you speed it upto 245% it looks unnaturally fast..

im not obfuscating anything.. you just are not understanding what im trying to describe.. im not the best at describing things but i am trying to..



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AgentSmith

Mr. smith, that picture is hilarious. We both know it but we have different opinions about Apollo. It always comes down to someone is an expert and someone else isn't, with the Apollo side. My sister is a scientist. She also teaches Pharmacy at a prestigious university in the south. She isn't magical and she's prone to the same fallacy/misunderstanding as the guy who is in belief about the queen/Dutch moon rock. I believe many just side with NASA because it makes them feel part of an elite group of minds and they don't want to be on the other side. It's sad, that nobody has even been a fraction of the way to the moon and we are here arguing about a mythical piece of dust and how fast it falls. I mean really!?? You can't be intellectually honest and not question Apollo. You haven't nor myself verified anything. All we've done is analyze data, photos, film. All of which are controlled mediums. I can feel this argument turning towards a hostile tone, not you, I just feel it and if I'm responsible, I'm sorry. I'll try better not to be


But it's only hilarious in your opinion, get a decent camera and go out in varied terrain and spend a day with it. You'll see what I mean.

And I did question it once, a very long time ago, in trying to find proof that it was fake I only found more and more mounting evidence that it happened. Every single piece of 'evidence' from the hoax crowd has either been a deception, an opinion or based on faulty science. Jarrah White for instance is fantastic for having to keep re-issuing his videos because he can't even get basic math right.

Most people I know are involved in the space industry on current missions and some have even handled samples brought back from Apollo through their work in the past.
I've met and dined with a number of Apollo astronauts such as Buzz Aldrin, Charlie Duke and Ed Mitchell.
I've seen Apollo hardware, rock samples, soil samples (I even posted some in the thread before from the NHM in Vienna last week).
I've been a Radio Ham most of my life and have known other Hams who were around at the time of Apollo and received signals as they travelled to the Moon, and then from the Moon itself.
I've spent a huge amount of time in the past researching it, as I mentioned initially this was to prove that it didn't happen when I went through what I now think of as a *something I can't mention as it would be an indirect insult to anyone still currently questioning it* stage. In my defence, I allowed my distrust of authority to get the better of me which is probably what brings most people here and fell for the trap of assuming anyone against 'the Government' was by default honest and intelligent. How wrong I was....

On a non-personal level:

- Non-US Spacecraft that have travelled since have recorded radiation levels through the Van Allen belts and in the Earth-Moon environment consistent with Apollo.
- Non-US Spacecraft have detected activity at the Apollo landing sites consistent with the historical record
- Non-US Spacecraft have recorded topographical data around the landing sites consistent with photographs of the time
- Signals were received both independently by Hams as I mentioned, but also by ground stations like Jodrell Bank.
- You talk about compartmentalisation - everyone involved particularly at the scientific and engineering levels were designing and building equipment designed to go to the Moon. Either they knew it couldn't work or it had to - in which case if you have working equipment why not go? If they knew it could not work then yes, thousands of people would need to be 'in on it'.
- Data on equipment is publicly available for scrutinisation
- Photographic record

The list goes on.. Faking it and maintaining it is so convoluted and impossible that it's actually ridiculous. It goes far beyond an opinion of a photograph and an incorrect newspaper article. It was and is literally simpler and more feasible to just go..

The argument boils down to this as far as I'm concerned - why fake it?
And the only reasonable answer would be 'because we can't actually go'.

Based on that, we can prove -scientifically- that it was possible to go. The argument therefore becomes null and void. Unless someone can prove that it was not possible to go then I don't see a discussion about anything significant.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

why does it look so funny when you plug in what the earth's numbers should be? Shouldn't it look like earth instead of astros on meth?


Why does the moon hoax camp have such a hard time understanding gravity? To simplify it gravity, for the most part, works in a vertical plane, not horizontal. This means that while you're on the moon it's the up and down movement that is slowed down, the side to side happens (moving of arms, etc) at a "normal" speed. This is why when you speed up the film to make the up and down match what it would be on Earth, the side to side looks ridiculous. You're literally saying that when you speed up the film to match earth's gravity it looks ridiculous then you go on to say that the film was slowed down to show lunar gravity. You need to make up your mind on what you think happened.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

Ah, a case where I just don't understand again. i never agreed that they were in a vacuum, I may have implied that they could have shot some scenes in one but I don't know either way. You don't seem to understand how movie magic works. Or, you'd consider it slightly instead of being completely sold on Apollo's authenticity. We don't know what factors NASA did to the film to achieve what they wanted, if that's what they did. But, we can see by speeding it up it becomes rather terrestrial. But I'm speaking to a crowd that somehow is oblivious to the film being in slow motion perhaps.




top topics



 
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join