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: 19
17
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

I haven't ignored them. See my post above. In fact, I looked for empirical evidence of them doing just that.




posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

but that is thinking like the possibility of lifting the lunar rover is impossible



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: choos



No, I never claimed it to be impossible. I wanted to find video of them carrying the rover and setting it down, sans tracks. Is that too much to ask?

Now, thanks for providing the unpacking of the rover video. I must have used a bad search. Still, that footage is really bad and provides no proof of that flimsy object pulled from the storage box even runs. I'd have to trust that it's the same rover as in the video.

So, with pressurized gloves they then assembled that folding table into this:

upload.wikimedia.org...

Then, proceeded to drive it like this:

www.aulis.com...

And, sometimes carried it and set it into place to get a photo of it? Like this:

www.aulis.com...

Then, drove up to 30mi @ 8mph on a battery powered, folding table with patio chairs.



wait...


edit on 29-4-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

Choos - master of spin.

No, I never claimed it to be impossible. I wanted to find video of them carrying the rover and setting it down, sans tracks. Is that too much to ask?


you said you were looking for empirical evidence of them moving or unpacking the Lunar rover..

im confused why you and ppk find the explainations for no tracks so puzzling.. is lifting and moving a rover really that interesting?? what am i missing??


Now, thanks for providing the unpacking of the rover video. I must have used a bad search. Still, that footage is really bad and provides no proof of that flimsy object pulled from the storage box even runs. I'd have to trust that it's the same rover as in the video.


i changed it to a higher quality version..


So, with pressurized gloves they then assembled that folding table into this:


you are greatly underestimating engineers.. you really think they didnt think of this issue and didnt bother to design it to be easily opened?? it isnt assembled, it is more or less unfolded.


Then, proceeded to drive it like this:


why does the original image have the tracks turning as it enters the crater??

history.nasa.gov...

and also, do you think the shadowed area of the crater is affecting the perception of how deep the crater is?


And, sometimes carried it and set it into place to get a photo of it? Like this:


why not?? is lifting 35kg difficult??


Then, drove up to 30mi @ 8mph on a battery powered, folding table with patio chairs.



this is just your disbelief again.. got any proof that it cant be done?

oh and btw.. stating they drove upto 30 miles is misleading.. Apollo 17 only drove about 35.9km
edit on 29-4-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Photo fun:

www.angelfire.com...

Photo experts, how far away is that mountain in the background? How are these consecutive photos possible? I could see the foreground changing size like that but not a mountain that appears to be a good distance away. Maybe I'm missing something here....

[AS15-85-11487 and AS15-85-11488]

Or this picture:

www.aulis.com...

You can even tell it's the same terrain/landscape. Marked by the small crater in both photos and land layout. Makes one wonder...



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

ATTENTION!



Comments about each other will cease.

Address the topic and points about the topic. Not each other.

Personal comments about each other should not be posted. Doing so is considered off topic.

Continuing to do so will result in post removals and Post Bans handed out.

Please remember, YOU are responsible for your posts.

Alert posts that do this, do not respond to them.

Continuing to do so may result in this thread being shut down.

Do not reply to this.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify

Or this picture:

www.aulis.com...

You can even tell it's the same terrain/landscape. Marked by the small crater in both photos and land layout. Makes one wonder...


a higher res image:
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

you can clearly see there is a slight mound that is blocking the small crater seen in the second image.. if you cant see it look under the middle crosshair of the first image (AS15-85-11454)

not a photo expert at all, so cant help on the other one..



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

Sorry for including your name in a post and labeling you. I edited it out.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

Well, on second look of the first link - there's a shift to the left from the first to the second. So, if I'm being honest, there's some dIscrepansy between photos yet, the background doesn't seem to match up. I'll have to look at it some more
edit on 29-4-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Photo fun:

www.angelfire.com...

Photo experts, how far away is that mountain in the background? How are these consecutive photos possible? I could see the foreground changing size like that but not a mountain that appears to be a good distance away. Maybe I'm missing something here....

[AS15-85-11487 and AS15-85-11488]


Just need to overlay them to see what happened, it's an illusion caused by a slight rotation of the camera between shots.





Or this picture:

www.aulis.com...

You can even tell it's the same terrain/landscape. Marked by the small crater in both photos and land layout. Makes one wonder...


Addressed above, but I was just going to add that whoever made that graphic should have known this not only because you can see - but because the fact that there are an entire sequence of photos in-between of panoramas and moving around should have shown he moved. Why would you take the same photo from the same place again later?
Not your fault Bobby, but this is the type of thing that annoys me - whoever made that graphic knew the truth if they looked at the original set - so what's their game?



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgentSmith

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Photo fun:

www.angelfire.com...

Photo experts, how far away is that mountain in the background? How are these consecutive photos possible? I could see the foreground changing size like that but not a mountain that appears to be a good distance away. Maybe I'm missing something here....

[AS15-85-11487 and AS15-85-11488]



Just need to overlay them to see what happened, it's an illusion caused by a slight rotation of the camera between shots.





Or this picture:

www.aulis.com...

You can even tell it's the same terrain/landscape. Marked by the small crater in both photos and land layout. Makes one wonder...


Addressed above, but I was just going to add that whoever made that graphic should have known this not only because you can see - but because the fact that there are an entire sequence of photos in-between of panoramas and moving around should have shown he moved. Why would you take the same photo from the same place again later?
Not your fault Bobby, but this is the type of thing that annoys me - whoever made that graphic knew the truth if they looked at the original set - so what's their game?


Thanks for taking the time to put that together. I think you're half right too! My only issue with your comparison is the tire tracks don't match up, although, your mountains do! But - we need to look a little harder at that IMO. It is kind of deceiving on both ends.

I've seen Aulis make mistakes and to their credit - below the photo they actually post if it's been debunked equivocally. That's nice. The compilation is three photos, correct? They certainly could have included a photo to drive their point home, I wouldn't put that past them. I think the big point we're missing here is that the driver, in both arguments, goes right through a crater! That seems like an odd decision to expose half of the rover to such an undulation. Not necessary and could jeopardize missions. Like hopping 4 ft in the air and landing on your back? That's just plain stupid, no excuses, in the vacuum of the moon where a potential malfunction means 100% death

But have a star because you did address both photos!
edit on 29-4-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Thanks for taking the time to put that together. I think you're half right too! My only issue with your comparison is the tire tracks don't match up, although, your mountains do! But - we need to look a little harder at that IMO. It is kind of deceiving on both ends.


No worries, don't forget though that he will have been standing still and rotated to make the photo. Perhaps taking a step in one direction? Who knows, he's just a person. There is the rotation of the camera, lens distortion effects, etc.
Some of the other guys on here would probably explain it better and I think it was brought up before.
Grab a camera and experiment with taking some photos, panoramas, rotating, side stepping, etc. Then try stitching the photos together in photoshop and you'll see these types of effects/anomalies.
Don't use the panorama function though on any camera/phone, it does it in software and produces that distorted thing at the end. You need to take the individual pics and see.



I've seen Aulis make mistakes and to their credit - below the photo they actually post if it's been debunked equivocally. That's nice. The compilation is three photos, correct? They certainly could have included a photo to drive their point home, I wouldn't put that past them. I think the big point we're missing here is that the driver, in both arguments, goes right through a crater! That seems like an odd decision to expose half of the rover to such an undulation. Not necessary and could jeopardize missions. Like hopping 4 ft in the air and landing on your back? That's just plain stupid, no excuses, in the vacuum of the moon where a potential malfunction means 100% death


I think that's another photo you posted earlier? I was on about the 'vanishing' crater one where he'd gone for a stroll between photos. The one driving through the crater - it is odd why they haven't made it clearer that he turned as he went into it and made it look like he ploughed on through. Though the turn in the original photo implies to me it wasn't intentional and he turned as he hit it with the inside wheel(s) only just within the rim.

edit on 29-4-2015 by AgentSmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: AgentSmith

I think matching up the foreground in a compilation, set at such close distance would be of more importance than matching up the distant mountains. I guess I'd have to see it done before I come to any conclusion.

My bad. Thought you were talking about the rover photo. Let me see which photos they stitched together. Research time!



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Photo fun:


Or this picture:

www.aulis.com...

You can even tell it's the same terrain/landscape. Marked by the small crater in both photos and land layout. Makes one wonder...


AS15-85-11454 is part of a pan taken later on you will always have stitching problems when taking panoramas for better quality a tripod and a panoramic head is required.


A panoramic tripod head is a piece of photographic equipment, mounted to a tripod, which allows photographers to shoot a sequence of images around the entrance pupil of a lens that can be used to produce a panorama. The primary function of the panoramic head is to precisely set the point of rotation about the entrance pupil for a given lens and focal length, eliminating parallax error.


It's a pity that Dr Oleg Oleynik if he actually exists didn't bother to ask a photographer before making his IDIOTIC post on Aulis
edit on 29-4-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
re- the rover driving through the crater, this image shows it from a position upslope:

www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Do all the rocks from the moon come from asteroid impacts? On earth they're formed from weather and volcanic activity. Other than meteorite impacts; how do rocks surface on the moon?

Might be a stupid question but something I just thought about.


edit on 29-4-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

I believe you're blaming the wrong person who contributed to Aulis. This was a claim made by Jack White. I've been thinking about my doorbell; when ya gonna ring it?



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

Basic summary here:

en.wikipedia.org...

Mostly meteorite impacts, of which there are many, and because there is no atmosphere even small ones can deliver quite a punch.

The other major contribution to 'space weathering' (which I think is a really infantile sounding term but the scientific community seem to have settled on it) is the solar wind and cosmic rays that act to breakdown the structure of the rocks, and the deposits from which are recorded in the rocks.

Much of our understanding of the processes comes from the Apollo samples and looking at their composition and structure.

One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned is thermal expansion and contraction, which I would have thought would contribute something.

One of the main physical features that distinguishes lunar particulates from terrestrial equivalents is the lack of rounding and smoothing from the water and wind based erosion.
edit on 29-4-2015 by onebigmonkey because: typo



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Chris Craft - NASA legend

"Q:We’re already seeing the impressive capabilities with robots like Curiosity.

A: Yeah. Exactly. If you think about the practical aspects of going into space, there’s no practical reason for going to Mars. But there is a practical reason for going to the moon. And furthermore, if you really want to go somewhere, get out of this solar system. Eventually that’s what you’re going to have to do. I don’t know how to do that, but we’ll figure out how to do it one day."

I don’t know how to do that, but we’ll figure out how to do it one day."


blog.chron.com...

Wait, what?

What could he possibly be implying? We can't send a robot to the Moon? He seems to allude to we need to get back to the moon if we ever want to get out of the solar system. He sees practical reason in going to the moon and eventually that's what you're going to have to do. Is he having information from Apollo/Gemini/Mercury/Surveyor kept from him? Just reading an article of his and found it interesting...
edit on 29-4-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
He is quite clearly talking about leaving the solar system, not going to the moon.




top topics



 
17
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join