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: 41
17
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

So, we are all told to "go outside and look around" in this discussion. The 16mm film showing house rock shows a rock that doesn't change perspective when going by, from the entire left of the rock to the right side, AT ALL. Now, be good little patriots and drive by anything, that isn't far away (remember, we know the dimension of said rock so it isn't far off), like a cluster of trees, a building, house, rock whatever and as you drive by ANY FRICKING THING, they all change perspective. That's what made this video I posted fascinating and what makes ANYONE critical. It doesn't look right and for good reason. So, I scream FAKE. Because it looks fake and by our own knowledge of terrain, it should change but was carefully dodged. Notice how they have us look at everything around it. We have all seen how Star Wars was remastered,, thanks for the HD update of the rover ride. Little dots in the background altered to obfuscate the argument. Nice, NASA




posted on May, 14 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

Give it up. Your youtube vid was thoroughly debunked. If "I scream FAKE" is all you have in response you've lost the point.


edit on 14-5-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

I enjoy your cheerleading. So, why didn't house rock change perspective while passing by from literally meters away? I'll sit and await YOUR answer as to why. I'll hang up and listen



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Richard Nixon had full control of the Apollo Conspiracy. Nixon had the STG headed by Spiro Agnew with the help of Bill Anders, and others, who were trying to promote a Mars mission in the 1980's. As we all know - a Mars mission with Apollo- derived technology in the 1980's would have been impossible.

Nixon also had his Domestic Council, headed by his handpicked ultra-loyalist, John Ehrlichman. The Nixon view was to "ratchet down" the NASA budgets so that he could justify cancellation of more Apollo moon missions.

Nixon also had the OMB stacked with two more of his cronies, Caspar Weinberger and George Schultz.

Nixon also had Pete Flanigan and Tom Whitehead working to ratchet the NASA budget so that Tom Paine and George Low would consider cancelling Apollo missions.

Nixon, always the great leader, let NASA go for 8 months without a sworn in Administrator. We all know that Austrian born George Low was "acting" administrator when Tom Paine quit NASA. It took that much time to find James Fletcher.

Why didn't NASA nominate George Low or Frank Borman or Stanley Kubrick? Why did Nixon let there be a gap of NASA administrators for so long (enough time to regroup after Apollo 13 and to prepare for Apollo 14).?

Just want to let the Apollo Defenders know that I will be ignoring their comments in this thread. The Apollo Defenders have set the precedent, they have decided that they will ignore posts about Richard Nixon in this thread. I really only wish to communicate with those who are dedicated to reviewing the official narratives.

Here is a special message to Apollo Reviewers: If any Apollo Defender mentions the Holocaust they are automatically out of the game and you should not respond to that user ever again.

There are some Apollo Defenders in this thread who have mentioned the Holocaust and they are OFFICIALLY DEAD IN THIS THREAD.
Deal with it Defenders.


edit on 5/14/2015 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

What nobody answered was why this object remained in a 2-D shape. You don't notice that. You idly wait for others to respond, applaud at all the fancy obfuscation, and then act as if it's debunked all while they skated around the large house rock of an elephant in the room. Enjoy your NASA bed spread tonight



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

Go for a drive, locate a house a ways back from the road. Notice it against the back drop of mountains, trees, horizon, etc... If it remains free of perspective change, you won. If not, well it won't, because that's never going to happen, you lose!



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

So you're quite happy to ignore all the pointers that show that this rock is not on a painted background? All the other views of house rock? The modern satellite views of house rock?

Have another gif. The red circle shows what it is centred on:



How does this work on a painted background?

Scream fake all you like, it doesn't make it right.
edit on 14-5-2015 by onebigmonkey because: extra



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Salute to all the Apollo Reviewers out there including Richard Hoagland, John Lear, Jay Weidner, Rob Ager, John Logsdon, Mark Feeney, William Cooper, Bill Kaysing, Ralph René, Thomas Baron and his family, Gus Grissom and his family, Bart Sibrel, Jack White, David Percy, and many, many more.



Please reply to this post with the names of other important Apollo Reviewers.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DelMarvel

I enjoy your cheerleading. So, why didn't house rock change perspective while passing by from literally meters away? I'll sit and await YOUR answer as to why. I'll hang up and listen


The rock DID change perspective. It's clearly visible in the two stills posted by Soylent Green on page 39. Are you seriously saying you can't see that?

EDIT: I see onebigmonkey has made a gif making it even easier to see. And you can actually see the rocks in the background changing perspective watching that video in real time if you look closely which proves it's not a 2D backdrop.
edit on 15-5-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Salute to all the Apollo Reviewers out there including Richard Hoagland, John Lear, Jay Weidner, Rob Ager, John Logsdon, Mark Feeney, William Cooper, Bill Kaysing, Ralph René, Thomas Baron and his family, Gus Grissom and his family, Bart Sibrel, Jack White, David Percy, and many, many more.



Please reply to this post with the names of other important Apollo Reviewers.


i think this says it all





edit on 15-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DelMarvel

What nobody answered was why this object remained in a 2-D shape. You don't notice that. You idly wait for others to respond, applaud at all the fancy obfuscation, and then act as if it's debunked all while they skated around the large house rock of an elephant in the room. Enjoy your NASA bed spread tonight


Seriously get your eyes checked!!!



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Mr purify might also want to look at Magazine 111 from Apollo 16, which is a long series of images taken at regular intervals between the LM and station 11, where House Rock is.

The last images of the magazine show the rock, and show it from a different perspective to the 16mm footage eg AS16-111-18178. Unless we're going to argue that it is a comoletely different stage set, you can quite easily compare features of House Rock in the video, photograph and TV.

There are animations of this sequence on youtube - I did one of them (on phone so no links), so you can tell it is all one ride.
edit on 15-5-2015 by onebigmonkey because: OCD



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DelMarvel

I enjoy your cheerleading. So, why didn't house rock change perspective while passing by from literally meters away? I'll sit and await YOUR answer as to why. I'll hang up and listen


If only YOU actually did listen & learn !

Oh about your comments regarding the pictures taken on the surface here are a few links for you maybe it might sink in that
a) Not all the pictures are perfect in composition or exposure.
b) How to set exposure without taking light meter readings.
c) How to get the maximum area in focus.

A) Hasselblad Image Gallery
B) Exposure without a light meter

This was on the Apollo cameras



C) The standard lens used by Apollo missions on the Hasselblad Cameras was a 60mm that's a wide angle lens for that camera but here is some info on achieving maximum depth of field.

Tried to find a SIMPLE explanation to give you a chance to understand.

Hyperfocal Distance

After all for years little point and shoot cameras were sold with NO focus or exposure adjustment.
In the days of film cameras the film had a little data sheet so if you could adjust settings on the camera you followed the exposure guidelines given.

Exposure Table

Now is anything starting to dawn on YOU after all a few posts back you claimed you had taken in info given by others on here did YOU REALLY, I don't think so

edit on 15-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Quite often you would hear the astronauts asking for what settings they should use for particular shots, but often on the surface they didn't.

Iirc there are whole magazines in Apollo 12 and 16 where the wrong aperture settings were used.

Going back to the supposedly 'perfect' Apollo 15 salute photo, there is live TV footage of them taking those shota, and you can see both astronauts adopting a specific pose to take the images, just like they'd been trained to do.

I have an SlLR camera. I bet you any money I can 'point and shoot' on manual setting without the viewfinder and get the photo I want.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Marcus Allen !





edit on 15-5-2015 by Ove38 because: link fix



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

How dare you include Gus Grissom, a genuine hero, in that rogue's gallery. Have you no shame?



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Haha. That isn't a perspective change. It remains in 2-D realm and you just need your eyes to see it in the video, HD or not, it doesn't change at all with everything else around it. So maybe it's a cut out? I don't know but it's not right. AND, what's up with a cut in footage? How come there's always a cut in the reel right before something goofy happens with Apollo?



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: bobbypurify

So you're quite happy to ignore all the pointers that show that this rock is not on a painted background? All the other views of house rock? The modern satellite views of house rock?

Have another gif. The red circle shows what it is centred on:



How does this work on a painted background?

Scream fake all you like, it doesn't make it right.


The rock in the foreground changes position, nothing more. Jeez, this one puts egg all over your argument.

School House Rock!



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Salute to all the Apollo Reviewers out there including Richard Hoagland, John Lear, Jay Weidner, Rob Ager, John Logsdon, Mark Feeney, William Cooper, Bill Kaysing, Ralph René, Thomas Baron and his family, Gus Grissom and his family, Bart Sibrel, Jack White, David Percy, and many, many more.



Please reply to this post with the names of other important Apollo Reviewers.


Sayonara Jupiter, Ove, Webstra, Me, FoosM, Turbonium...

...Duhn Duhn duhn....JARRAH WHITE
edit on 15-5-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: bobbypurify

So you're quite happy to ignore all the pointers that show that this rock is not on a painted background? All the other views of house rock? The modern satellite views of house rock?

Have another gif. The red circle shows what it is centred on:



How does this work on a painted background?

Scream fake all you like, it doesn't make it right.


The rock in the foreground changes position, nothing more. Jeez, this one puts egg all over your argument.

School House Rock!


so you believe that the foreground moves.. and you also believe the back ground moves..

so effectively, you dont believe in your 2d painted unmoving backdrop?



new topics




 
17
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join