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: 43
17
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I answered the question. Why is your side so obtuse? Strawmans and playing dumb. Also, the rock doesn't change perspective like everything else in the 3-D realm. What a laughing stock your comments will be when it's disclosed that Apollo was faked to ease Cold War tensions and "bankrupt" Russia.


It does change perspective very slightly. One reason we are expecting a greater perspective change is that House Rock appears to our eyes to be much closer than it really is. As I mentioned, that illusion is compounded by the fact that the moon is virtually devoid of any atmosphere, and the usual "depth perception" visual clue of far-way objects being hazier than close-up objects doe not apply here.
No haze = the rock seeming closer than it really is.

So what we think is a car-sized rock relatively close to the camera is really a house-sized rock that is 5 times (or more) farther from the camera than we think. Therefore, being farther away, it will not exhibit the same degree of changes in perspective that we expect a closer rock would.

Plus, as I also mentioned, the rocks behind that rock do in fact exhibit a very noticeable change in perspective, so that alone proves it isn't a flat screen.


edit on 5/15/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
ok perspective for idiots [ oops sorry hoax believers ]

as demonstrated in all the graphics presented the position of the rocks infront of AND behind the " house rock " change in acordance with parralax .

here is a graphic that shows that none of the rocks can be " painted on a backcloth "



there - thre objects and 2 perspectives that correspond to the evidence of all graphics posted about the house rock

as can be seen - all 3 objects [ rocks ] must be unique objects [ rocks ] separated by a finite distance

ergo - the " painted back-cloth " claim is utter twaddle



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I answered the question. Why is your side so obtuse? Strawmans and playing dumb. Also, the rock doesn't change perspective like everything else in the 3-D realm. What a laughing stock your comments will be when it's disclosed that Apollo was faked to ease Cold War tensions and "bankrupt" Russia.


What's the strawman here? You linked a video claiming the perspective did not change in the film and these guys demonstrated that it did. What is the argument that someone is claiming you made that you did not make?

By the way, you can take the two stills captured by Soylent Green on page 39 and free view them stereoscopically and see the house rock in 3D (on the right side especially.)
edit on 15-5-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

You see the cut scene? What's that about? Why doesn't the rock change perspective like anything else? Weird...



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ignorant_ape

You see the cut scene? What's that about? Why doesn't the rock change perspective like anything else? Weird...


IT DOES it changes in OBM's gif were do you think the frames come from



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ignorant_ape

You see the cut scene? What's that about? Why doesn't the rock change perspective like anything else? Weird...


As I already showed, that "cut scene" only appears in the video from the hoax-promoter, not it the other versions of the Apollo 15 rover footage available.

Here is the video you original posted from The glitch/cut scene you talk about at the 1:10 mark:



However, I think the issue is only with the video you posted. Another version of the footage (shown below) does not have a similar cut scene. The part of the video showing the large rock where the cut scene/glitch was seen in your video starts at about the 1:19 mark of this version of the Apollo 15 footage -- but there is no glitch in this version:



So if you are wondering what that cut scene/glitch is all about, you may need to ask the person who put together the video you originally posted. I assume that it is nothing meaningful -- just something to do with the way he edited his video.


edit on 5/15/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

you mean the " cut scene " added by a 3rd party - that cut sene - what of it ??????????????

PS - your changing the topic to avoid answering questions is getting tiresome

the parrallax of the 3 rocks does change - the further most rock shows this best -

every graphic posted also shows this

why are you being so dishonest ?



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

After everything, it still comes down to one thing. We could NOT chance failure... Geopolitically, we COULD NOT FAIL getting to the moon and everyone at the time thought it was, if not impossible, highly improbable that we could get people there and back safely.

I know that buzz and neil DID go into space because my dad picked their capsule up in the middle of the ocean, with them in it.

That doesn't mean they landed on the moon, that means they went into space.

Jaden



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Yeah, ok, putting stuff on the moon requires people actually landing there... I guess that means we've had men on mars too????

Jaden



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

If you don't see the change in perspective on the large rock I'll accept that for the sake of argument.

But there is no way you can claim that you don't see that the rocks in the foreground and the rocks in the background change apparent positions in the different frames. So, as everyone is saying there is no way it could be a painted background as claimed in that video. What is your argument from there? The "house rock" is just a huge freestanding painted image propped up somehow on the alleged set?



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
I know that buzz and neil DID go into space because my dad picked their capsule up in the middle of the ocean, with them in it.

That doesn't mean they landed on the moon, that means they went into space.

Jaden


Then where did the Apollo craft and the third stage go for the period of time when they went to the moon? It couldn't have been orbiting the earth because it would have been visible.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Masterjaden
I know that buzz and neil DID go into space because my dad picked their capsule up in the middle of the ocean, with them in it.

That doesn't mean they landed on the moon, that means they went into space.

Jaden


Then where did the Apollo craft and the third stage go for the period of time when they went to the moon? It couldn't have been orbiting the earth because it would have been visible.


Why would it have been visible in high earth orbit ?

Is there any movie of them inside the rocket at take of from earth or take of from the moon ?
edit on 15-5-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
So, House Rock (HR) yet again.

Earlier I mentioned magazine 111 from Apollo 16, which ended with frames showing HR.

Here is a comparison of one of those images of HR with a still from the bobbypurify's video, and I hope he can agree that we are dealing with the same rock:



Here are a couple of frames from that series of images showing HR, with the view changing as it moves past it from a different angle compared with the 16mm footage.



I'm sure that anyone who is paying attention can see that the view of HR changes, as does the background, I actually had to shrink down the 2nd image, as it was closer to HR than the first one and therefore larger in the image.

And as for another of bobby's unfounded claims, that the 16mm footage is 'edited just as it gets interesting' then you really need to speak to the person uploading the footage, not the cameraman.

Here is all the video footage shot by the 16 camera:



Fast forward to 1:01:57, the start of the HR footage. Continue to watch it as the LRV spends several minutes traversing to station 13. See how long it takes before there's a change in film.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Because things in orbit can be seen from the ground.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

Because things in orbit can be seen from the ground.


It really amazes me the questions this lot ask it's like they can't think or apply any logic before asking a stupid question!



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: 3danimator2014

After everything, it still comes down to one thing. We could NOT chance failure... Geopolitically, we COULD NOT FAIL getting to the moon and everyone at the time thought it was, if not impossible, highly improbable that we could get people there and back safely.

I know that buzz and neil DID go into space because my dad picked their capsule up in the middle of the ocean, with them in it.

That doesn't mean they landed on the moon, that means they went into space.

Jaden


For the same reason THEY couldn't risk faking it because they had no idea when another country could send a probe, mission or build a telescope to image the sites.

So what if they had faked it, if the Russians landed 2-5 or 10 years after or even now and could show the USA didn't, after all they had a lander design and prototypes built !

Russian Lander

Russias Failed Moon Program
edit on 15-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

Because things in orbit can be seen from the ground.


So an Apollo spacecraft on the moon is not visible with a modern telescope in space (Hubble), but an Apollo spacecraft in space is visible with an old 1969 telescope from Earth ? Do you hapen to have the picture ?
edit on 15-5-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

Because things in orbit can be seen from the ground.


So an Apollo spacecraft on the moon is not visible with a modern telescope in space (Hubble),


If you know anything about this subject, as you pretend to do, or have bothered to read the thread and the information in it, you will be fully aware that the HST does not have the resolving power capable of seeing Apollo hardware on the lunar surface.

The LRO does however, and Indian, Chinese and Japanese probes have provided corroborating evidence for Apollo. You may remember I posted this before but somehow you managed not to see it.



but an Apollo spacecraft in space is visible with an old 1969 telescope from Earth ? Do you hapen to have the picture ?


Do you know how to use google?

Objects in orbit around Earth are visible from the ground using telescopes. You can see some of them with the naked eye.

You want photos of Apollo en route to the moon taken from Earth? Here's a website for you to ignore:

www.astr.ua.edu...



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

House rock is a bill board in front of the back drop. It gives it the spatial feeling. They put it between the Sandy set and the backdrop. Boom whatcha say

All in this brief cut of 16mm footage. Weird cut scene. "Here we are headed to house rock". And all the people with the imagination of a garden snail yell "YAY!!!"
edit on 15-5-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Not impressive those pictures.

This is a photo from a space shuttle docking..from earth :

This one was taken from Earth using a fairly ordinary telescope guided by hand
edit on 15-5-2015 by webstra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join