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.

 

I thought we went to the moon....until I viewed these videos

page: 10
22
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MissVocalcord

Go for a drive. I did and do for my job plenty. Rock formations are subject to perspective change. Houses, a few hundered meters back are too. House Rock does not in this vid. At all. This has been evidenced in this thread. Here's a zoomed in view of it, unaltered, well other than his graphics and commentary

www.youtube.com...

ETA: The video maker does come to the wrong conclusion IMO. Claiming the rock (house rock) is part of the back ground where I believe it's a 2-D cut out added to the production.
edit on 20-5-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 20 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

Alright, fair enough. My apologies for misunderstanding. I suppose it indeed went over my head. It's hard to tell what is and what isn't meant to be taken seriously from some of the Moon Hoax proponents. I find your reasoning a little ridiculous, so that didn't help.

For the record, I don't think there is a problem with asking questions. I find the absurdities come into play when you have to start nit picking and using your imagination to think of all the ways it could have been faked. The mass generalizations. And of course, ignoring some of the evidence.

To your credit, I haven't once heard you mention Jay Weidner or Stanley Kubrick.

Do you believe the Japanese faked their satellite 3d mapping of the Moon?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

No worries. I only deal with what I can see. It's hard to get into the inner-workings of who was involved. My interpretations are merely based on how Apollo could be recreated on Earth. So, yes, I do speculate without tangible documented evidence. But I work in the constraints of reality as well. So what I offer shouldn't be far-fetched if Apollo is a hoax (I believe it is).

I believe countries, including us have mapped the moon with unmanned probes/satellites. I don't believe humans can traverse the ERBs nor survive the conditions beyond, and my evidence is rather strong outside of Apollo's testimony.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
ATTENTION:

Keep the conversation on the topic and off each other. Each other is never the topic here and all opinions are allowed.

You can not force your opinions on others and insulting people you don't agree with for their opinions will not fly here.

This will be the only warning.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST.


Blaine91555
Moderator



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Rock formations are subject to perspective change. Houses, a few hundered meters back are too

Houses are very well defined in shape, rocks aren't. It is depending on so many different factors I also mentioned in my previous post.
You are making all kind of assumptions (rover driving in a straight line, camera mounted in a 90degree angle etc). Look at the video I posted and the turns the rover makes, the rock seems to come into sight again after 39s.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: MissVocalcord

Everything changes perspective, even in the video, rock in the foreground do. Sounds like you're making assumptions too! House rock would change perspective and the video looks like a production. Unfortunately, not everyone will admit this because they are trying to "win" the discussion rather than look at obvious mishaps



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DelMarvel

I meant that the new images matched the original still pictures and were formatted to the updated film. I thought I explained this in full. I never stated what you claim I did. This is becoming too commonplace in this discussion. It's really not that hard to comprehend. Oh well


All right. This is my summary of what you said:

originally posted by: DelMarvel
So that debunks your claim that these matching images were digitally created since the advent of the internet.


And this is exactly what you've said. Unless NASA has gone back and digitally changed it:


originally posted by: bobbypurify
Nobody saw much of what was put out, unless they watched it on TV or bought it on VHS/Beta/or Laser Disc (all carefully controlled by NASA) UNTIL the advent of the internet age. That's when, IMO, that most of the damage control photo retouching and video effects/retouching were done, to protect the lie they started way before they knew about the availability of information.



originally posted by: bobbypurify
1995 - "Internet is scary" - NASA
Afterwards - retouched film and photos
introducing "evidence" such as cloud patterns that match the real satellite photos/record of the time.



originally posted by: bobbypurify
Could they have retouched the Earth in those CUT SCENENS to match weather data and satellite stills of 1969? Hmmm...

Yes!


originally posted by: bobbypurify
Here's how they were faked. The scenes with the Earth out of the window are always preceded by a black out/cut. These were filmed much later on. Nobody studied the actual 1969 footage of this. It's been altered and used as damage control so propagandists can construct false arguments such as the weather pattern malarky that fools the kiddos who dried up their pineal gland long ago



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
It's been altered and used as damage control so propagandists can construct false arguments such as the weather pattern malarky that fools the kiddos who dried up their pineal gland long ago


And, by the way, just want to take note yet again of the Ad Hom attack on other posters.

The logic of the arguments being presented to you by these folks stands independent of the alleged status of anyone's glandular system.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

Know the words "could" and "imo". I don't deal in absolutes



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DelMarvel

Know the words "could" and "imo". I don't deal in absolutes


This statement of yours is most certainly phrased as an absolute:


originally posted by: bobbypurify
Here's how they were faked. The scenes with the Earth out of the window are always preceded by a black out/cut. These were filmed much later on. Nobody studied the actual 1969 footage of this. It's been altered and used as damage control so propagandists can construct false arguments such as the weather pattern malarky that fools the kiddos who dried up their pineal gland long ago.


Don't try to flippantly accuse me of a comprehension problem. You're backpedalling and denying what you unmistakably wrote. It's right there in black and white.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

Cool, man. You got me. You've acehived what you wanted to do.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: MissVocalcord

Everything changes perspective, even in the video, rock in the foreground do.

Not necessary when you are moving away from something.
I took two screenshots from this video I posted earlier, since it is more "original" (e.g. not zoomed in) then the one you posted:

One when the rock is fully onscreen for the first time and one when it is for the last time:

I did not scale any of the screenshots (please try it yourself if you don't believe me), however when the rock leaves sight it has become
almost twice as small. The rover is moving away from the rock.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I saw the video a few years ago, they confirm shooting video in the studio, not the facts were or were not... and my opinion of different sources, you there have not been
edit on 21/5/15 by mangust69 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MissVocalcord

I don't see anything you're trying to say. Sorry. I'm not trying to avoid it, but I honestly don't see that. The rover passes from the left side of the rock to the right. Besides, if the rock changed that much size then it is a prop as the rover travels 8mph which is too slow for something that far away to shrink twice its size in mere couple of seconds



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Sorry. I'm not trying to avoid it, but I honestly don't see that.

You said the perspective didn't change at all; That is wrong, the rock becomes smaller; that is also a perspective change. It most likely also says something about the movement of the rover. It is not just a left to right movement.
I simply don't know the exact path of the rover, I don't know the exact angle the camera was mounted, etc,etc; you do?


if the rock changed that much size then it is a prop

Because props magically change size?


(post by bobbypurify removed for a manners violation)

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Here you go, two screen captures of the rock from that video:



You can clearly see the large rock changes perspective, and that it moves with respect to the foreground and background exactly as you'd expect.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

House rock doesn't change at all, except in color. It's a prop between the backdrop and the simulated floor IMO. Your gif further proves that. When you watch the video, this sticks out because it doesn't change perspective, like everything else does. But, it doesn't matter. This hasn't been an honest conversation whatsoever.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

Well, if you can't see that House Rock does indeed change perspective between those two frames, the conversation is pointless.


(post by bobbypurify removed for a manners violation)





 
22
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join