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.

 

Moon landings - faked, met with aliens or the official story?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: blackthorne

Humans have also never gone back to near the bottom of the Marinas Trench in the Pacific Ocean (the Challenger Deep) in the 55+ years since it was first done by Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh aboard the Trieste. Sometimes circumstances just happen that they don't go back.

In the case of missions to the Moon, the reason for not going back is probably a combination of the great expense to do so, new safety standards at NASA (which go hand-in-hand with expense), and a feeling of "been there-done that".


edit on 8/3/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Glassbender777
1. I believe we went to the moon, considering even amateur astronomers can see what was left there, from the landings.


Any examples of that because the Hubble can only resolve objects 300 feet across at the distance of the Moon.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: pfishy

It's a composite.

www.independent.co.uk...

Yes it is a composite... but honestly I think overlay is a better word.



The new picture is a composite, of three separate images, but each of those images showed the whole planet. The camera takes ten images through the colour spectrum — going all the way from ultraviolent to infrared — and to make the new picture Nasa combined the red, green and blue pictures.


www.independent.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
There are other threads discussing photo's of the earth - please move along before i get sidetracked too


Oh and I think a lot of people would agree WHY haven't we back to the bottom of the Marianas trench - damn it - was sidetracked anyway



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

But it is a composite of full-disc pictures taken in different color filters. That's how digital photography works in applications like this. They need several filters to discern different types of data. So, even though it's an overlay of multiple images, it is still the whole disc, not several parts of it stitched together.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

The LRO took several pictures of the various landing sites.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: NONPOINT21

Excellent post. What blew my mind at one time was that there's only one supposed photo of the entire earth and that supposedly came from Apollo 17 (of which I believe is fake as well). Most pictures are renderings or composites. Really? One freaking picture of earth and there's thousands of craft in geostationary orbit or beyond?



Have a look here Apollo Image Atlas

Look from Apollo 10 onwards you will find images of the Moon with the Earth or Earth itself.

For example from Apollo 10 mission Earth

You should really get YOUR facts right before posting.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: wmd_2008

The LRO took several pictures of the various landing sites.


Yes those clever AMATEURS at NASA as I said there are NO amateur pictures.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Sorry, apparently I picked the wrong point in what you were saying.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Reading comprehension, mate. "Entire Earth". The image you linked showed basically a 3/4 Earth with terminator line. The rest, other than the blue marble shot captured by A17 are the same or less visible earth. I do have my facts straight.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: charolais

It is a composite. What's amazing to me is that this composite and the hasselblad from A17 are the only non-renderings or stiched photos of the entire marble of earth. What else is amazing is that other space agencies haven't taken entire shots of the globe. What's even more amazing is how easily this could be fabricated and we rely on faith in a government entity for the accuracy of these 2-d photos we believe to be anythng.

What else is amazing is how offended people get for even questioning any of this. Sad state of times where we can't bounce ideas off of one another and actually be humble enough not to deal in absolutes or authority worship. Funny, how if you don't take the stance of siding with authority and their spoon-fed information you're allowed to be called "ignorant" on this conspiracy site.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: pfishy

It's a composite.

www.independent.co.uk...

The CCD in the camera is B&W a red,green & blue image is taken and combined to form a colour image each image is taken in 40 milliseconds.

Digital camera sensors see luminosity ie the amount of light striking them not colour


This is a colour filter that is bonded to the sensor substrate to allow colour to be recorded. The sensor on its own can only measure the number of light photons it collects. It has no way of determining the colour of those photons. As such, the sensor itself can only record in monochrome.




Click here a see your camera/phone cameras filter Bayer Filter

If you don't REALLY KNOW what you are talking about it's best not to comment

edit on 3-8-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Yes, but color filters are used with CCD cameras to block certain parts of the spectrum so that the intensity of the light making it through the filters can be determined. I know how CCDs work. I was merely making my point in a simplified manner. Which is STILL that, overlayed images or not, they are all of the full disc, not several parts stitched together.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

are you going on record stating the the EPIC shot of earth is NOT A COMPOSITE?

If that's a "no" then the rest of your comment is obfuscating my entire message and rendered useless in the scheme of this thread. Feel free to digest my entire posts instead of your authority-worship post dancing that confuses the casual reader and leads off into a fallicious narrative all prompted by you misunderstanding what I posted.

And I'll comment on anything, thanks.

Now, back to the thread! Sorry for the hiccups.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

See, the problem lies in the fact that ALL digital photography can be said to be a composite image because of the way the technology works. But the EPIC image is a picture of the entire disc. Not several pictures of parts of it which were stitched together at the edges. So, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this would actually qualify as a whole Earth image in your view, correct?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Yes, if it's real then it would count to me. But, it's a composite, nonetheless. It still requires faith to believe in these pictures taken from space, whether we want to accept that or not. See, none of us will probably ever get to go to space, unless something drastically changes.

I believe there's reason to have NASA send us BS and really be a funneling of tax money onto black projects or what have you. Think, with the advances of special effects, they could spend a fraction on duping the population while pocketing the rest.

Of course, I'd be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that I'm completely wrong and NASA is really taking photos of Pluto.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
But the EPIC image is a picture of the entire disc. Not several pictures of parts of it which were stitched together at the edges.


You are correct. It is not a bunch of images of the partial Earth stitched together to make the full disc of the Earth -- the images used to make this image were ALL images of the full Earth.

From the website:

...The new picture is a composite, of three separate images, but each of those images showed the whole planet.
(emphasis mine)

www.independent.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

Well, that lies within the realm of personal viewpoint. And I can't speak from yours any more than you can speak from mine. So I'll not debate whether you should or shouldn't believe them. We all know that never goes anywhere, regardless of what side of the issue you're on.
But, as to your whole-disc, non stitched photo, I do believe that this qualifies for what you requested to see.
edit on 3-8-2015 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

I'll allow it.



I did specify non-composite/non-rendering earlier and the photo is technically a composite. But, yes, I'll agree with you that it is of the quality of the A17 image. And, yes, arguing worldviews rarely gets anywhere on this site. We are too stubborn now as we quench our thirsts of knowledge. However, I will always respect any view, as long as you're not offensive towards others for believing what they do. But I digress, this site seems to be overrun with some rampant know it alls who really gang up on people who question our dear powers that be.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

Yeah, the real problem is that no craft is ever going to use film again. So composite color is the only way we are ever going to see anything in or from space.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join