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.

 

NASA Moon Landing Videos: Fake or Real?

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: misterz

There... is... NO... air... on... the... Moon. There is an exosphere of electrostatically charged dust and assorted heavy molecules, but it is nothing like air.




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: misterz
There is atmosphere on the moon. The flag blows in the wind.


you see the flag move and automatically think it must be an atmosphere??

WHY?

are there any other possible reasons to how a flag in low gravity with an ABSENCE of an atmosphere could wave about slowly?
like say momentum from when they placed the flag??


If you kick up fine particulate matter into the air at high speed, in low gravity, why do you believe that will result in no dust cloud?

Have you tested this? Because you seem ultra positive.


because there is no air on the moon to suspend a dust cloud. feel free to prove everyone wrong in the last 40+ years that there is air on the moon.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

www.clavius.org...Thanks for the link. I used "glare" as the term I think we all know an accept as the phenomenon in the relevant photo. But, "hot spot" is apparently a better term which I did not search for. It may have been lazy, stupid, or both... irrelevant.

The smartest thing said by the provided link is this: "Digital scans taken from prints of these photos are uniformly brighter than scans taken from the master transparencies for the same photos. Since it's possible to "push" individual prints, but not advisable to do it for entire transparency rolls, we hypothesize that the prints of this photo sequence are customarily "pushed" in the photo lab to make them more suitable for display. And since we have reason to believe that despite Armstrong's best attempts at overexposure, the areas of interest in the photo were still too dark, there is a plausible motive for the photo lab to "push" the prints." So, they imply here that the image is a bright image and may have been brightened by the photo lab. That's right. Look at the bright surface of the moon in the back-ground indicating a photo that has been made bright despite being in the dark. The disclaimer on the photo library webpage is essentially that the images have been filtered, and you are supposed to go back and request an unaltered print if that is what you want for a research project. So, it would be better to have an original unaltered scan. But, one thing NASA wouldn't seem to do is add glare on the boot in question.

This means that a highlight which was comparatively dim in the original transparency may appear considerably brighter in a "pushed" print.

Here are some additional quotes I find interesting from the Clavius site:

Dr. Groves' analysis purports to be carried out to a precision of a ten-thousandth of a degree of arc
The claimed accuracy is +-6cm. Source:
@35:09 "The light source is between 24cm and 36cm to the right of the camera." What is the math showing this 6cm corresponds with 1/10,000th of a degree? That sounds totally wrong. Perhaps this 1/10,000 number is a total guess by someone who has no trigonometry training, but we are not told the basis for this statement so we don't know.


Dr. Groves' claim to have precisely located the light source implies that the light is quite small
Disagreed. Grove never seems to indicate the size of the secondary lights source. What does he say that would indicate that?


Dr. Groves' arbitrary assumptions (well hidden in the book)
What book?


We see absolutely no shadows from the porch rail, or from the panel just to the left of the forward hatch. These are both in prime locations for the postulated light source to cast shadows onto the hatch itself.
Meanwhile, Grove says he noticed secondary light source shadows. It seems like a software lighting physics engine can resolve this question well, as very good simulators are on the market. I'm not convinced there are secondary shadows, there are not any secondary shadows, or whether or not secondary shadows are really going to be seen... that seems like guessing rather than well-evidenced claim.


If we wish to continue believing that an artificial fill light must have been used, we are forced to conclude that the light was very large, such as a huge reflector or diffuser. This flatly contradicts Dr. Groves' analysis which demands that the hypothetical light be very small in order that its location can be precisely computed. The soft, non-directional nature of the apparent fill light supports the hypothesis that it was a large light source. But is it really non-directional?
This is apparently a guess based upon the guess there we were supposed to see a shadow somewhere. Weak. Where is their software simulation? Or, where is their scale-model mock-up display for the evidence?


the relative dimness of the astronaut's legs compared to the rest of his suit which is more brilliantly lit. This indicates that those portions of the suit are not receiving as much light. This pattern of light is consistent with indirect lighting from the portions of the lunar surface which are directly lit
Yes! They are correct. Furthermore, it is also consistent with direct lighting aimed higher up.


The inside of the astronaut's leg is shaded while the front part of the shin is lighted. Dr. Groves claims the fill light is only a dozen or so inches from the photographer. This pattern of light could only be produced from a light source that is generally much farther to the photographer's (and astronaut's) right.
Unacceptable, you have to do an angle calculation to say this. Points C & D are just as loose of guessing. The nice thing about the boot glare is that its very friendly to do calculations on. The hoses and arms, not so much. I don't think there is a need to base the angles on elements C & D because there are other elements in the photo that lead to higher accuracy.


We contend that the light source is the photographer. That is, the hot spot is a reflection of Armstrong's brilliantly illuminated space suit.
This hypothesis can be made evident through tests like those done by Mythbusters and others. I'll give it the dignity of "hypothesis" because they don't actually claim it is true, but rather a possibility. The test as the page mentioned would require a shiny new boot.

This brings me to the analysis of the Mythbusters episode which doesn't focus on the boot but rather the image as a whole. They correctly note that the image is bright as does Clavius.

Here is a Mythbusters episode that addresses the issue in question:


The Mythbusters re-create similar lighting and angles with a mock-up model.

There is one major weakness in their model that I believe is correctable and two minor weaknesses that mean the test should be re-done. The minor weaknesses are:
1. Jamie can be seen putting dust on the astronaut boot area, making any glare less likely to be seen.
2. There is no second astronaut added to increase the brightness of the scene.

The major but correctable weakness is that their exposure setting. The exposure setting should be such that the brightness of the moon surface matches that of the NASA photo. This may possibly even correct for the incorrect lumens per square meter being used which the Mythbusters do not mention in their video. So, the background brightness of the photo shown on the left should match that of the right:

A)

Notice the ground in the foreground is excessively bright. In order to get the ground in the bottom of the picture the same brightness on both sides, I reduced the brightness by 45% using PSP7 and get the following:
B)

Notice elements A and B are now a comparable brightness, however, even then the brightness levels seem off. What doesn't seem off is when you look at a still from the Mythbusters video and use that as their image as follows:
C)


Comparison C and comparison B are more accurate because the ground brightness levels are the same when looking at Mythbusters vs. NASA creations. Both of these comparisons suggest the NASA images are edited. So, it does appear as if a second light source is there in the image. A fresh scan is now warranted.
edit on 3-2-2016 by centarix because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I saw something last night and almost shat myself. NASA has a vacuum chamber that is the size of a half basketball court. They built it in the 60's. It is taller than it is wide, though.

Even the vacuum could be created on Earth.

If only you could realize, nothing about the moon landing videos proves we were ever on the moon.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
If this was posted before not sure ?

deleted it .
sorry

edit on 3-2-2016 by bobw927 because: deleted it .



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: centarix
"The light source is between 24cm and 36cm to the right of the camera." What is the math showing this 6cm corresponds with 1/10,000th of a degree? That sounds totally wrong. Perhaps this 1/10,000 number is a total guess by someone who has no trigonometry training, but we are not told the basis for this statement so we don't know.


its funny you say that this 1/10000 number is a total guess by someone who has no trigonometry training..

the figure is apparently in the book "dark moon" by none other than David percy with the calculation and the accuracies given by Dr David Groves himself.

oh and btw this 1/10000 number is not the accuracy of the camera location.. its the accuracy of the hotspot location that Dr Groves uses. he is measuring from the image in millimetres to two decimal places apparently.


Disagreed. Grove never seems to indicate the size of the secondary lights source. What does he say that would indicate that?


he doesnt but the way he says he has found the secondary light source makes one believe it is small. that is the point the website is making.


What book?


david percy's book.. "Dark Moon"


Meanwhile, Grove says he noticed secondary light source shadows. It seems like a software lighting physics engine can resolve this question well, as very good simulators are on the market. I'm not convinced there are secondary shadows, there are not any secondary shadows, or whether or not secondary shadows are really going to be seen... that seems like guessing rather than well-evidenced claim.


this is confusing.. you should be of the same opinion as Dr Grove.


This is apparently a guess based upon the guess there we were supposed to see a shadow somewhere. Weak. Where is their software simulation? Or, where is their scale-model mock-up display for the evidence?


its a guess upon a guess, because Dr Groves is guessing. but atleast he has used maths to try to guess the location.

but anyway the location that Dr Groves gives is a light source of +-6cm right?? that not a very large light source.


Yes! They are correct. Furthermore, it is also consistent with direct lighting aimed higher up.


you want to know what else could be a secondary light source?


Unacceptable, you have to do an angle calculation to say this. Points C & D are just as loose of guessing. The nice thing about the boot glare is that its very friendly to do calculations on. The hoses and arms, not so much. I don't think there is a need to base the angles on elements C & D because there are other elements in the photo that lead to higher accuracy.


look at the way the right leg is illuminated and think roughly where a second light source would be needed to make this possible.

the website is claiming that if the second light source was only 24-36cm to the right of the astronaut, then the shading on that right leg would be more even either side of the leg.. instead the shading is clearly favouring a darker left side and a lighter right side..

even the hotspot is more uniform than the leg.. isnt that weird for a second light source being only 24-36 cm to the right?


This hypothesis can be made evident through tests like those done by Mythbusters and others. I'll give it the dignity of "hypothesis" because they don't actually claim it is true, but rather a possibility. The test as the page mentioned would require a shiny new boot.


yes in comparison to the claim of a second light source 24-36cm to the right of the astronaut..

one is claiming irrefutable proof the other is giving a possibility. strange how the claim of a light source 24-36cm to the right can be so strong when they cant confirm secondary shadows. so far the only way to confirm is by measuring the location of the hotspot on the boot with a precision of 0.05mm on a fairly grainy image.


Comparison C and comparison B are more accurate because the ground brightness levels are the same when looking at Mythbusters vs. NASA creations. Both of these comparisons suggest the NASA images are edited. So, it does appear as if a second light source is there in the image. A fresh scan is now warranted.


know what else is a secondary light source in this scenario?? you touched on it earlier..

its about 1.8m tall and wearing a nice big reflective white suit.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: misterz
I saw something last night and almost shat myself. NASA has a vacuum chamber that is the size of a half basketball court. They built it in the 60's. It is taller than it is wide, though.

Even the vacuum could be created on Earth.

If only you could realize, nothing about the moon landing videos proves we were ever on the moon.


its only 100feet in diameter.. too small to some of the scenes..

but anyway, why is this news for you?? you clearly think there is solid evidence of a thick atmosphere you may even think there is air on the moon so there is no need for a vacuum chamber since they didnt even use it.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: misterz


I saw something last night and almost shat myself. NASA has a vacuum chamber that is the size of a half basketball court. They built it in the 60's. It is taller than it is wide, though.


It had to be large enough to test the Lunar Module. Did you think they just trusted to luck?


Even the vacuum could be created on Earth.


But not the reduced gravity. The astronauts covered to much ground to be suspended by wires.


If only you could realize, nothing about the moon landing videos proves we were ever on the moon.


If only you could realize it is not about the videos! It is about the sprawling factories that built the rockets and spacecraft, laboratories that tested them, the research necessary to develop the space suits, the methodical series of test flights in Earth orbit that allowed them to master the necessary techniques...

Is this a hoax?



Thousands of people witnessed the launch of a rocket that you yourself can verify had the power to send spacecraft to the Moon, if you have the patience to master the necessary math.

The craft was tracked not only by NASA, but by the Soviet Union as well:

astro-archive.prao.ru...

Unless you put the videos in context, you have no idea what you're looking at.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobw927
If this was posted before not sure ?

if so then mods delete it .

www.youtube.com...


The clip is even labelled "funnyvideo.co."




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I believe that virtually every aspect of the moon landings was legitimate, carried out in good faith by honest people. We built the rocket. We went to space.

However, I think it was too difficult to actually go to the moon with the technology we had at that time. So, rather than risk billions of dollars they took a small handful of people and faked it, a decisive tactical move to moralize the American people and win the space race.

They knew nobody would ever be able to actually reach the moon, since they had the science that proved it was impossible. So, there was no risk of ever being caught.

And the average person can not possibly comprehend any of this, period... so, as long as you, and NASA spokespersons, and a lot of self-proclaimed debunkers continue to at least put up some defense, the moon landing hoax will remain airtight. Even if you just call people names, you will be able to keep the majority of low-information people from figuring it out.

But if you stop fighting... we will turn the tide and people will realize how utterly silly the whole thing is.

So, we are here... the truth vs. a lie.

As long as you can convince the 85 IQ and lower part of the population that this happened, and that they are smarter than the 115+ IQ population for believing that this was not a hoax, and that the 115+ group is actually a bunch of idiots... the 85- people will always reward you with obedience.

This isn't about evidence or science. Because if it were, we would easily defeat the moon landing hoax. There is a mountain of unanswered questions and evidence against the landing.

This is about politics, and it always was. We have no need to enter the laboratory, because we can use more tried and true methods to convince people. Politics, dark age fear mongering, witch trials and, of course, pitting people against each other... that's right, divide and conquer.

Like George Carlin, I have decided that I just don't have a stake in any of it.

I just like to hear the sound of my own voice.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: misterz


They knew nobody would ever be able to actually reach the moon, since they had the science that proved it was impossible. So, there was no risk of ever being caught.

And the average person can not possibly comprehend any of this, period.


On the contrary, the science to do it is easily proven. Back before our educational system was broken, you could learn all the science you would need in High School. Yes, the details of things like metallurgy and producing liquid oxygen on an industrial scale are too tedious for anyone but an expert to study, but the engineers who did study it certainly delivered.

You have to understand that my generation grew up designing, building, and flying model rockets. We could calculate how high one of our designs should go, then confirm it by tracking it with a primitive theodolite and doing some trigonometry. I feel sorry for your generation; you feel that you have to have everything handed to you, and that gives you license to pick and choose your "facts."
edit on 3-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I spent years taking this internet thing seriously, until I figured out that this is how most people argue:

"People who don't believe what I believe are stupid.

Here is my reasoning:

1) If you had the benefit of my intelligence, you would believe as I do.

2) Therefore, the fact that you disagree with me proves you are stupid.

It's really that simple."

...for years, I debated point by point, losing sleep and sacrificing personal relationships and free time.

Then I realized, you can never make a dent.

That which was forged by willful ignorance can not be undone by knowledge and reason.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: misterz
I spent years taking this internet thing seriously, until I figured out that this is how most people argue:

"People who don't believe what I believe are stupid.



Which is pretty much what you argued in the post before this:



And the average person can not possibly comprehend any of this, period... so, as long as you, and NASA spokespersons, and a lot of self-proclaimed debunkers continue to at least put up some defense, the moon landing hoax will remain airtight....As long as you can convince the 85 IQ and lower part of the population that this happened, and that they are smarter than the 115+ IQ population for believing that this was not a hoax, and that the 115+ group is actually a bunch of idiots... the 85- people will always reward you with obedience.


I am not here to defend NASA or argue NASA's position to legitimise a hoax. I'm denying ignorance. I'm speaking up for the truth in the face of a tide of ignorance. If you're so smart you'll be able to point out the flaws in my arguments and the shortcomings of my evidence. Knock yourself out.
edit on 3/2/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: misterz
I spent years taking this internet thing seriously, until I figured out that this is how most people argue:

"People who don't believe what I believe are stupid.



Which is pretty much what you argued in the post before this:



And the average person can not possibly comprehend any of this, period... so, as long as you, and NASA spokespersons, and a lot of self-proclaimed debunkers continue to at least put up some defense, the moon landing hoax will remain airtight....As long as you can convince the 85 IQ and lower part of the population that this happened, and that they are smarter than the 115+ IQ population for believing that this was not a hoax, and that the 115+ group is actually a bunch of idiots... the 85- people will always reward you with obedience.


I am not here to defend NASA or argue NASA's position to legitimise a hoax. I'm denying ignorance. I'm speaking up for the truth in the face of a tide of ignorance. If you're so smart you'll be able to point out the flaws in my arguments and the shortcomings of my evidence. Knock yourself out.


You are saying what you think.

And it has been said before. By different people, at different times.

What does this have to do with being smart?

Do you have to be smart to look at something and see that it looks wrong?

What fascinates me is the ferocity with which people defend the moon landing...

Because all people are doing is exercising their own rational minds, using critical thought to question obviously questionable things.

Magic moon sand?
Waving flag on the moon?
No crater?
Multiple light sources?
Van Allen Belt?
No more missions in 50 years?

It is a mad, mad world when people who claim to love science spend all their time fighting free thought.

...the real victim here is free thought.

And it looks suspicious. If I had nothing to hide, I would invite criticism.

That's the real smoking gun.

We didn't wake up and decide to start questioning.

We were created by a system that puts up curtains and says "move the # along you little prick, there's not a goddamned thing for you stupid little #s to see here".

That's what creates people like me.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
None of the answers NASA, or anyone else, has given are satisfactory. Each answer raises more questions. This is a signature pattern found with all cover stories.

They have taken a fire and tried to put it out with rocket fuel.

Either NASA never went to the moon, or the moon landing is one of the most bizarre and unnatural events to ever take place, filled with anomaly and the inexplicable.

Basically, you have the choice between an elaborate fairy tale with magical characters and mysterious objects... or, the simplest and most obvious answer.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: misterz

Of course, you are welcome to your opinion. It's a pity that you want to live in such as small, bleak world, but if you don't want to free your mind, no one else can do it for you.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: misterz

Of course, you are welcome to your opinion. It's a pity that you want to live in such as small, bleak world, but if you don't want to free your mind, no one else can do it for you.


I want to live in a world where space travel is reality.

Not something that happened in White America 50 years ago and will never be done again.

My stupid, uneducated, disrespectful generation has to now figure out how to actually do what the previous generation said that it did before the invention of digital cameras.

There are many challenges ahead before we can get real people to the moon and back safely.

Isn't that curious?



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: misterz

You do live in a world where space travel is a reality. You just choose not to believe it. Either study some science so you can understand the historical record or stop complaining.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: misterz

If you have a few hours, you should really watch the very very superior documentary series on the hardware that went to the Moon call Moon Machines.

The documentary series is broken into several episodes, with each episode concentrating on a certain piece of equipment. It is a very good engineering (but layman's) look at the design, testing, construction, and use of each piece, with interviews of the actual technicians, engineers, and program managers involved.

It will give you a better appreciation for how Project Apollo could have been achieved. These are my favorite space documentaries ever, but then again, I'm an engineer -- so the people being interviewed and relating their experiences on Project Apollo really speaks to me.

Here are all of the episodes, about 45 minutes each.


Moon Machines: Saturn V Launch Vehicle



Moon Machines: Command Module



Moon Machines: Lunar Module



Moon Machines: Lunar Rover



Moon Machines: Navigation Computer



Moon Machines: Space Suit



edit on 2/3/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

I probably will not watch them, but I am following the current space program.

Orion is the new kid on the block.

The first test flight was sent up to see if humans can survive passage through the Van Allen Belt and re-entry in the vessel over a year ago.

The next flight won't be for a few more years.

Let's just keep a close eye on this mission to Mars, how long it takes, the challenges they will face and let's see what we can see.

The next decade will bring the verdict on whether the moon landing ever happened.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join