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.
originally posted by: misterz
There is atmosphere on the moon. The flag blows in the wind.
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.
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' analysis purports to be carried out to a precision of a ten-thousandth of a degree of arc
Disagreed. Grove never seems to indicate the size of the secondary lights source. What does he say that would indicate that?
Dr. Groves' claim to have precisely located the light source implies that the light is quite small
What book?
Dr. Groves' arbitrary assumptions (well hidden in the book)
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.
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.
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?
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?
Yes! They are correct. Furthermore, it is also consistent with direct lighting aimed higher up.
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
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.
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.
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.
We contend that the light source is the photographer. That is, the hot spot is a reflection of Armstrong's brilliantly illuminated space suit.
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.
Disagreed. Grove never seems to indicate the size of the secondary lights source. What does he say that would indicate that?
What book?
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 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?
Yes! They are correct. Furthermore, it is also consistent with direct lighting aimed higher up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: bobw927
If this was posted before not sure ?
if so then mods delete it .
www.youtube.com...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.