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 Post Thousands Of Images Online To Prove Moon Landings Were Real

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: JuJuBee

Wow 15 years. Woo. I've been doing it longer, so I'm afraid I have you beat there. Any idiot can manipulate a photo, you aren't proving anything other than you can manipulate a photo.

Unfortunately for you the photographs you are dismissing with your alleged expertise were not digital. They were taken on film and have been published as hard copies for decades. I have lots of them.




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JuJuBee

They see the stars the same way we do. How do you think a camera on earth captures pictures of stars?
I thought it was because our atmosphere???

But here, read this FROM THE HORSES MOUTH, and please explain the discrepancies.

This Is For Everyone Who Asks, "Why Aren't There Stars When Astronauts Take Photos From Space?"

We get this question a lot when we share astronauts' pictures on social media: "Why can't you see any stars in the photos astronauts take from space?"

The fact that there are no visible stars in photos and videos from the moon landing has also fueled some conspiracy theorists' suspicions, though NASA scientists explain that "the camera was unable to capture the light emitted from the stars because the bright sunlight hitting the moon's surface washes out the light from the stars."

That same bright light is the reason many astronauts' photos from the International Space Station appear to show space as pitch black and void of stars, write experts at PhysLink.com:

"The reason why no or very little stars can be seen is because of the Earth. The Earth, when lit by the Sun, is many thousands times brighter than the stars around it. As a result the Earth is so bright that it swamps out most if not all of the stars." (most if not all???? [wordplay])

"The reason that the stars do not show up on the film is that the stars are so dim that the camera cannot gather enough of their light in a short exposure. Our eyes are a lot more sensitive to light than photographic film."


Based on the above, it looks like you're going to have to debunk NASA, on this one. Nothing they say adds up to "truth".



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: JuJuBee

I'm not going to have to debunk anything. If you knew anything about photography you'd know they're right. The cameras set with a short exposure time are only going to see the brightest stars, if that. You need longer exposure times to see them on a picture. It's the same from Earth. I can go out into the desert with a camera set to a short exposure time and it won't show stars in the pictures I take, despite there being millions I can see with my naked eye.

If I take that same camera and set it to a long exposure and let the lens stay open, I'll get a beautiful picture of the star field.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Whats always amazing to me is how whole historical records are generated from a few scraps of ancient pottery or text while the most documented, catalogued scientific exploration event of the ages is considered faked.


Don't even get me started on the so called "historical records" you speak of.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JuJuBee

I'm not going to have to debunk anything. If you knew anything about photography you'd know they're right. The cameras set with a short exposure time are only going to see the brightest stars, if that. You need longer exposure times to see them on a picture. It's the same from Earth. I can go out into the desert with a camera set to a short exposure time and it won't show stars in the pictures I take, despite there being millions I can see with my naked eye.

If I take that same camera and set it to a long exposure and let the lens stay open, I'll get a beautiful picture of the star field.
You can see with your naked eye because of our atmosphere bending the light. A camera lens is not as sensitive as your eyeballs. lol And sorry, but they didn't have the technology back then, that we have today.

But anyhoot, talk to me about communications. How did they keep such a strong signal, throughout the mission. Total Bulldinky, is how!



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JuJuBee

The atmosphere has nothing to do with it. Astronauts saw stars in space with the naked eye. They used star shots to navigate by. Cameras can't see them with short exposure times.

They didn't keep a strong signal the entire mission. There were times when the signal was weak. But they did it by using a directed signal aimed at large antenna arrays. A directed signal is focused so it is stronger than a wide beam.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Sorry. One of those images has a scratch on it, so the whole thing was a hoax.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: JuJuBee

Give credit where credit is due? But, THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING. If they did, we'd all be convinced.

I do digital editing for about 15 years now and i can manipulate ANY photo. I can see all the flaws in NASA's pictures. Sure, it looks convincing to the untrained eye, but that's about the only people it fools, which is most. And really, isn't that all they need to fool? They don't have to convince everyone, just the majority. That's the point you "believers" don't understand.

Who's the royal 'we' you mention? you are on your own, and with, "it was all done in a studio" you are not even with most 'No Mooners' who at least allow for the astronauts to have climbed onto a rocket to get blasted into LEO.
And of course anyone today, with even a little acumen can manipulate any picture on a computer...or their bloody mobile, and by the looks of it, there's no shortage of people doing just that, I've done it for ages cleaning up old pictures, (as in restoring), there's no deliberate intent to mislead.
There's also a need to perhaps manipulate a picture for technical reasons where there is the ability to do that in the digital age, where there is no deliberate intent to mislead, and that is the most salient point here.

So your task is to dig out the old NASA pictures, (not out of the flicker site in the OP) from the NASA site stated as the, 'raw images' and point out the manipulations, and how it was done and hopefully why.
Otherwise you are just shouting out of your Bee sting, and wasting people's time in bothering to reply to you.

edit on 7-2-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I see bright stars just before the sun comes up. It is plenty bright out to see my way around.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: doug9694

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with a camera. As I and NASA both said, a camera with a short exposure time won't see stars when your eye will.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: doug9694

UH-huh, you read that? Really? I read they went.

Photo shows a rock nearer to the sun does it? By what, a few feet? What difference is that going to make do you think?


It means the ground around the rock would be as bright as the ground around the astronaut. And the shady side of him would be as dark as that of the rock. At least down by his feet! And I read that un-employment was under 5%!



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: JuJuBee
You can see with your naked eye because of our atmosphere bending the light. A camera lens is not as sensitive as your eyeballs. lol And sorry, but they didn't have the technology back then, that we have today.


can you please, in your own opinion, tell me what the purpose of the pupil (eye not student) is?

why it gets smaller when you shine a light at it and why it gets larger when you remove the light?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: JuJuBee
I'd also like to know how a camera could capture an image that's "LIGHT YEARS" away.

I think that's a good start, come back when you learn about it.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: doug9694
a reply to: Zaphod58
I see bright stars just before the sun comes up. It is plenty bright out to see my way around.


Fine. But a camera will still not be able to photograph any stars (well, maybe the brights few, plus Venus and Jupiter) unless the exposure time is set relatively long.

The exposure settings that were used to take pictures on the surface of the Moon were all very short exposure times due to the brightness of the subject. Short exposure time = no stars visible in the pictures, which would be true on Earth as well.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: doug9694

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with a camera. As I and NASA both said, a camera with a short exposure time won't see stars when your eye will.


I have taken photos in dim light that had 10 second or more exposure times. This prevents harsh shadows.
In bright light that exposure time is only about 1/4000 of a second. All depends on light intensity.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Whats always amazing to me is how whole historical records are generated from a few scraps of ancient pottery or text while the most documented, catalogued scientific exploration event of the ages is considered faked.


Aliens helped



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: doug9694

And the cameras used on the moon were set manually to short exposure times. As are the ones on the space station. Which means they're not going to see stars. They won't on earth either.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
You know the other couple questions that really bother me are...

1) why didn't the russians land a man on the moon?

2) Why didn't the chinese

3) why hasn't any billionaire attempted to go there

4) why hasn't there been any x prize to go there?

But let me get this straight....the only time it was possible, the only time we had that level of tech, was back in 1970 when you couldn't even buy a basic calculator. When a simple dollar store calculator of today had 1000 times the computing power of NASA's best tech.

Like do you see how ludicrous that seems??? But yet with 1970 tech they did it!

And then they cut up the saturn 5 into dozens of pieces so it could never be acheived again! They would never destroy that advanced technology if they actually went there. If it was true and they were being honest. The only time they destroy tech like that is when there's a cover up. And they have to make an excuse as to why they can't go back. Well we don't have the rocket anymore, so that's a good excuse. Like, ya I'm not saying I know for certain, but how can you ignore these kinds of facts? How can you just dismiss them and tow the party line. Like it's so blatantly obvious that it was just to one up the russians during the cold war.

And as far as those pics go, talk to any professional graphic artiist. They'll put together 10 times that many photos in a weekend. And when 20 photos are of the exact same thing that in my estimation actually leaves only 500 photos that are on display. Big deal 500 pics? Like come on, that's rediculous. I've seen photos of aliens, of big foot, of the lockness monster, of wearwolves etc, doesn't mean I believe that they're real. Any pics can be easily faked in this high tech era.


edit on 7-2-2016 by lavatrance because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: lavatrance
You know the other couple questions that really bother me are...

1) why didn't the russians land a man on the moon?

2) Why didn't the chinese

3) why hasn't any billionaire attempted to go there

4) why hasn't there been any x prize to go there?


1/ they tried, but their rockets had a tendency to blow up alot.
2/ they havent had a chance yet, theyve only recently reached LEO and a rover on the moon.
3/ bit of a simplistic statement, but they need to be willing to spend that money, for not much monetary reward.
4/ there is.


But let me get this straight....the only time it was possible, the only time we had that level of tech, was back in 1970 when you couldn't even buy a basic calculator. When a simple dollar store calculator of today had 1000 times the computing power of NASA's best tech.

Like do you see how ludicrous that seems??? But yet with 1970 tech they did it!


we still have the tech, we just dont have the financial backers/political support.


And then they cut up the saturn 5 into dozens of pieces so it could never be acheived again! They would never destroy that advanced technology if they actually went there. If it was true and they were being honest. The only time they destroy tech like that is when there's a cover up. And they have to make an excuse as to why they can't go back. Well we don't have the rocket anymore, so that's a good excuse. Like, ya I'm not saying I know for certain, but how can you ignore these kinds of facts? How can you just dismiss them and tow the party line.


what tech?? the technology still exists and is in use.. rocket technology didnt just disappear..

and did you just claim the saturn V didnt work as intended?


Like it's so blatantly obvious that it was just to one up the russians during the cold war.


this sentence conflicts with your belief.. if it was impossible for the Saturn V to reach the moon, the soviets would have known, they did afterall land a rover on the moon moments after Apollo 11..

they wanted to one up the russians and decided to fake it to one up them even though they knew they would be caught out?



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: lavatrance
You know the other couple questions that really bother me are...

1) why didn't the russians land a man on the moon?

2) Why didn't the chinese

3) why hasn't any billionaire attempted to go there

4) why hasn't there been any x prize to go there?


You seem to think it's completely impossible to get anything there, when the probes of several nations prove otherwise.



But let me get this straight....the only time it was possible, the only time we had that level of tech, was back in 1970 when you couldn't even buy a basic calculator. When a simple dollar store calculator of today had 1000 times the computing power of NASA's best tech.


The only people arguing that are people claiming it didn't happen. As for calculating power, exactly what do you think a calculator needs to be able to do? The maths hasn't changed. A vector is still a vector, and some of the astronauts (like Buzz) were more than capable of doing the calculations with a slide rule.



Like do you see how ludicrous that seems??? But yet with 1970 tech they did it!


Nope, doesn't seem ludicrous at all. Your disbelief doesn't prove anything.



And then they cut up the saturn 5 into dozens of pieces so it could never be acheived again!


They did? The ones on display at KSC look to be in one piece. The rocket cut itself into several pieces on the way to the moon though.



They would never destroy that advanced technology if they actually went there. If it was true and they were being honest. The only time they destroy tech like that is when there's a cover up. And they have to make an excuse as to why they can't go back. Well we don't have the rocket anymore, so that's a good excuse. Like, ya I'm not saying I know for certain, but how can you ignore these kinds of facts? How can you just dismiss them and tow the party line. Like it's so blatantly obvious that it was just to one up the russians during the cold war.


It's a complicated machine but it's hardly advanced technology - you said yourself it was basic stuff from the 1970s. Fundamentally it's just a big firework just like all the other rockets that continue to be used on a regular basis. As for ignoring facts, I think you need to look at yourself there.



And as far as those pics go, talk to any professional graphic artiist. They'll put together 10 times that many photos in a weekend. And when 20 photos are of the exact same thing that in my estimation actually leaves only 500 photos that are on display. Big deal 500 pics? Like come on, that's rediculous. I've seen photos of aliens, of big foot, of the lockness monster, of wearwolves etc, doesn't mean I believe that they're real. Any pics can be easily faked in this high tech era.


PIcs can be easily faked in this high tech era, but that wasn't - as you keep pointing out - a high tech era. There was no digital photography, no photoshop. Go check the standard of special effects in the movies of the time and see how realistic you think they are.

Saying something could be faked and them actually being faked are two different things.




top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join