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.

 

Alleged Unseen NASA Apollo 11 Faked Studio Moon Landing Video Montage Appears Online

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo




Your challenge is to find any lunar image pre-dating Apollo that shows those details.


I rise to your challenge/

Soviet Zond 6 & 7 images from 1968-69




And this from Zond 8 in 1970 ( about 15 months after Apollo 11 )

The image at 0.57 is quite stunning in clarity.




Zond Mission.

www.lpi.usra.edu...




posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Zone 7 & 8 did indeed get some very good images, but not of the Apollo landing sites, nor are they as high definition as the Apollo Panoramic cameras that photographed the same features Zond did.

Zone did prove that you can get lifeforms through the Van Allen belts though.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Youtube goes down.. now the montage is gone



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SoulStoner225

If you mean the video in the OP, that was taken down when it was pointed out as a fraud.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Ahhh Thank you good sir.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Just to reiterate my point above, here is a small crater from within that high resolution Soviet image of Aitken crater compared with an Apollo 17 image, AS17-P-1686



It's not even a high resolution version of the Apollo image, just a screenshot from here:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

where you could, if you wanted download a 1.9Gb high res scan of just part of the entire image that contains that small crater. Even the half resolution large png file is still pretty impressive

apollo.sese.asu.edu...

Here's another Apollo 17 image to look at, this time taken with a Hasselblad in a magazine containing images of Earth that can be exactly dated thanks to the weather systems on view:

www.flickr.com...

and here is the same crater from it



which is arguably of a higher resolution than the Zond view.

This one, also taken with a Hasselblad

www.flickr.com...

is much better than Zond's.



The best pre-Apollo version of the image can be found here:

www.lpi.usra.edu...



and you can see that there is nothing like the level of detail compared with Apollo's photographs, though it is arguably of better quality than the Zond image.

Apart from the LRO, the next best source for that particular area is China, this is a relatively low resolution version of that crater,



but it's certainly comparable with the lunar orbiter view. If you follow the links I gave earlier you can download a 1Gb version of the file covering the crater I've picked out that will be better.

The point of all that? The Apollo image is way more detailed than anything else out there at the time it was taken, and only now are there probes in orbit that are showing the same level of detail. Apollo images show details that they can only have known about by being there.

a reply to: SoulStoner225

My pleasure



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I've started so I'll finish.

On the left is just a small section of that crater I chose from within Aitken from the high resolution Apollo 17 Panoramic Camera image above, on the right is the same section from the Japanese Kaguya probe. Notice the boulders on the crater rim.



You don't see those boulders on any images taken by Zond or the pre-Apollo lunar orbiter probes.

I'm downloading China's image for a laugh, but those boulders may not show up as their images are all from local noon with the sun directly above.
edit on 17/10/2018 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:29 PM
link   
It has been caught...but delusion and power of belief make it easy to maintain lies as truth.

The whole world is deceived all of the time...this moon landing crap is far from being a proven reality.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: IAMNOTYOU

You don't have to trust anything they tell you. You have all the tools you need at your disposal to verify the facts for yourself. You can check the photographs and TV footage and see how it compares with modern images taken by orbital probes from a variety of countries - including China, who aren't exactly best buddies with the USA. You can use software to construct 3D models of the landing sites and reproduce the views they photographed. You can compare photographs of Earth with the weather satellite imagery of the day, and with astronomy software to see what should have been visible when they took the photographs and made the live TV broadcasts. You can read up on geology and see how the lunar samples they brought back shape up. You can look at the stellar photography they did (yes, they photographed stars) and see how the positions of the planets match up with what should be there. You can still go and meet and listen to Apollo astronauts and hear their testimony in person, rather than take the biased interpretations of people who have never met them and want to twist their words. All these things are perfectly easy to do and you can satisfy yourself that you have actually explored all the options and come to a conclusion based on facts, not belief or faith.

Or you can be lazy and watch a youtube video you agreed with before you even hit play instead. Whichever.


LoL the modern images are the most unzoomed out and possibly fake looking pics anyone could ask for.

If people were not told they were pics of the moon and supposed landings sites noone would even make the connection.

Those modern images SUCK and are a joke and should be treated as such.

Too imagine better pictures cannot be taken is a serious insult.

You cannot verify anything with UNVERIFIABLE evidence.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Nasa likes the fuzzy pictures.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

Please, provide examples of you claims?



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AthlonSavage

Seriously?

That all you got? You do realise that some of the boulders in the images I posted above are less than 0.5m across? No, of course you don't, because all you have is knee-jerk denialism, when what you should be denying is ignorance.

Let's take this a step further. The red square here identifies a small pair of craters within a crater south-east of Aitken. The larger of the two is 3km across.



I've chosen this at random because it is covered by Apollo Panoramic and Hasselblad images, Zond, Lunar Orbiter, India's Chandrayaan, Japan's Kaguya and China's Chang'e-2 probes. Let's see what we can see in those craters first from Apollo's Panoramic image AS17-P-1907



Now AS17-150-22957



Now let's see how they compare with modern probes, first the LRO:



Now India:



Japan:



and finally China:



Every detail exactly the same in all of them. 4 Probes from 4 different countries, three of them not American and one of them certainly not their best buddies. Now let's look at the best available images from before Apollo 17, first Zond:



and finally lunar orbiter:



I've been as fair as possible and chosen the digitally recovered highest resolution scan from here

pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov...

rather than the original scan here

www.lpi.usra.edu...

I have the original printed books of Lunar Orbiter images, so I can confirm that there is no difference between the scans and the originals.

So, again, how would you like to explain the fact that Apollo images contain details of very small features that are not shown in any images taken before, but are confirmed by modern probes?

You demanded evidence from me, I got nothing from you. Post your proof (and I mean yours, not someone else's youtube garbage) or get off the pot.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

Just because they don't meet some arbitrary standard of quality that you have decided as acceptable, doesn't mean that they aren't genuine and don't show what they say they do.

Probes from 4 different countries all show the same thing around the Apollo landing sites. Prove they don't.




top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join