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.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 132
29
<< 129  130  131    133  134  135 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   


why is there no stars in this picture? www.jaxa.jp... are you saying this picture is not real? or this video no stars again

I think that is high definition tehnology, it eats up the stars, it does the same with a human figure, it takes away the small parts of a figure, like small hair on the face, or small wholes or stripes and makes them not apear, but that is just High def...








[edit on 16-12-2007 by yeti101]

[edit on 16-12-2007 by pepsi78]




posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   
pepsi wtf u talking about, hi-def means you can see smaller details becuase its a higher res. Seriously stop embarassing yourself. What about the xprize flight? no stars there must be fake....

[edit on 16-12-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
The stars are not visible because hi-def sharpens the image, with line after line, it removes the blur, I do not know if that image is fake I have no way of knowing, maybe it is maybe it's not.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
No stars visible here either, I wonder why, the background is all black.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
The stars should be present in day time on the moon, there is no blue sky to distort the light coming from the stars, this with the sun light made the stars not visible is a lie, none of the astronauts managed to give an answer, all they said is we don't remember, simply because they would not know what the outcome of the answer would produce, so they played it safe, they stated we don't remember.
The camera also should pick up the stars, there are no stars in the background, the theory with "the sun did it" is not valid anymore, little by little those so called debunked points are going to fall.


And with this you demonstrate your complete and utter ignorance of the technical subject matter that leads to there not being stars in darn near every moon photo.

To bother to re-hash why here, again, for the hundredth time is getting old. Before you make idiotic claims about something as SIMPLE as photography, perhaps you might want to spend less than 10 minutes on Google and find out how the darn things work, huh? It's not complicated, my 10 year old nephew could teach you if necessary.

edit to add, that keep in mind that the human eye and a camera don't exactly produce the same results and are very different from each other. So if you going to compare the two, you better darn well understand the differences between them. A camera pails in comparison to the human eye in almost every way.

It's a shame we have to fight the moon fight using these same points over and over again, paraded around by people that have no idea what they are talking about, only what they believe or want to be true.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   


edit to add, that keep in mind that the human eye and a camera don't exactly produce the same results and are very different from each other. So if you going to compare the two, you better darn well understand the differences between them. A camera pails in comparison to the human eye in almost every way

1 I can see stars with my own eyes.
2 I can see stars from a picture taken by a camera.
Conclusion , I can see, 1 and 2 the same way.
Now for other things exposure, brightnes, contras.

Points of pro apollo adventure fans.

The pictures do not have stars because the sun is so bright it would make stars not apear on the pictures.
Wrong, we have nasa to thank for that, it's all explained, we can see stars during daytime with out an atmosfere.

Light from earth is so intense that it will block the view of the stars when pictures are taken.
Also wrong, the moon is very low in ilumination, rocks berly have shadows on the moon, the earth as a light source is not enough to block stars.

But it's not about only the stars, the pictures , the lighting, everything is fake.
This video offers a perfect examplenation regarding reflecting light ,and deals with light on the moon in general.
It also explains that the earth could not play a major part in iluminating the moon.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
No stars is an old issue, I don't care it.

But, only for fun, look at this pic:



1 - Turn round, imbecile, don't look at the sun.
2 - Lift your head, deficient, don't look at the brightness of the ground.
3 - ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE STARS?

Compliments.



But the real thing is that in 1969 (and even today) NASA jokers were

not able to build a rocket that could land going backwards sitting down on

its arse.



[edit on 16-12-2007 by jra-2]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


WOW. Again, your complete ignorance about even the simplest of technical things is what leads you to believe in fatanasy.


1 I can see stars with my own eyes.
2 I can see stars from a picture taken by a camera.
Conclusion , I can see, 1 and 2 the same way.



OMG, do I really need to respond to that, LOL? Anybody that knows anything about the subject matter is laughing at you right now, trust me.

Yup, there is no difference between the human eye and a camera. You should teach this stuff for a living.

But I should not bother to change your mind. With people like you defending the "moon hoax" people like us never need to worry about it being taken seriously, as the evidence your side is presenting, along with the ignorance of the subject matter reveals the truth in and of itself....we did goto the moon. I realize that, due to your ignorance of science and technology, believing we went to the moon is way more boring than some exciting conspiracy theory aimed at the weak minded, but if you knew anything about science and technology you would find the whole program more fascinating than any elementary school "the gov'ment is lying to us all" wacko conspiracy crap.

And with that, I bid you farewell. To continue to debate something like this with someone who is too ignorant to understand the subject matter is a waste of time, and all you will end up doing is embarrassing yourself after you look into it a little further.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
...
To continue to debate something like this with someone who is too ignorant to understand the subject matter is a waste of time.
...


The big intelligent man is arrived.

Why don't you show us the powerful technology of NASA jokers? Show

us a video of these cement mixers that land going backwards staying

vertical:







Are you the astronaut of this pic?







[edit on 17-12-2007 by jra-2]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jra-2
 


The stars should be visible in an atmosphere-free sky (for our non-English speaking friends, that means thre is no atmosphere). Hence, a vacuum.

Indeed, given an understanding of what no atmosphere implies, yes, the stars are clearly visible, no wavering or distortion due to being viewed through whatever atmosphere is present, or implied.

Let me ask you this, "jra-2"...what is the brightest star as seen from Earth? OR even, for that matter, from the Earth-Moon system? Or, for that matter, from Neptune?? Think about it, think think about how many orders of magnitude in brightness that 'near' star would be compared to others that are Light Years distant...and not only that, the distant stars are different in their intrinsic intensity, they may be obscured by intervening dust that we cannot detect yet.

Consider this as well...Venus is a planet...and yet, when reflected by our nearest star, it shines brighter than any OTHER [distant] star. Why? Its proximity to Earth (second in orbit, whilst we are third out) and its bright, reflective cloud cover.

IF you do not understand how photography works, how the human eye works, and how light can be reflected, then you should go to your local library and start reading up on science.

While you are at the library, check out some books on cosmology and astrophysics.

Sorry if anything I just posted is offensive, it is not and never will be intended that way. There are many different opinions expressed on ATS, on other threads. But this thread is devoted to debunking 'Moon Conspiracy' claims. Perhaps you should begin a new thread, make it your own, and present solid scientific evidence to convince ATS members that a spacecraft cannot 'land backwards', or that stars should have been included in photos that had exposure settings, f-stop and shutter speed, to take in the detail in the immediate foreground.

Finally, I have taken pictures at night, here on Earth, and the sky is black. Gee, wonder why?

Thanks for your posts.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...

IF you do not understand how photography works, how the human eye works, and how light can be reflected, then you should go to your local library and start reading up on science.
...



I don't care of stars.

Answer my question: you are going to the Moon and you know that the

most difficult thing will be the landing going backwards.

You must land with LEM.

Without testing the LEM on the Earth, you go to the Moon.

Are you imbecile?




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   
For crying out loud, "jra-2" (a.k.a BigBrain/Skeptic Friend), will you give up on the landing backwards issue. Several people have already posted information on this thread explaining how such a vehicle works. And obviously it does work: Surveyor probes to the Moon, Viking landers on Mars, LEM, etc. Why can't you understand?

The LEM was tested in the environment it was designed for - space and above the lunar surface during Apollo 9 and 10. Astronauts practiced LEM-type landing maneuvers on Earth using the LLRV/LLTV. Subsequently, the LEM performed beautifully on all Apollo lunar landing missions.

Information about these technologies is available from many sources. The testing and the missions are well documented. You can also talk to the people who designed, built, and flew these vehicles. Why are you still confused?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


Dear ignore-the-facts, the pictures on the moon where asto-nots are iluminated from the front when the sun is on their back does not make sence can you understand that? they should be covered in darknes, earth does not have the power to iluminate the moon in that maner,it is imposible with out a secondary sorce of light for this to happen.

Luminosity on the moon is down to 7% , reflection of light on the moon in a maner where the lem and astronauts are iluminated when they are standing with the sun on their back is imposible to accive with out another source of light.



The lem should be covered in darknes, there is no way this can be done with out a nother source of light.



[edit on 18-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


OK, pepsi78, thanks for that picture of Antares. It actually refutes your claim regarding another light source. You do not see any secondary shadows do you? NO, because the 'fill-in' light is, indeed, simply reflected from the surface.

I just finished watching video of a six and one-half hour EVA on the ISS. Satellite TV is fun for stuff like that. Nothing looked in any way abnormal or faked, and funny enough it looked, except for better video quality because the cameras are better now, reminiscent of the Gemini and Apollo footage. But, alas, I expect you'll wish to claim that all of it is faked...simply look at the lighting and shadows and 'Ta Da!' someone will try to point out some inaccuracy that doesn't exist...sigh.

Thanks anyway for the pretty Moon picture.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
..
will you give up on the landing backwards issue. Several people have already posted information on this thread explaining how such a vehicle works. And obviously it does work: Surveyor probes to the Moon, Viking landers on Mars, LEM, etc. Why can't you understand?
...
Why are you still confused?


I am not at all confused and I understand very well.

VIKING


Have NASA jokers tested this strange UFO on the Earth?

Show me one video, please. I am not at all confused, I understand very

well that this thing can't land going backwards thrusted from the bottom.

It would fall off in all directions at 360 degrees and it would crash in less

than one second.





[edit on 18-12-2007 by smart2000]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by smart2000
 


Oh my gosh! Sheesh!

'jra-2', now banned, comes back with a new User Name, same ole' nonsense. I mean, it isn't even subtle, or am I seeing phantoms?

Seems no amount of reason and logic or evidence will get through to this person, no matter how patient and polite we are. I've taught a fair many people to fly in years past and in only one instance did I tell an individual to forget about it, because they simple could not 'get it'. Five lessons, and this person still could not understand how to taxi a Cessna 150, let alone comprehend 'straight and level' flight. But, I guess by this logic, that person would then go out to say it is 'impossible to taxi a Cessna 150'...

Perhaps there are better teachers out here to help the 'new' "smart2000"?

If so, good luck, I'll enjoy reading all of it!

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by smart2000
 


Oh my gosh! Sheesh!

'jra-2', now banned, comes back with a new User Name, same ole' nonsense. I mean, it isn't even subtle, or am I seeing phantoms?

Seems no amount of reason and logic or evidence will get through to this person, no matter how patient and polite we are. I've taught a fair many people to fly in years past and in only one instance did I tell an individual to forget about it, because they simple could not 'get it'. Five lessons, and this person still could not understand how to taxi a Cessna 150, let alone comprehend 'straight and level' flight. But, I guess by this logic, that person would then go out to say it is 'impossible to taxi a Cessna 150'...

Perhaps there are better teachers out here to help the 'new' "smart2000"?

If so, good luck, I'll enjoy reading all of it!

Thanks.


weedwhacker, you are insulting an ATS member. I find that you, weedwhacker, are the one that should be banned, since you are not talking about the topic, but constantly insulting everyone who does not agree with your 8-year-old logic. I find you to be the one that has difficulties to understand simple science.
You are a negative example, weedwhacker, but you are not aware of it. Because....let's say because you just don't get it.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MickeyDee
 


could we not simply answer the question by aiming the hubble space telescope on the surface of the moon, they did leave equipment behind and the foot prints should be in the moon dust should they not, if it happened then it should all be there. if not then they have some explainin to do



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Thanks Swimmer.




Viking flies only in artist pictures.

Dear weedwhacker, I have never seen Viking landing backwards on the

Earth.

Do you think NASA jokers didn't test their probe before sending it to Mars?

Do you think it is normal to send the probe Viking that will have to land on

Mars without testing it on the Earth?

What logic do you have?






posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kr0n1ck405
 


The Hubble has insufficient angular resolution to pick up the Apollo landing sites on the moon, let alone footprints. It simply cannot be done with any current Earth or space telescope. They don't have the resolution. I believe when I ran the calculations last time, you'd need a telescope with a primary mirror of some 200 meters in diameter. I believe the largest telescope so far produced has a primary mirror diameter of 10.4 meters.




top topics



 
29
<< 129  130  131    133  134  135 >>

log in

join