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.

 

Re-visiting the Moon...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Searched and couldn't find on ATS, but it's probably there already - sorry if so...

Not bad Faked Moon Landing video

This video (among many similar) has a straight-forward narrative and some brief clips not seen in others. The fluttering flag and a rare Neil Armstrong fubar is also intriguing.

Anyway - take a look - I wonder what Mr. Lear says about this one (quite a bit, I imagine...).

Still not completely convinced, but the evidence is certainly thought-provoking...




posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
There are any number of Moon Conspiracy threads on ATS - and to be honest, I usually try to stay out of them; they usually get pretty chaotic and hard to follow. I've never seen this specific video before, though, so here's my two cents:

1) Converging Shadows: A product of different terrain over which the shadows are cast, as well as an optical illusion on the part of the viewer (or camera, in this case). The example they use of shadows being cast across a street and sidewalks doesn't cut it, because the terrain over which these shadows are cast is all the same. Go to a park and you can observe the same effect as seen in the Apollo photos on the ground with shadows of trees, fountains, etc.

2) "Hot Spots" of Visual Light: At 1:00 the YouTube video shows a photo, apparently of Aldrin and Armstrong, with the moon's surface around their shadows lit more brightly around their shadows than the surrounding terrain. I'd argue that this is due to sunlight reflecting off their bright white spacesuits, making the terrain around their shadows brighter and acting as a sort of secondary light source. You can see the same effect around their shadows in other pictures: at 0:34, 0:53, and 1:07, among other instances.

3) "Dark" Shadows versus "Light" Shadows: Light scatter from the surface of the moon - which, as we know, reflects light pretty well.

4) The "Paper Mache" Rock and the letter "C": I can't prove anything, obviously, but where's the evidence that the rock is fake? Personally, I think the "C" looks like an eyelash that was caught under the negative during processing into a positive. I used to process my own pictures, and this happens from time to time.

5) Crosshairs: This site addresses the issue more fully than I have space for in one post. The appreviated version is that the black crosshairs were "errased" by very bright light sources (e.g. the white lunar rover).

6) No Crater: The Lunar Module descent engine had a throttle, so it landed using only a fraction of the mentioned 10,000 lbs. of potential thrust. That, combined with no atmosphere, means no crater.

7) No Stars (Pictures): There weren't any pictures of stars because you can't see them from the moon - for the same reason you can't see them from Earth in the daytime. Their light is overpowered by the light from the sun. As for why they didn't take pictures of the stars themselves, why SHOULD they have taken pictures of the stars?

8) No Stars (Astronauts): Armstrong and Aldrin didn't see stars because the stars' light was overpowered by the sun. Collins, who stayed in the Command Module, certainly did see stars, because the Module went behind the moon (to the Far Side/Dark Side) where the stars weren't blotted out by either the Sun or Earth.

9) "They didn't take a telescope!" (~4:45): Why should they take a telescope? Weight was tight on the mission as it was, and Apollo was all about Moon Science, not astronomy.

10) $60 Million Moon Rovers: Space travel isn't cheap.

11) The Flag Waving: All the time the flag "waves", someone is either moving the flagpole or has just finished moving the flag pole. It never waves on its own. No air on the moon means no friction from air, thus a flag that waves just by moving it.

The astronauts arranged the flag to look like it was "waving" in still pictures because they thought it looked nicer. You can see an astronaut doing this at ~6:05.

12) Bouncing: The footage shown at 1/2 speed seems like normal walking. And? I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

13) No Color Camera: And? Bad PR move, sure. Smoking gun? No way. As the narrator notes, this was a first. There were bugs in the system, and problems with communication and video was one such bug.

I think that covers it. Clavius.org covers these and other "hoax" accusations better than I can. Check it out!



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I'm not convinced by this CT, but it's definitely thought provoking. I've seen documentaries about it and some of the stuff makes you wonder. This link claims that science and common sense disprove this CT.

www.badastronomy.com...



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Excellent video. I'm hoping that everyone will watch this one. I'm thinking more and more that the moon missions that we saw were a studio production and what did go on up there was hidden from us. I do think they went to the moon but they had no intention of showing us what really happened up there.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
agreed, agreed, PP. I read through the other threads on this topic, so no need to beat a dead horse, just have not seen a link to this specific "documentary' video before.

As I said - I'm not convinced, still on the fence, actually. More in line with denyTSQ's - I believe they went to the moon, but something is not right. This is a conspiracy forum after all - so I'm just interested in exploring any and all possibilities.

Why for example, has Neil Armstrong been so damned evasive and isolated - he's scared of his own shadow it seems. If you read the NASA PR stuff, they clearly expected Armstrong to become sort of a NASA ambassador upon his return, NASA wanting to fully capitalize on the glorious first-man-on-the-mon bit.

Instead he almost immediately became a recluse and has been ever since. No public appearances, no interviews, not even an autograph.

Then you have Buzz: he's been all over the map, lives near me actually, and is heavily promoting 'commercial expansion into space', etc while also being very hedgey regarding his moon experience.

There's been tons of material (conjecture mostly) about what they actually saw up there. Runs the whole spectrum - from ancient cities to aliens telling them to get the hell outta there.

If you read through John Lear's threads you'll hear about atmospheres, agenda's, aliens ad nauseum. Any truth to that? - and how does it tie into analyses like this video - much of which is explainable (Thanks again Phan), some of which is not (sorry Phan) e.g., I see nobody 'shaking the staff' to make the flag flutter in the second, smaller (now excised from ALL NASA) clip.

I don't buy the shadow lines either/sloped terrain will distort, nor the dark shadow stuff, nor the paper mache rock - though I have no way of confirming. But I do remember another lunar module pilot saying in a speech (I think it was Alan Bean - Apollo 12) that "the stars were magnificent" or something to that effect. Well, how could the stars be beautiful for one crew and invisible for another??

Anyway - as Phan pints out - the argument is weak to non-existent on much of the film, but other parts just raise the hair on my neck - SOMETHING is going on - we're not being told the whole story...

Thanks for your feedback folks....


Edn

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhloydPhan


7) No Stars (Pictures): There weren't any pictures of stars because you can't see them from the moon - for the same reason you can't see them from Earth in the daytime. Their light is overpowered by the light from the sun. As for why they didn't take pictures of the stars themselves, why SHOULD they have taken pictures of the stars?



Technically wrong. There are no stars in the pictures because stars are to faint to be picked up using short exposures. You would need a series of long exposures to get a decent picture with stars in the background.

That video lost all credit when it they said that. makes me wonder if they actually did any research into there claims.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   
The contoversy is over the astronauts (Armstrong and Collins) explicitly stating that they SAW NO STARS, not that over the photographing of the stars. Thsi in pite of other astronauts who've (supposedly) been to the moon declaring the stars as appearing magnificent'.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Total speculation:
What if they actually went to the moon and saw stuff that they didn't want to tell.
So then they made their own version using staged video and actual video combined.
Wouldn't that fit in better with the debunkers and the others?
Just a thought,,,


jra

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outrageo
Why for example, has Neil Armstrong been so damned evasive and isolated - he's scared of his own shadow it seems. If you read the NASA PR stuff, they clearly expected Armstrong to become sort of a NASA ambassador upon his return, NASA wanting to fully capitalize on the glorious first-man-on-the-mon bit.

Instead he almost immediately became a recluse and has been ever since. No public appearances, no interviews, not even an autograph.


Everyone is different. Some people don't like to be the center of attention or are shy etc. Not everyone likes talking infront of huge crowds of people. I myself hate being up infront of a crowd.

But to say Armstrong has made no public appearances is incorrect. After retirring from NASA he became a university professor, teaching engineering.

Some other things he bio has to say on wikipedia..


After retiring from NASA in 1971, he avoided offers from businesses to act as a spokesperson, or to be the company astronaut. The first company to successfully approach him was Chrysler Corporation for whom he appeared in advertising from January 1979. The reason for the change of heart was that Armstrong thought they had a strong engineering part of their business and were also in financial difficulty. He acted as a spokesperson for other companies, including General Time Corporation and the Bankers Association of America. He only acts as a spokesperson for United States businesses.[46]

Along with acting as a spokesperson, he also served on the board of several companies including Marathon Oil, Lear Jet, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Taft Broadcasting, United Airlines, Eaton Corporation, AIL Systems, and Thiokol. The last he joined after serving on the Rogers Commission investigating the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster caused by a problem with the Thiokol manufactured Solid Rocket Boosters. At the time of his divorce from Janet in 1994, these various positions had increased the couple's net worth to about $US 2 million.[47] He retired from the position of chairman of the board of EDO Corporation in 2002.


And as for not signing autographs...


Since 1994, he has refused any requests for autographs after he found that his signed items were selling for large amounts of money and that many forgeries are in circulation. Often items reach prices of US$1,000 on auction sites like eBay. Signed photographs of the Apollo 11 crew can sell for $5,000. Any requests sent to him receive a form letter in reply saying that he has stopped signing. Although his no autograph policy is well known, author Andrew Smith watched people at the 2002 Reno Air Races still try to get signatures, even saying, "If you shove something close enough in front of his face, he'll sign."[52] Along with autographs, he has stopped sending out congratulatory letters to new Eagle Scouts. The reason is that he thinks these letters should come from people who know the scout personally.


As for interviews, here's one from 2005: www.cbsnews.com...


Then you have Buzz: he's been all over the map, lives near me actually, and is heavily promoting 'commercial expansion into space'


A good example of how different two people can be.


If you read through John Lear's threads you'll hear about atmospheres, agenda's, aliens ad nauseum. Any truth to that?


Personally I'd have to say absolutely none. Things like the Moon having an oxygen atmosphere would be easily detetable. All you have to do is look at the Moon. If it had a thick breathable atmosphere like Earth, the Moon would have a fuzzy blue glow around it just like Earth, due to light refracting in the air. But the Moon doesn't have that at all now does it?


I see nobody 'shaking the staff' to make the flag flutter in the second, smaller (now excised from ALL NASA) clip.


The flag would probably wave back and forth for a while once being disturbed, due to no air friction. Don't you think if it were faked that they would have prevented things like wind blowing the flag around within the film studio? (beisdes the fact that you can't build a studio big enough to hold several km worth of terrain)


I don't buy the shadow lines either/sloped terrain will distort, nor the dark shadow stuff, nor the paper mache rock - though I have no way of confirming. But I do remember another lunar module pilot saying in a speech (I think it was Alan Bean - Apollo 12) that "the stars were magnificent" or something to that effect. Well, how could the stars be beautiful for one crew and invisible for another??


Here are some links on diverging shadows taken on Earth.

www.clavius.org...
www.clavius.org...

And I'll also add this photo that was taken by a famous photographer by Lee Friedlander

Note that the shadows are not parallel.

Not sure what you mean when talking about dark shadows. Do you mean how some shadows are completely black while others are not? If so, then that simply has to do with exposure and reflection of light. Some shadows can appear black if the shutter speed of the camera is set to be fast. The longer your exposure, the lighter the shadows will get, but everything else will become brighter and over exposed as well.

You can find out more about the 'C rock' here: www.clavius.org...

As for seeing stars. Yes some astronauts saw them. But it depends on how much sunlight you can block out of your view. The lunar surface can reflect a lot of light as well, but it's not impossible for the astronauts to see the stars. It's the cameras that can't (unless you have a tripod and you do a long exposure)

I hope that clears some things up.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Yes – perhaps I wasn’t clear. I agree – I have no argument with the shadow lines, I can accept that the flag pole vibrates a bit after handling, etc. In fact, most of the arguments set forth in the video have been debunked. I’m cool with all that. I’ve done plenty of research on this myself. The few question marks that remain are the star field issue (thanks, but I don’t need a treatise on photo exposure times, solar glare, etc.) and the rather disappointing public withdrawing of Armstrong. The WHY is still out there. Even if Neil 'shuns the public eye', IMO he has a huge responsibility, and NASA's expectation, to communicate the glory and wonder to the masses. After all - he was selected very carefully, in part, because he would make such a good EMISSARY!

A few other things trouble me, but they can be tabled for now.

Anyway, if anyone is interested, here’s a bit of research and links that may enlighten further. Rather than exhaustively quote in the thread, you may review at your leisure…

Bad Astronomy, with links

Where are the stars? – explanation

Photography and stars from the moon

Good debunkeing – but - Gene Cernan quoted as seeing stars from surface

NASA’s take on it

Video of what the sky looks like from the lunar surface (CGI, but based on reality – the glaring sun does come around and obliterates the stars for a bit…)

Straightforward explanation of Star viewing from lunar surface

The entire transcript of the Apollo 11 press conference referred to in the video

A discussion by astronomers about why the moon is such a great place for star observations

A discussion of stellar fields used in Apollo lunar landing to for analyses/measurement



“For the specific case of Apollo 11, there were only minor deviations from the nominal preplanned trajectories, and Apollo 11 landed where and when it was supposed to land, according to the mission plan established, published and rehearsed long before the actual mission took place. The conditions at the landing site, such as the general terrain, the view through the spacecraft windows, the sun lighting conditions (contrast and shadowing of the lunar surface), and the star-field over the horizon were as planned. No geographic or astronomical situation that existed at the landing site occurred by chance or coincidence, it was all according to plan. It is important to note that while it is true that the visible star field had a function in supporting some parts of the mission, such as midcourse guidance and rendezvous back-up guidance, the visible star field at the landing site had no useful function or use in supporting the mission. So, what was the significance of the visible star field at the landing site?”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thus: Stars were not only seen, but apparently VITAL for navigation. So - did they see stars or didn't they?

Thanks, all – it’s been quite interesting to say the least…


[edit on 10/25/2006 by Outrageo]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
oops - here's that image of the Apollo 11 landing site with stars for navigation...

edited back in above...




[edit on 10/25/2006 by Outrageo]

[edit on 10/25/2006 by Outrageo]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Another part of that video...

I've never really given much attention to the moon landing conspiracy theories. I wasn't really buying into this video much until about 6 minutes in, when you get the astronaut's arm in front of the window, which they had said they had a TV camera all the way up to the window earlier, and then it's obvious the camera is not directly in front of the window. Then when the lights come on and you can clearly see the camera is across the module, something seems fishy. But, at the same time, clever editing can make things seem different than they actually are, so I personally cannot believe it without a doubt.

I'm sure it'd be long, but i'd be interested in seeing the full, unedited video they used clips from.

It's not concrete evidence by any means, but it certainly makes me think about the possibility of it being faked a little more. I'm definitely going to have to do a little more research into this stuff.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   
on space radiation

it just seems to me, that if this really was a problem encountered on our short mission to the moon, wouldn't this be the first issue to overcome... 35 years ago?

how are we supposed to believe this radiation problem has remained unsolved this long and why would humans in their right mind automatically determine the next mission to the moon be an extended mission (to weeks... months!!) when there could be a great deal of education by just sending humans on a short term trip?

if you look closely at the proposals, there's no logic that confirms we had the knowledge then or now safely put a human foot on that moon soil. it's not jiving and the average space enthusiast should question everything we've been fed.



[edit on 27-10-2006 by chetinglendalevillage]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Further - and I know I'm going to get slammed for this: I know I'm not the only one that just "feels" I'm being lied to. Of course, feelings is not evidence, and there are many quite agreeable explanations for many of the assertions in the video (the truth is I get the same "being Lied to" feeling from the british lady narrateor on the vide). Let's just say NASA has been 'less than completely forthcoming' to the public. They know a WHOLE LOT more than they're telling.

Nevertheless, it's no longer a secret that the US military has controlled the purse strings and theultimate PR out of NASA for quite some time. It's also a logical correlation that if the military (or their pseudo-3 letter designates) is also behind the UFO cover-up issues, then some of the same guys would be influencing any cover-ups at NASA - the 'legitimate' space authority in the US.

Maybe we really did go to the moon, several times even. But there's just too many unanswered or ambiguously answered questions out there. For example, if you write NASA and ask them about UFO's or Astronaut contact/sightings, etc., you get this childish form letter back that says NASA knows nothing and has nothing to say about it. We all know that's bologna - many astronanuts have already gone on record about it - most claiming their sightings/encounters took place while they worked in an official capacity for the agency.

So which is it? I'm just getting real tired of these 'holier-than-thou' responses from our tax-funded agencies dishing out these 'made-for-tv' (kindergarten/sesame street) responses as if we're all blind or idiots or something.

It's time to FESS UP, NASA! What do you know, NASA? -and When did you know it?

They 're beginning to remind of Schultz on the old Hogan's Heroe's show: "I Know NOTHEENG! I see Notheeeng!" Yeah, right...



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I stay away from these conspiracies usually, but you can't avoid them even being employed at NASA...as some conspiracy theorists work there.

I would say, however, that we have clearly been to the move because of all the Lunar soil we own. Yes, we do own Lunar soil...we own quite a bit of it (not enough to easily get ahold of it for research, though). The only way to get an appreciable amount is to have gone there, as robotic missions aren't sophisticated in that manner (if they were, the USSR would have alot more than they currently do - which is basically none).

Some things are odd, I would agree. But then again, the reality of the situation probably isn't as fascinating as the conspiracies. Classified things are usually kind of boring in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   


Some things are odd, I would agree. But then again, the reality of the situation probably isn't as fascinating as the conspiracies. Classified things are usually kind of boring in my opinion.


seriously... truth is far more weird than fiction. in nearly every possible recollection of mine at least.

i don't want to get off topic, this is more of a rhetorical question... what classified "things " are you referring to?

i could name many classified subjects that come to mind, but instead i'll just name the first that comes to mind. john lennon having 100's of pages marked classified by the FBI is something i NEVER would have even imagined as a child listening to his music.

similarly, the moon landing conspiracy tale hasn't made me a believer, but knowing some of the things i know - should it shock me if there was much more truth to the landing hoax theory than what we now know to be the truth? hell yeah it would blow mind if evidence ever were to be made public. probably in a good way.

in the meanwhile, there is little question the arguement alone provides interesting questions that need to be provided publicly with proper explainations. there is no reason astronauts should bear burdon of such responsibility for explaining to the masses. such responsibility leads to strange press releases, suicides (most recently NASA's Brady), blow ups (remember buzz aldrin? ok, i would have probably done the same thing...but i'd also demand more NASA backups to have my back!) and most importantly, unanswered questions to some of the pictures released to media.

just answer questions and people will know truth and finally then we'd stop asking questions. that's my reasoning.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I myself don't subscribe to the fake moon landing theory in aggregate. The op is to invite discussion and curiosity - AST mainstays.

The theory of a conspiracy regarding NASA does have some merit, however.

I am convinced that ALL information released to the public from NASA (and many other gov't agencies) goes through an exhausting sanitization process. Most of these agencies are ones that have been or are now controlled by the military consortium - which definately includes NASA since they were taken over from civilian control decades ago.

I have no doubt that we are not being told everything that went on during the moon missions, during the shuttle missions, indeed many 'exploratory' missions of all kinds. We only get to see and hear the 'fit-for-public-consumption' versions.

A brief look around ATS provides dozens, if not hundreds of examples: NASA air-brushing out features on photographs of the moon, Mars, and elsewhere; inconsistencies in reports from NASA; contradictions in accounts of mission results; direct testimony from many retired astronauts and engineers; independent analysis of structures and anomolies on the moon and Mars, the list goes on and on.

I'm not sure how much of e.g., John Lear's 'out there' ideas to take with a grain of salt (flourishing populations on Venus, cities on Mars, soul-catching devices on the moon, etc.) - much of it just goes too far against tons of empirical/scientific evidence. But Lear et al have a message for the rest of us: Much of what we are "FED by the FEDS" is hogwash - disinformation at best.

We are all citizens of Earth - and in the US at least, we are the ones paying the bills of NASA and the rest of the military-controlled establishment. We deserve to know the truth. I'm not alone in cocluding that we are, instead, being lied to in no small measure.

Thanks for your posts and interest - ATSers rule...



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
That second part of the vid posted by odhen is interesting.
Theres something strange going on there,with the window and stuff.
Didn`t one of the moon landers refuse to swear on a bible that he had been to the moon at an interview? I`ll search for a link.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Here you go,
watch this link [don`t hit skip intro]
Bizarre.

www.moonmovie.com...

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Silcone Synapse]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Hmmm.... Thanks, Silicone - I appreciate the video link. Haven't seen it before, and found it, well, at least entertaining...

IMO, the example shows not an interview really, but a former astronaut being badgered by a papparazzi-type that thrusts a bible under the poor guys nose then refuses to leave him alone when he doesn't elicit the answer he's looking for. That's hardly an "interview" and I don't blame John Young for wanting to bust the guy in the chops.

In this clip at least, Young didn't refuse to swear being on the moon as much as he refused to be hounded and badgered by the 'interviewer' - I didn't see anything that indicated Young was referencing or acknowledging anything he was confronted with regarding his being on the moon.

It's too bad, though - I would have loved to hear him respond. Perhaps if the interviewer maitained a respectable demeanor the way he started out, Young may have kept smiling and given him something to go on.

thanks for the post...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join