What is wrong with the Apollo 12 SUN? (Warning to dialup users: large images)

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Quite ironically this thread now seems to prove that the light source in these images is, in fact, the sun. Although I wonder if NASA’s solar simulators give off polarized light too?

Assuming that they had no way of emulating lighting of the scene to make it seem as though lit by rays cast from the sun, a full 8 light minutes away, this now proves that these are indeed outdoor photos, despite that, to the untrained eye, they do not look like it.

This being the case, any ‘film set’ must have been outside. And yet it is still not impossible to have done. What is hard to believe is that they could have imitated the sun’s polarized rays while inside the vacuum chamber for the close up scenes. Although it was stated they had a solar simulator inside the chamber. The specifications of which I do not know, and have been unable to find.

Between the dust acting as it would in a vacuum and the correct panoramic shadow convergence, only possible with parallel shadows, the official story seems to be gaining considerable credit against the list of anomalies.

There are still a number of things that bother me about the Apollo missions, but for now I will return to my fence to sit and wait for more evidence in either direction.




posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Shadows aside there's still much to be answered for. Can anyone tell me if this footage is considered legit. This is a segment from the secret space documentary, highly speculative, I know.
The footage in question is the lunar lift off which I know is considered real, looks fake to me though. We then see some footage of the lem as it docks with the command module. It looks rediculous, is this a simulation or are they trying to pass this off as real?

The clip is about ten minutes the footage in question starts at about 6
;20

Secret Space part 8

More anomalies here Lunacy.



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Yes...and I think this is the right place to say that 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laded and others - no involvment of US secret service. Also, US is a democracy, and government maybe does a little bit behind the scenes, but overall the tools of democracy are too strong - nobody can hide what they are doing.

We were so stupid to think that there was no Moon Landing. I just can't believe I fell for a cheap story like that.

Thanks, Yandros!



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
Yes...and I think this is the right place to say that 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laded and others - no involvment of US secret service. Also, US is a democracy, and government maybe does a little bit behind the scenes, but overall the tools of democracy are too strong - nobody can hide what they are doing.



I sincerely hope that is sarcasm!

9/11 is the most obvious inside job since JFK. From physics, to lies, to changing stories.

In my opinion there is no conclusive proof that the moon landing (footage) was real.

I still have a heavy element of doubt about it. All this thread has confirmed is that those photographs were taken outside, and that really is the sun.



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
We then see some footage of the lem as it docks with the command module. It looks rediculous, is this a simulation or are they trying to pass this off as real?



Yes I agree that footage looks very suspect. So does the lack of crater under the LEM.

About the crater. We've heard many debunking arguments over this. That the thrust was 'over a large area' and the throttle up was done at high altitude, the throttle down being done as it reached the surface.

One thing that bothers me about this explanation is this:
If the thrust were dispersed (over a large area) then it would still blow dust away. We see the dust being kicked up by the rocket as the LEM lands in the footage out the window in Apollo 11. So this is a fundamental fact.

But when the astronauts get out and stick their boot print in the dust, one must ask: What dust?

Surely the LEM is landing on what is essentially rock that is covered in dust. If it were not then surely it would sink, as would the astronauts, and probably end up not level. This being the case, surely the dust blown away from the landing site, by the rocket engine, should leave exposed rock. So where did the inch thick dust to put the boot print in come from?

And if you try to argue it the other way you get a stalemate:
If the landing site was not dust on rock, then it was dust on dust, like a sand dune. This being the case there should be a huge crater where the LEM landed because the dust would have been displaced by the air particles from the rocket engine.

Either way there should be an obvious depression in the ground below the LEM. I have not seen such a depression.

See photograph: history.nasa.gov...



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
There is no proof that the photoes are taken outside. Your reasoning (which I do not share) only allows for the conclusion that it COULD be the Sun, not that it IS the sun.

I can go outside now, take a photo, and all of you will KNOW if it was fake or not. If I take thousands of it, it would be more than OBVIOUS that those were real.

Yet, there is not one single photo from the Moon that is convincing. Not one. No proof.

Nobody was ever on the Moon. Pictures do not look even remotely real. It is all a bad joke.



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
There is no proof that the photoes are taken outside. Your reasoning (which I do not share) only allows for the conclusion that it COULD be the Sun, not that it IS the sun.



Well the point is that the shadows are parallel, or almost parallel. The way they converge in the panorama is testament to this. Unless they had a giant laser illuminating the scene, or a spotlight the size of a city shining down from 10 km away... it really has to be the sun.

I agree that none of the photos are convincing. There is no background until later missions. There is the foreground, the middle ground, then the horizon. Very suspect.

One must wonder how they managed to get the background so black however. I don’t think blue screen technology this good existed in the late 60’s. Even by today’s standards I think this would be quite difficult to replicate so well on a sunlit set.



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Wakeup Yandros,

The shadows in that pic of the guy standing are parallel. The visual triangle closes back near the trucks so you can't get enough visual perspective to see that the shadows of the man and the truck are parallel. This is very different than the picture of the moon shadows; there is still enough visual perspective in the moon shots to see the direction of the shadows and they are not parallel.
You're on to something here, keep it up!

The only explanation that stands is that there is a nearby light source.



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Hmmm, methinks I've seen the light!

IAttackPeople & harry20007, I appreciate you taking the time to educate us. Humbling to think that something that seems so 'obviously fake' is the result of a poor understanding of something so obvious...

Oh well, one more thing I'm aware of



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by greencheese
The only explanation that stands is that there is a nearby light source.


Well, isn't there? I thought there are three light sources. The sun, the sunlight reflecting off the earth, and the sunlight reflecting off the moon's surface. Am I incorrect in this thinking?



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Here we go with yet another "The Moon Landings were a hoax" thread.
This is so childish as to almost defy belief, as every single "claim" has long since been disproved on many, many occasions.
This is a seriously rude and insulting topic to those who put their lives on the line in order to advance our pathetic species into Space - where we must go unless we want to follow the Dinosaurs into extinction some not-so-sunny morning.

The Apollo missions went where they said they did.
Period.
We still use the Laser rangers that were left behind on almost a daily basis.
We still use the seismic experiments that were left behind on a regular basis monitoring for "Moon Quakes" and similar (which are anomalous in themselves when you look at the data)

Good Grief.


[edit on 25-6-2007 by neil wilkes]



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by neil wilkes
This is a seriously rude and insulting topic to those who put their lives on the line in order to advance our pathetic species into Space - where we must go unless we want to follow the Dinosaurs into extinction some not-so-sunny morning.

We still use the Laser rangers that were left behind on almost a daily basis.
We still use the seismic experiments that were left behind on a regular basis monitoring for "Moon Quakes" and similar (which are anomalous in themselves when you look at the data)

Good Grief.


Sir your comment is “seriously rude” to the Philosophy of science itself.

Faith lies in the realm of religion. To believe something without conclusive proof is simply to assume. Assumptions are subjective, and change from person to person. And a comment like this adds nothing, changes nothing. The facts are the facts, and inconsistencies remain. You fool only yourself.

As for the laser reflector, and the seismic tests, why are those unable to be setup by a robotic probe? The Russians had their robots send back soil.



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by neil wilkes
Here we go with yet another "The Moon Landings were a hoax" thread.
This is so childish as to almost defy belief, as every single "claim" has long since been disproved on many, many occasions.
This is a seriously rude and insulting topic to those who put their lives on the line in order to advance our pathetic species into Space - where we must go unless we want to follow the Dinosaurs into extinction some not-so-sunny morning.

The Apollo missions went where they said they did.
Period.
We still use the Laser rangers that were left behind on almost a daily basis.
We still use the seismic experiments that were left behind on a regular basis monitoring for "Moon Quakes" and similar (which are anomalous in themselves when you look at the data)

Good Grief.


[edit on 25-6-2007 by neil wilkes]


Good grief indeed...this looks less then a third hand car!




posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by webstra
Good grief indeed...this looks less then a third hand car!


Haha, well put.

It does look like a heap of junk doesn't it...

And I've always wondered about the gold foil... What is the point of it?



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Don't know where the gold was used for.

Maybe for making golden foil hats after the fakery was done ?



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by neil wilkes
Here we go with yet another "The Moon Landings were a hoax" thread.
This is so childish as to almost defy belief, as every single "claim" has long since been disproved on many, many occasions.


You have a "belief" that the Astronauts went to the Moon. Not proof. It has not been independently verified.


This is a seriously rude and insulting topic to those who put their lives on the line


This is argument by intimidation. IOW, "How -dare- you insult them by not sharing this belief"

Most people here are on the fence and just have some questions. Why does that trouble you?



The Apollo missions went where they said they did.
Period.


Again, intimidation.


We still use the Laser rangers that were left behind on almost a daily basis.


You don't know that. See threads on albedo and note the size of the radar reflector vs the size of a laser once it hits the moon.

NASA apologists can't even get together on what they think constitutes proof. One says the dust spray off the Rover tire. Some say rocks, others say laser reflectors.

Those are all indirect proofs. In mountaineering, typically one plants a flag and the next guy up verifies that it was there when he got there. Maybe one day we'll go back and find the flag. Until then I think the questions outnumber answers.

Here's an interesting vid. Starting at about 6-7 min in, checkout the impressive number of mockups of the Moon's surface that NASA constructed!




posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
You have a "belief" that the Astronauts went to the Moon. Not proof. It has not been independently verified.


By your requirement of proof, gee anyhting and everything can be questioned, from the moon landing to out existence to whether or not YOU WENT TO THE 7eleven this morning or not.

Lets take that last one as an example:

You claim that "I WENT TO THE 7'ELEVEN THIS MORNING"
I say: "PROVE IT!"

You show evidence of what you bought there, a pack of donuts, a newspaper, a 7-eleven coffee. I say, "PURE BUNK", that could be forged!

You show evidence of the 7-eleven video monitor camera videotape that you got your hands on. I say "HAH, THAT EVIDENCE COULD BE MADE IN A STUDIO, BUNK I SAY!"

You show me interviews of other patrons and interview of the cashier that were present at the time. I say "THERE PAID OFF, THEY ARE ALL 'IN ON IT'!"

So you see, while the above is in humor, it can all be related to the moon, or really any event, what constitutes proof in your book, planting a flag at the 7-eleven or any of the numerous other evidence presented?



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Badge01, great post!

greatlakes,


Originally posted by greatlakes
You claim that "I WENT TO THE 7'ELEVEN THIS MORNING"
I say: "PROVE IT!"

You show evidence of what you bought there, a pack of donuts, a newspaper, a 7-eleven coffee. I say, "PURE BUNK", that could be forged!

You show evidence of the 7-eleven video monitor camera videotape that you got your hands on. I say "HAH, THAT EVIDENCE COULD BE MADE IN A STUDIO, BUNK I SAY!"


Your analogy is very misleading...

You forget to add in the near impossibility of actually getting to the moon:

You claim that "I WENT TO THE 7'ELEVEN THIS MORNING"
I say: "There isn't a 7 Eleven on this side of the planet. PROVE IT!"

There is no reason to doubt someone’s word if the claim is not extraordinary and the evidence is apparent. But when the claim is something as bold as "we went to the moon 7 times, and walked on it 6 times, and no one died and all our primitive untested 60's space technology worked first time out of the box, despite all of our previous blunders and the fact we couldn't even get a piece of metal into orbit 15 years ago" then you reply: "Oh yes, now you must prove this ridiculous claim beyond a shadow of a doubt."

That shadow of a doubt still lingers, unresolved in many minds.

The shadow of a doubt grows and grows and grows, every year that we fail to return. It becomes more and more apparent that we cannot return, because we have never been, or something else equally fishy is going on.

Your faith in US government agencies is misplaced. Do not fool yourself into believing that they would not have lied and scammed to pull this off. In terms of probabilities, that is the far more probable of the two scenarios.


[edit on 25-6-2007 by Yandros]



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros

The shadow of a doubt grows and grows and grows, every year that we fail to return. It becomes more and more apparent that we cannot return, because we have never been, or something else equally fishy is going on.


Is that why the current lunar mission is based off of much of the Apollo engineering and design?



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Back on original topic for a second (moon mission related sun images), check this thread out and the image link in the original post, which is repeated here...

The sun looks pretty much like it does in the moon shots, if a bit smaller.


BTW here's a straightforward explanation of what materials were used on the lander, including thicknesses and why they were used.

Also, there's a lot of sensible hoax-debunking info here, including this:




Shielding was provided to protect the Apollo astronauts from micrometeoroid bombardment. Due to their low mass, only a thin layer of material was necessary to stop these dust-sized particles. For example, the Lunar Module was protected by a thin aluminum outer shield a few thousandths of an inch thick. In addition, the astronauts' spacesuits included a micrometeoroid garment to protect them while performing activities on the lunar surface.


Yes, the lunar module/s looked flimsy from the outside because of their protective sheeting, but it would be ridiculous to presume all they were built from was card and foil, Blue Peter-style.



[edit on 26-6-2007 by Skunky]

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Skunky]





top topics
 
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join