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.

 

I may have new evidence to prove we never went to the Moon

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Let me see if I have this right.

You (jm) have no evidence to back up your "claim." You have no research to point to, other than a website where there are paintings of space enviroments. You refuse to acknowledge the existence of the laser experiments that they placed on the moon (and you are supposedly an astronomy student).

Does anyone here remember the good old days where folks did research before they posted? I miss those days.




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


I for one am not angry, though I do wish to address the issue you raise. A matte background would result in a "flat" backdrop if viewed using stereo pairs taken facing the same direction from different locations while on the moon. This is not the case, however, as images taken from two distant points during such missions as apollo 15 reveal that the mountains are indeed really there in all 3 dimensions. It would have been impossible to create this effect with a matte painting.

i14.photobucket.com...

This image can be viewed with the "magic eye" or "cross eye" technique: cross your eyes slightly while staring at the image until they overlap. You should see 3 images, in the center one the mountains will be in 3d.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
with all due respect, jedi, i find it hard to take anything you say seriously. the first post i saw from you pertained to an experiment that you were going to do using a microwave and a telephone to phase a hotdog into another dimension. another one of your articles claimed that hi-def was a scam because the blu-ray format just enhanced the blue element in the video, which is not even close to correct and the slightest bit of research would have shown that. i actually ended up putting you on my ignore list, so at first i was wondering why i saw no original post. =)

i might come off as a jerk in this post. if you think so, then i won't be offended. i'm just putting this warning out there: take what this guy says with a molecule of NaCl.


jra

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I find your theory to be seriously flawed. You've ignored or were unaware of things like the Lunar laser reflectors. Which are still used to this day. Sure they could have been placed by robots. The Russian ones were, but they aren't as good as the ones that were placed by hand durring the Apollo missions. You've also ignored the Lunar samples which make for some extremely good evidence that we went to the Moon. You're also ignoring that the later missions had the Lunar Rovers which traversed several km worth of the Lunar surface with continuous DAC and video footage. Show me a movie studio that can build a set that big.

It's also clear that you didn't examine the photos in too much detail. Like ngchunter pointed out. If you compare two photos from the same mission, that are showing the same mountains in the background. You'll notice differences in them. You can take it a step further and find two photos taken in close proximity to one another and make an animated .gif that flips back and forth between them, which creates a 3d like effect. Here is one that I made out of two Apollo 15 photos.

Definitely not a matte painting. The only thing I can agree with you is that Ralph McQuarrie was a great artist.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


Not convinced I'm afraid, and until you can explain
Lunar Laser Ranging ExperimenttThen this is just another "Men didn't land on the Moon" conspiracy theory. That observatory has been in use since it was put there. It doesn't lie...



[edit on 11-4-2008 by timelike]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Dammit JRA, you just beaten me to it!!!

It is interesting to note that these crack pot theories never tackle the Lunar Laser experiment. I suspect it's to difficult to explain away...



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   
What I find interesting is your thread about the Blue ray dvd's when you say you are going to film school. Then a week later you are an astronomer? Seriously give everyone a break.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I think we did actually step foot on the moon, but not in 1969 like it's written in history. I think we ended up there in the following years but the initial 'landing' was a hoax due to the current space race at the time.

Out of curiousity, is there a particular reason why noone has made a return trip? Surely if we managed it 30 odd years ago then we've improved the technology and ease of a repeat successful mission?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks
 





Funny thing though, is it was him who got me interested in UFO's by buying me a UFO mag in the early seventies. Around 1975 he said to me once" You know they found ruins on the moon, thats why we dont go there anymore"
Thats what I keep hearing.I find this very interesting.Thanks for your info,Punkinworks.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Jimbowsk
 


If you want to know why we stopped going, just look at the budget. It was not a cheap program. It was very expensive, and each rocket could only be used once. Since then we've learned that you get what you pay for, and if there's one thing the government simply cannot do, it's to do something cost efficiently. That's really why we're going back now; the shuttle is simply more expensive than it was ever supposed to be and if you're going to be spending that much on space exploration, you may as well go all out and have something big to show for it. By the way, Apollo 11 was one of the missions that set down a Laser retroreflector, forever proving it happened.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I've always been amused at how the partisans of the "man never walked on the moon" were skilled at making themselves unbelievable.

Seriously... please. I'm even nearly surprised that nobody came back with the "floating flag" thing...



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
I find your theory to be seriously flawed. You've ignored or were unaware of things like the Lunar laser reflectors. Which are still used to this day. Sure they could have been placed by robots. The Russian ones were, but they aren't as good as the ones that were placed by hand durring the Apollo missions. You've also ignored the Lunar samples which make for some extremely good evidence that we went to the Moon. You're also ignoring that the later missions had the Lunar Rovers which traversed several km worth of the Lunar surface with continuous DAC and video footage. Show me a movie studio that can build a set that big.

It's also clear that you didn't examine the photos in too much detail. Like ngchunter pointed out. If you compare two photos from the same mission, that are showing the same mountains in the background. You'll notice differences in them. You can take it a step further and find two photos taken in close proximity to one another and make an animated .gif that flips back and forth between them, which creates a 3d like effect. Here is one that I made out of two Apollo 15 photos.

Definitely not a matte painting. The only thing I can agree with you is that Ralph McQuarrie was a great artist.


So the Russians can use robots to do something but we must have gone to the moon and done it with our own hands right? Talk about flawed logic.
Where is the contiguous footage of the rover travelling for kilometers?
The picture you used to illustrate the 3 dimensionality of the backgrounds contains nothing but forground in it.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
So the Russians can use robots to do something but we must have gone to the moon and done it with our own hands right? Talk about flawed logic.

One russian retroreflector doesn't even work and the other is not as accurately aligned to the earth as the apollo reflectors are because the latter were carefully aligned by hand, thus the russian one is less efficient.


Where is the contiguous footage of the rover travelling for kilometers?

Huh, that'd be pretty wierd if they were mysteriously able to keep that high gain antenna for TV accurately pointed back at the earth while going over bumps and through hills, wouldn't it? The 16mm film video camera they had with them on the EVAs was only capable of a grand total of 3.7 minutes of footage at 24fps, and that was for use in a lot more applications than just filming the rover. Nonetheless, it's the only video I'm aware of filmed from the rover's perspective while driving, and it's consequently too short for your misguided expectations. The fact that the dust that the rover kicks up arcs back down without billowing is proof they're in a vacuum though, and there's no such thing as a vacuum chamber large enough to film those shots in, much less in reduced gravity.


The picture you used to illustrate the 3 dimensionality of the backgrounds contains nothing but forground in it.

I'd disagree with that, but you're ignoring the cross-eye stereogram I posted earlier on this thread, and it definately contains background mountains.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
FOX eh, I always though Disney Studios might have been involved.

Talking about the Landing Module, I recall seeing a wooden
mock up that was used for equipment and such measurements.

The consensus was it looked quite small for two people.
That was a big topic at one time and guess it never proved anything.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by Chorlton
 


Actually, NASA was out of ideas on how to do the landing and return until late 1961 when an engineer named John Houbolt came up with the idea of a LO-Rendezvous plan using a lander. Many said it was too complex to implement.

His plan seemed to work and they're planning on doing something similar, if you go by Buzz Aldrin's idea of a continuous transport program between Earth and Mars. (or more precisely, the Moon and Mars).

Since you have me on ignore, you won't see this...oh well, too bad.


I just wanted to make sure he reads it since he put you on ignore



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
jedimiller
Star Wars Expert


Ok I cant take this anymore.
Ok you claim that we did not go to the moon the greatest event in human history yet you claim to be a Star Wars Expert



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
One russian retroreflector doesn't even work and the other is not as accurately aligned to the earth as the apollo reflectors are because the latter were carefully aligned by hand, thus the russian one is less efficient.

Wow, you have some manners dont you? So ours were better placed. Nothing about that answer proves humans placed anything. In fact, had humans been the ones up there aligning things, chances are pretty good that they would be less effective. This is one of those see it how you like deals.


Huh, that'd be pretty wierd if they were mysteriously able to keep that high gain antenna for TV accurately pointed back at the earth while going over bumps and through hills, wouldn't it? The 16mm film video camera...

Read a few posts back to see why I might have that expectation. See the post where it is pointed out that we have so much continuous rover footage that there is no way it could be filmed on a stage. It takes longer than 3 minutes to get across many stages, especially if you slow the footage down. Do not attack me for asking someone to back up what they claimed.


I'd disagree with that, but you're ignoring the cross-eye stereogram I posted earlier on this thread, and it definately contains background mountains.

I am referring directly to the picture you used as a flip anim to prove your point. If that is not the image you wanted to prove your point with, you should not have used it for that then should you have?



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Intriquing thread. Hey slayer youi in the states? I can't believe in still up at 2:05 am. I wont be able to post my theory on the movie/writer of the day the earth stood still until proly next week.

Too much leg work needs to be done, and this week I'm doing my garage clean out.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
jedimiller
Star Wars Expert


Ok I cant take this anymore.
Ok you claim that we did not go to the moon the greatest event in human history yet you claim to be a Star Wars Expert


Star Wars or Tesla UFO, we get the same treatment.
Now it may turn out there is not enough energy for either to travel
the galaxy's.
I know its crushing.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by Chorlton
 


Actually, NASA was out of ideas on how to do the landing and return until late 1961 when an engineer named John Houbolt came up with the idea of a LO-Rendezvous plan using a lander. Many said it was too complex to implement.

His plan seemed to work and they're planning on doing something similar, if you go by Buzz Aldrin's idea of a continuous transport program between Earth and Mars. (or more precisely, the Moon and Mars).

Since you have me on ignore, you won't see this...oh well, too bad.


I just wanted to make sure he reads it since he put you on ignore


He has been banned several months ago. I wonder if he still comes here and maybe even signed up with different name.

I do agree that it's very probable that the first moon landing was an hoax. But this is too much.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join