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.

 

Smoking Gun - Apollo 11

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Smoking Gun - Apollo 11


www.rense.com

We now have concrete evidence which proves that live pictures broadcast to the world by Apollo 11 which showed the astronaut jumping off the ladder down to the surface of the moon did NOT originate on the moon. Forget about rock shadows and shadow angles. Finally, the smoking gun. We will use NASA's images, unenhanced to prove this.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I have always believed we DID go to the moon, but this disturbs me greatly, the Lunar landing was what got me started in Astronomy in the first place

what do you think? Is this guy nuts or does he have a leg (or ladder) to stand on? Please debunk this, it shakes me to the core

www.rense.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


jra

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
That's it? That's the "smoking gun"? Talk about grasping for straws. The ladder, from what I can make out in the fuzzy, low quality tv image looks fine in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
so it doesn't look 4 inches thicker then the color photo to you? it sure did to me, thats what disturbed me so much



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thedigirati
 


If you look at the pictures labeled Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 you can see some type of thick metal bar running parallel to the lander leg on the underneath side of the ladder. I believe this is what the red arrows are pointing to in Fig 5 as the "smoking gun" I don't see this as proof, unless they have a better picture showing that the ladder is thicker and also showing the thick metal bar underneath it.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Why do you think Jeff bezos of amazon.com is building a rocket? He wants to see for himself what is going on up there.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   
The simple explanation is that the thickness issue is non existent. I noted some foil "streamers" in fig. 1 that could have been protective covering for the ladder, and so made it look "thicker" in the one photo, and once removed, thinner in the other photo.

Also, I do not see a difference in the ladder length. True, I do not have any enhancement capabilities with the computer I am using now, so I cannot be sure on that issue.

But even if the ladder was further off the surface at landing, it would be logical for it to have some adjustment to it. They expected to land in some extreme powder at one point in the planning, so a "raised" ladder would have been a practical idea. To design it to adjust lower, according to conditions would have been easy enough.

All in all, while these things are noteworthy, and certainly worth further thought, I hardly see this as a "smoking gun".



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I am an "Apollo Hugger" which means I think Apollo (maybe not Apollo 11) went to the moon.

But I think there is a lot we don't know about how we actually got there, if we got there.

For instance there is no doubt in my mind that the gravity on the near side is .64% of Earth's gravity. So that would make it impossible to use the rocket allegedly in the lunar lander. There just wasn't enough fuel to accomplish that.

Also, whether or not the rocket was throttled back to 10%, and whether or not there is one sixth "G" or 64%, there is no evidence directly under the lander that would indicated any rocket was firing at any thrust, period.

Why was Michael Collins cut out of the S-band loop so that he couldn't talk or hear Armstrong and Aldrin while on the moon? I am not going to buy a "glitch". That was done on purpose.

The main reason I believe we went is the video of the pitiful jumps the astronauts made in what was allegedly one sixth "G".

If they faked the whole thing why not fake some real one sixth gravity?

I emailed Ted with some questions and I will tell you what he said.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Honeysuckle Creek Australia

Better Video copy


www.honeysucklecreek.net...

This film is the ONLY SURVIVING RECORD of that Apollo 11 Landing All the rest have been lost..

The Saga Of the Lost Space Tapes
NASA Is Stumped in Search For Videos of 1969 Moonwalk
Washington Post

Langley Moon Landing Studio

APOLLO REALITY
How, and where NASA faked the lunar orbit, landing and lift off
www.thelivingmoon.com...



[edit on 26-12-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Ah I think I see what he is getting at....

In this photo the part of the ladder that holds the rungs... there is only one bar on each side.. and the last rung is very high off the ground.. and the ladder is bent as it goes up. The bottom rung is at his waist when standing on the pad




In this TV Image there are more rails on the ladder... it goes further to the ground and looks straight the whole length... and it look as low as his knee (once he is on the pad)




Vewy Interwesting

Might just be a smoking gun... I will have to look over some other shots




[edit on 26-12-2007 by zorgon]


jra

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedigirati
so it doesn't look 4 inches thicker then the color photo to you? it sure did to me, thats what disturbed me so much


Four inches thicker? Not at all. I think I might know what the guy is seeing in the tv photo. Look at this image and look at what's just under the left side of the ladder, near Aldrins hand. There's something that runs along that side of the ladder, which is the side that the tv camera sees. Perhaps that's what's making it appear to be four inches thicker when viewed from that low quality camera.


Originally posted by zorgon
In this TV Image there are more rails on the ladder... it goes further to the ground and looks straight the whole length... and it look as low as his knee (once he is on the pad)


Have you watched the actual footage? Because when he drops to the ground, the bottom of the ladder is at about his waist. And the camera isn't pointed up high enough to see the bent part.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by jra]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   
JRA: I think you nailed it. There is something running next to the ladder that looks to be about four inches wide. From the angle of the TV camera this is what they are pointing at. At least that is what I see.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Looking carefully at the pictures, I agree that you have found the right object.

It would be nice if folks would just ask if anyone can figure out the differences in a picture, instead of coming unglued and posting that they have found proof.

When, and if, some proof is found, it will have to be something that more than one person can plainly see, and there will have to be no chance of an error.

In American football, certain plays get reviewed. The official on the field makes a call, and if the coach decide it's the wrong call, he can ask for a review. After a little conference, and a lot of instant replays, the official comes back on the field and announces the decision on what is most likely the truth.

The interesting thing is that when an issue, such as was the ball caught or trapped, cannot conclusively be determined by the replays, the the judgment on the field stands. In other words, to overturn a decision made on the field, clear proof has to be made that the original call was in error.

I think to a certain extent we have to follow more or less the same guidelines. Unless the proof is such that it is so clear that nothing else could be true, then we have to accept the call and continue looking.

(That was about $0.03 worth, but who's counting.
)



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Well look at the the object. It is about 18 inches long and actually disappears at the top (2 yellow horizontal lines). Also, Armstrong's hand is inside the object. You see the arrows on the right? Whatever you are looking at does not extend down or up beyond the 18 inches or so. See the yellow arrow on the left? It shows that railing is thin and you can see the background. The yellow arrows on the righ show the object does not extend above or below the 18 inches.



Now look that the yellow lines drawn along the ladder railings. You see the yellow circle. If it was not solid you would be able to see the horizon.




Image of Armstrong on ladder at 109:22:59 GET is NASA image S69-42583.
Who took it is unknown – it appears to be a handheld photo taken of a scan
converted monitor – possibly from a tape replay. The black bar across the
photo suggests the shutter speed was incorrectly set, and the curved scan
lines suggest it was taken fairly close to the convex surface of a CRT monitor.
However it could well have been another of the Goldstone Polaroids (see
below) that was poorly copied or scanned.
Image at 110:41:48 GET – a mounted Polaroid taken at Goldstone by a
Goddard PAO representative, preserved and scanned by Goldstone Unified
S-band Lead Engineer Bill Wood.


www.honeysucklecreek.net...

The ladders are definitely not the same. Something is wrong here.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


You're looking at the wrong side. You're pointing out the right hand side, as the climber faces the ladder. Look through the ladder to the left hand side, which is the one on the blurry photo. There you will see a full length metal (?) piece. That one corresponds to the one in the photo that is being questioned.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Originally posted by NGC2736


You're looking at the wrong side. You're pointing out the right hand side, as the climber faces the ladder. Look through the ladder to the left hand side, which is the one on the blurry photo. There you will see a full length metal (?) piece. That one corresponds to the one in the photo that is being questioned.


I pointed out the left side in both photos. Using jra's photo. If you have a problem with that please point out he errors using photoshop or paintshop pro. One photo shows a very thin ladder railing the other photo shows a four inch ladder railing.

Please be specific and show what you think is a "full length metal piece".

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Not a problem, John. My bad. I was thrown by the two green lines that seemed to bracket a place on or near the right hand.

And I can't use paint pro or photo shop as I have never learned how. I self taught on a computer less than a year ago, and I haven't figured out that part yet, as it's not something I've needed to use. (I learned to type on a manual Underwood, so I'm handicapped.
)

OK, what I see is the metal skirt disappearing behind his knee at about the next to last step. Since his foot is on the last rung, the view is blocked as to exactly how far down the left side it does go, but it seems to be at least within eight inches of the end of the ladder.

On top, I see it disappearing behind his right elbow. It is hard to say, because of shadows, but there is a corresponding dark area emerging above his arm that could indicate that the skirting goes as high as the bend in the ladder.

Anyway, from my perspective, the skirt is at least 30 to 36 inches long, and maybe as much as 60 inches.

Also, the angle of the camera shows the skirt to be covering the hand in the fuzzy picture. Because the other photo is more from the side of the person on the ladder, the skirt shows a certain separation from the ladder.

But, This is only one persons view of what is to be seen. I imagine there will be some enlargements and better analysis of this photo in the days ahead.

Sorry I couldn't use pictures to explain myself better.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by NGC2736]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:53 AM
link   
what utter twaddle

the only thing ` smoking ` is the void between Ted Twietmeyers ears

i will get to the ladder issue tonight when i have more time , but for now :




Compare the gold foil covering the legs of the lander (WHITE arrow) with the previous image in Figure 1. It does not match. RED arrow - Note shock absorber pairs on each Lander strut do not have foil but some other type of covering, probably for insulation. Source: history.nasa.gov...



Fig. 2a ­ Closeup of strut on Lunar surface. Note shock absorber (RED arrow) is covered with foil in this photo, not the black wrapping material we see in previous images. This was also supposedly taken on the Moon's surface by an astronaut.
Image source: www.hq.nasa.gov... kippsphotos/5920.jpg


the idiot finds it " suspicious " that the two photographs show different insulation on the legs / struts

that is because they are 2 different landers from two different missions some 2 years apart

so its hardly supprising that they do not match , many modifications were made to the landers as a result of ` lessons learned `

oh my gosh - apollo 11 lander looks different to apollo 15 lander - this is to be expected , not a conspiracy

pretty pathetic if thats is one of his two peices of best evidence

[edit on 27-12-2007 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
what utter twaddle
the only thing ` smoking ` is the void between Ted Twietmeyers ears


Ah being your usual pleasant self I see...



Better view of that 'fuzzy' TV shot





[edit on 27-12-2007 by zorgon]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join