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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


lol. your a funny guy too.

I believe the videos were faked for many reasons, but we all know all the different controversies so I won't list them all.

But i do believe we went to the moon, and that we saw spacecrafts on the moon.

I remember reading how neil reported to houston that he saw two UFOs.
I also saw an interview with him where he actually admits it!!!

So, the vids were faked, imo, to secure national fear, as americans were genually scared that Russia was more advanced than us.
And I also believe that we went to the moon knowing that there was ET activity going on there.

Great stuff though, i just wish it was all out in the open.




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


Nice work DBS, I was gonna try and give the same thing a go with saveing pictures, and illustrating the points you made. However you did a far better job than I would have.

The big beam on the left,that was not part of the ladder that you outlined in red, was right in front of everyones faces, I couldn't see how they were missing it.

Anyway as far as the shocks go. Picture 1 shows on the left some lighter colored material that coveres about a foot and a half of the shock, before the black covering starts.

Then in picture three, which shows light covering on the shocks, you can just make out before the crop where the thicker black coating starts. I was gonna post pictures to explain what i mean but I think its simple if you look at pictures 1 and 3.

Why they chose to go right up to the lander legs with the thicker black covering on most of the shocks, and come up about a foot and a half short to the leg on a couple, I don't know, but there is continuity within the pictures.

I not really a believer that we did put a man on the moon in 69', I do believe it was staged, however the ladder and the shocks are not the smoking gun.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Same ladder.

View from left. Left side of ladder visible (barely)...


yellow lines = thin ladder rail
red lines = wider structure
green = my interpretation of astronauts left arm and hand on ladder


View from right. right side of ladder visible....


yellow lines = thin ladder rail
red lines = wider structure

I don't see the mystery in these photos.


It can't get any better than this post by darkbluesky. Where is that way above award button? It is the same ladder. But hey, lets all stick with the "I got a grainy piece of video that proves everything" smoking gun. It has become the most popular form of evidence used on ATS. Better luck next time guys.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I really should avoid threads with "smoking gun" in the title.I know the OP was taking it from a source so hopefully no feelings are hurt.
At a quick glance the pictures looked convincing in the Rense article, but after seeing more in depth analyses here, I don't see smoke or a gun.
Rense sure has gone downhill.........or I've gotten a bit smarter.

My own opinions on the moon landing are still in the air since I haven't researched the subject as much as I should.
I appreciate the post.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by citizen truth
 


Oh no, I take no umbrage at all, the title was NOT mine, But like you, it took me unawares on first inspection. ( and admittedly, I have the bookworms curse of thick glasses ) My own picture that I put up I (subconsciously?) put the yellow arrow above what appears to be the rivet and cross piece.

I stated in my OP that I wanted this debunked, and once again let me say thank you ALL for your input.

Mr Lear, did you get any type of response from Mr Twietmeyer?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
How could you deny the risks that those astronaughts took? They risked their lives going on those missions. These brave individuals took a 222,000 mile journey across a vaccume of space, risking it all so that mankind could expand beyond the reaches of our globe, and all you have to say is that they are liars? They set a new paradigm, and all you can do is say it is a lie?

Yawn... so they set a new paradigm...

Then why, 35 years later, has there been no further public progress with respect to manned missions to other celestial bodies? Why have they not expanded beyond the reaches of our globe, other than a couple of public space stations?

To stall for 35 years after the event is highly suspicious to me and makes me cast some doubt as to what really happened back then.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Great thread!! I think a lot of people are missing the most obvious part of that picture. Everyone is so focused on the littles details and the rails that they just don't notice what is hitting their faces. The shadowing of the shot.

I've worked on many studio and location shots where we played with light and shadow. When you have a shot with that much of a casted shadow and that opaque, you need to either have a reflector to bounce the light back onto the subject so you can see it with some detail. You could also use a bank of low level light bank or even spot lights located behind a diffuser. You can even see on the golden "tin foil" that there is obviously a light souce being bounced to it.

We've also used tons of medium and large format cameras, one being the hasselblad for our medium needs. This is an excellent camera but comes in many parts, at least 5 to be operational. It is not waterproof or even vacuum sealed. My friend has one of the limited edition NASA cameras and there is not that much different from the normal line except that it is a "little" thicker.

The film alone is very sensitive and needs to be taken care of during our shoots in the desert or mountain. So for it to survive the radiation belt and the extreme temperatures of the moon really surprises me.

As for faking the filming, I would almost assume so, since everything was riding on them being a success, that they would rather give a perfect feed of the expected outcome then to leave it up to chance. That to me is obvious too. In my opinion.

Just my .000000002 cents..


jra

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by shadow_D
I've worked on many studio and location shots where we played with light and shadow. When you have a shot with that much of a casted shadow and that opaque, you need to either have a reflector to bounce the light back onto the subject so you can see it with some detail. You could also use a bank of low level light bank or even spot lights located behind a diffuser.


Or you could also use the surrounding lunar surface to reflect all that light.


You can even see on the golden "tin foil" that there is obviously a light souce being bounced to it.


That being the brightly, sun lit, lunar surface.


The film alone is very sensitive and needs to be taken care of during our shoots in the desert or mountain. So for it to survive the radiation belt and the extreme temperatures of the moon really surprises me.


What extreme temperatures would the film be exposed to? It's in the camera. The only extreme temperatures on the Moon are its surface temperatures. The film itself was never exposed to any extreme temperatures. Also Hasselblad did add some extra protection to the film magazines, but the radiation levels were not so high as to damage the film.


As for faking the filming, I would almost assume so, since everything was riding on them being a success, that they would rather give a perfect feed of the expected outcome then to leave it up to chance. That to me is obvious too. In my opinion.


You assume it was all staged, then you leave a lot of questions unanswered. Do you realize the scale of the entire Apollo project? To fake it would have been harder than to actually go out and do it, in my opinion. For example, how do you film a 6 hour long EVA, and traverse several km worth of lunar surface all without stopping the camera? How do you explain those 360 degree pans of the lunar surface that show a continuous lunar landscape? How can you cover so much ground inside a studio? Or how do you make the desert sand grey and remove all the bits of vegitation for many km? How do you make the sky black, but have the surface lit by the Sun for as far as the eye can see? Etc, etc... And all this with '60 technology...

Also, the Apollo missions didn't go perfectly. None of them did.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
reply to post by thedigirati
 

Spare me with this revisionist garbage. I suggest you look at proper history and all of the evidence of the moon landing. It is simply anti-american to suggest that America lied about the moon landing.

They set a new paradigm, and all you can do is say it is a lie?

HOW DARE YOU. Tell me the basis on why you are being a moonlanding revisionist and slandering the name of history!


Huh! Cool it BP! Wow! We know you feel strongly about this! But hey, it's not thedigirati who said that the Moon landing was a fake. This is what she (he?) said...


Originally posted by thedigirati
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.


So don't go overboard. Keep your emotions in check, so you are aware as to who said what. This is imperative for an analytical and unbiased discussion.

Thank you!



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Thanks, jra, good job, star for you.

I hate to say it, but some of the others' back and forth tends to remind me a little of youtube 'debates'. I think a little emotion crept in...



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Hi jra, thanks for your response but I do have to disagree with some of your statements:


Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by shadow_D
I've worked on many studio and location shots where we played with light and shadow. When you have a shot with that much of a casted shadow and that opaque, you need to either have a reflector to bounce the light back onto the subject so you can see it with some detail. You could also use a bank of low level light bank or even spot lights located behind a diffuser.

Or you could also use the surrounding lunar surface to reflect all that light.


Yes you would be able to get reflective spots on some of the surface but not that much so you can see the details on his inner arm and beyond without effecting the overall light and shadow that is being casted


You can even see on the golden "tin foil" that there is obviously a light souce being bounced to it.

That being the brightly, sun lit, lunar surface.


As stated above, but you would have much more of a hot and cold spots in the foil area then is currently seen. Something was used to cast a more even temperature of light.


The film alone is very sensitive and needs to be taken care of during our shoots in the desert or mountain. So for it to survive the radiation belt and the extreme temperatures of the moon really surprises me.

What extreme temperatures would the film be exposed to? It's in the camera. The only extreme temperatures on the Moon are its surface temperatures. The film itself was never exposed to any extreme temperatures. Also Hasselblad did add some extra protection to the film magazines, but the radiation levels were not so high as to damage the film.


Never claimed to be a moon or moon atmospheric expert. I was just commenting on the fact that great pains are taken to protect film here on earth with an average size window of optimal performance.


As for faking the filming, I would almost assume so, since everything was riding on them being a success, that they would rather give a perfect feed of the expected outcome then to leave it up to chance. That to me is obvious too. In my opinion.

You assume it was all staged, then you leave a lot of questions unanswered. Do you realize the scale of the entire Apollo project? To fake it would have been harder than to actually go out and do it, in my opinion. For example, how do you film a 6 hour long EVA, and traverse several km worth of lunar surface all without stopping the camera? How do you explain those 360 degree pans of the lunar surface that show a continuous lunar landscape? How can you cover so much ground inside a studio? Or how do you make the desert sand grey and remove all the bits of vegitation for many km? How do you make the sky black, but have the surface lit by the Sun for as far as the eye can see? Etc, etc... And all this with '60 technology...


I live in Arizona and we've done and I've attended tons of shoots throughout the desert at various times of the day. This would also include Various spots in New Mexico, California as well as Utah. It would be extremely easy to reproduce such environments and events and I never stated that it was done in a studio. I said with so much at stake, budget, country pride, etc.. They really couldn't afford to stream something without having a guarranteed result. And I will say it again, it is my opinion, I never stated I have facts. I just know for a few commercial we did it was VERY possible to duplicate, especially with their never ending budgets, unlike our smallish one.


Also, the Apollo missions didn't go perfectly. None of them did.


I agree, they were all knuckle journeys with tons of errors. I think that is why they stopped doing live feeds a while back in case something did happen. Again, not an expert, just my opinions and observations.

(fixed code)

[edit on 27-12-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   
That is one sad looking ladder design. You would think that all them NASA brains would think of something better. Uh Houston we have a problem, we can get off the LM, but we can't get back on the LM HAHA.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Thanks for fixing that jbird!! much appreciated!!



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
To stall for 35 years after the event is highly suspicious to me and makes me cast some doubt as to what really happened back then.


Well don't look to NASA to back up the trip to the moon

It seems that in the new push to go back to the Moon well NASA no longer knows how they did it...

So they are going to scrap yards to find parts for the new mission...

This is just a must watch video... If I were you.... I wouldn't let my kids go to be astronauts.

www.pbs.org...

I just love this one... Special thanks to the little birdie who sent me this in the mail





posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
The author of that article didn't do a very good job. I thought he'd have something a bit more solid than what he provided. Even people that don't believe we landed on the moon are calling this guy out... The comparison between the photo of the Apollo 11 lander and the Apollo 15 lander was especially puzzling.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 

thank you Mikesingh for coming to my defense, however it will fall on deaf ears, benign.psychosis is spreading sour grapes over a thread that was made the other day, it seems my thread was the first he came across that he could lash out in anger. if you look through this thread you will find reference to it and my rather enigmatic response. ( it truly brought tears of Joy to my eyes
)



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by thedigirati
 

Well, TD, it takes all types to make this world. People suffering from an inferiority complex generally tend to fly off the handle in the hope that they're heard, which makes them feel big! They are unknowingly exhibiting manifestations of intellectual bankruptcy!

But hey! You can't stop them, can you? So just ignore them!

Cheers!



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Soylent Green Is People,
Thanks for your extensive explanation.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedigirati
reply to post by benign.psychosis
 


action is what action is, the past is not reality, what you think is real is the past

it is action that is reality

( boy did that feel REAL good )

Clarification for the confused


Did you really not see that I was using your exact method to somehow proof that you are wrong in this case? An example of your previous attempts at denying the possibility of something? I used your exact same examples turn for turn, and yet, you still failed to grasp the meaning.

This truth, you can't even see. How can you profess to see the truth of a picture?

As for the pictures presented, they don't show anything of importance and they are not a "smoking gun."

If we want to really find out the truth in anything, we need to leave our egotistical beliefs aside. We must not believe it "what feels REAL good."

telenaut:


I'm literally amazed that you feel there is "too much proof" to suggest that we didn't land on the moon, but in your Holocaust thread, you feel there is insufficient proof to suggest that the Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust.


[sarcasm]
And I in turn am liteally amazed that the majority feel that there is "too much proof" that the holocaust happened exactly the way it did, but in this thread many believe there is insufficient proof to sugget that America landed on the moon.[/sarcasm]

Do you see my point? The childish belief systems have to be defenstrated before we can ever hope to reveal the real truth.

This must be done first before we can... leave.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by benign.psychosis
 


no you were not using any method at all, you where "ranting" I never said My dad was in WWII, I never accused YOU of any thing. I never made a single claim that this was a smoking gun, You Sir projected YOUR hurt feelings on me. My reply was attempted Humor which you also failed to see. ( and for all your claims of being taken out of context, well..........)

thank you for your reply, however, this thread has NOTHING to do with the Holocaust, or your personal agenda.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join