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.

 

Another smoking gun moon photo?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Since the hammer has a certain length, there is got to be some distance between where I stand and where I put the stake in.


But you then still need someone to stand close to the pole to hold it steady....someone holds it while the other uses the hammer.


[edit on 31-1-2008 by andre18]




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I think I've discovered the source of greenhouse gases on our planet, which leads to global warming and all. We just have too many "smoking gun" pictures from the Moon. With all that smoke around, atmosphere on this forum is positively hazy and suffocating at times.


Watch your step here buddhasystem.
Because by what you saying here is that you admit that the provided Moon pictures are indeed "smoking guns".

Otherwise, there was no smoke at all.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
So I guess we never went to the Moon. I guess this one questionable photo proves it. Forget about the tens of thousands of other photos and films that show we did, along with the descriptions of tens of thousands of people who worked on the project. Thank God our eyes have finally been opened to the incredible hoax! Now we can sleep again at night, since we now know The Truth!

Thank you, Ted Twietmeyer, Smoker of Guns!


This fellow brings up what is in my opinion the best evidence of at the very least impropriety in what we were told about the Apollo missions. THOUSANDS of photographs.

The actual number of MAN MINUTES spent on EVA on the surface was 4834 according to NASA. Man minutes is the time each astronaut "spent on the surface" added together.

The total number of technically PERFECT pictures taken DURING THE EVAs on the surface, from the chest mounted manual setting Hasselblad cameras-not including those taken from within the LM with different cameras was 5,771 according to NASA. Check it for yourself- 1,986 eva photos in the last mission alone- a ridiculous number.

Now- that total number of man minutes wasnt all spent taking photos. Subtracting all of the time from videos and from the flight log where the astros are not taking pictures - and i am being very generous here- leaves approximatley 3,100 minutes for taking pictures. This comes to an average of 1.9 photos every minute taken with a completley manual camera. The first mission has the most absurd photo per minute count at over 4 per minute.I am certain that I could not do this even here on earth without having the camera bolted to my chest with NO VEIWFINDER and wearing huge pressurised gloves as they supposedly did- to think that these guys pulled it off on the moon is well- lets just say wishful thinking- because you obviously want so very hard to believe we were not lied to.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
In my opinion it is not the flag of Apollo 16, watch this picture closely.





spaceflight.nasa.gov...



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


The explanations are as easy as eating pie. There are only two:

[A] The pic has been taken in Area 51, where extensive sets were constructed for that 'faked' Moon landing footage. The flag was planted by some studio hands and their footprints erased.

[B] Secret Black Org Moon base personnel had planted that flag years ago. This pic was taken whilst on a visit to one of these bases on the Moon. In other words, this flag doesn't belong to Apollo at all, but to the Moon base which was already operational years before the Apollo touch-down.

Now choose one. As for me, I'll tick '[B]!! The faked-Moon-landing fans would obviously tick '[A]'.

Is there a 3rd Alternative?

Cheers!



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Something that struck me as more obviously strange about the picture than the business with the flag...

Look carefully at the astronaut's feet. He doesn't actually appear to be standing on the terrain. Where are the indentations that would show the boots going into the moon dust? And where is his shadow...?

The more I look at it, the more he appears to be 'floating' as if superimposed on to the background image... like he wasn't originally in the shot at all.

BTW, I was refering to the image linked to in the above post by spacevisitor


[edit on 1/31/2008 by uv777bk]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by uv777bk
Something that struck me as more obviously strange about the picture than the business with the flag...

Look carefully at the astronaut's feet. He doesn't actually appear to be standing on the terrain. Where are the indentations that would show the boots going into the moon dust? And where is his shadow...?

The more I look at it, the more he appears to be 'floating' as if superimposed on to the background image... like he wasn't originally in the shot at all.

[edit on 1/31/2008 by uv777bk]


Ha, yes you're absolutely right - and the more I look at it the more glaringly obvious it seems that he's been superimposed on there!

I wonder what credentials you need to work at NASAs 'Cut and Paste' division?



I'm still on the fence about the whole moon landing - I kinda think we DID make it there, but perhaps not WHEN we said we did due to the space race.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by Jimbowsk]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Well here is my take on it, the dust is not evenly distributed, it is deeper in some parts than others and I would suggest the higher ground has less if any.

If this is the case than there would be no footprint or depression in the firmer surface material which of course would make for a more secure footing for a flag pole anyway.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Some other flag examples.

Top view footprints near flag Apollo 14




Placing flag Apollo 15.




Placing flag Apollo 16 ?? I am not shore




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by uv777bk
The more I look at it, the more he appears to be 'floating' as if superimposed on to the background image... like he wasn't originally in the shot at all.

BTW, I was refering to the image linked to in the above post by spacevisitor


[edit on 1/31/2008 by uv777bk]


Hi uv777bk,

I thaught he was jumping at the moment the picture was made.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I have been researching this subject for nearly ten years. This is the puzzle I have put together. When the film 2001 a space odyssey was filmed, the director Stanley Kubrick kept the moon set intact for 2 years after the filming was complete. Ask yourself why he did this? The years were 1967-68 just prior to the moon landing. During the Apollo flights before 11 many anomalies were found on the moon through photographs while orbiting. This prevented live shots form being taken on the moon. It was Kubrick who shot many of the pictures and film that was shown on July 20th. Yes, we still went to the moon and no doubt Neil said what he said when he stepped off the Lunar lander. It was just a video re-enactment to hide the anomalies. Most likely this flag pole picture was a Kubrick picture taken about a year before.

No one has to believe this scenario but it is likely to have gone down this way to protect what they really found in prior missions.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
My thought is that we probably did go to the moon, but that we have been unable to get any good 'vacation shots'.

When you spend a lot of money on a vacation you tend to want to get some good pictures of it. I think the general public would have been somewhat bemused if their tax $$ didn't at least get some nice pictures


But who knows. If NASA wants to weave such a tangled web for itself it better hope it doesn't get caught up in its own creation.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
concerning the "superimposed astronaut" - look again. he's jumping. that's what they had to do on the moon as their suits made it hard to just walk. you'll find his shadow just a bit off to the right , and there are prints following behind him..i think if anything this supports that he was indeed in a low-gravity environment. do just the slightest bit of investigation. my initial reaction was the same - that he didn't look right, but it only took me 5 seconds to find the shadow. if it's not connected to his feet then he must be in the air and the shadow is farther out.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by an0maly33]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I think I've discovered the source of greenhouse gases on our planet, which leads to global warming and all. We just have too many "smoking gun" pictures from the Moon. With all that smoke around, atmosphere on this forum is positively hazy and suffocating at times.

The link is precious. Again, somebody DRAWS lines on photographs and invite everybody to "see" structure in the image.

By the way, if I was driving a stake into the soil, using a hammer, I would surely NOT hold it tight against my chest. I would extend my arm with the stake, and use the other to swing the hammer. Since the hammer has a certain length, there is got to be some distance between where I stand and where I put the stake in.



How dare you come in here and throw around this common sense?



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
This fellow brings up what is in my opinion the best evidence of at the very least impropriety in what we were told about the Apollo missions. THOUSANDS of photographs.

The actual number of MAN MINUTES spent on EVA on the surface was 4834 according to NASA. Man minutes is the time each astronaut "spent on the surface" added together.

The total number of technically PERFECT pictures taken DURING THE EVAs on the surface, from the chest mounted manual setting Hasselblad cameras-not including those taken from within the LM with different cameras was 5,771 according to NASA. Check it for yourself- 1,986 eva photos in the last mission alone- a ridiculous number.

Now- that total number of man minutes wasnt all spent taking photos. Subtracting all of the time from videos and from the flight log where the astros are not taking pictures - and i am being very generous here- leaves approximatley 3,100 minutes for taking pictures. This comes to an average of 1.9 photos every minute taken with a completley manual camera. The first mission has the most absurd photo per minute count at over 4 per minute.I am certain that I could not do this even here on earth without having the camera bolted to my chest with NO VEIWFINDER and wearing huge pressurised gloves as they supposedly did- to think that these guys pulled it off on the moon is well- lets just say wishful thinking- because you obviously want so very hard to believe we were not lied to.


IHN, I see you're still trying to sell this garbage.

Why don't you come back to this thread www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.abovetopsecret.com... and try to dispute the facts I've presented along with all supporting evidence that
shows that the actual average frame per minute rate for lunar surface EVAs during the Apollo program was 0.5.

Folks, if youre interested in this kind of thing, and want to see it being done by a pro, go to this website....

aulis.com...

The guy who did it is still dead wrong, but at least you'll be getting all this tripe straight from the source and in a professional presentation.

Why is he wrong? He counts the total EVA time for only one astronaut. He takes the total EVA minutes from NASA but "forgets" there were two men on the surface during each EVA. There were twice as many man-hrs spent on the moon than he presents. All my proof is in the ATS thread link above.

On last important point IHN...Very few of the 5700 photos were PERFECT. Alot of them sucked.

[edit on 1/31/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by uv777bk
Something that struck me as more obviously strange about the picture than the business with the flag...

Look carefully at the astronaut's feet. He doesn't actually appear to be standing on the terrain. Where are the indentations that would show the boots going into the moon dust? And where is his shadow...?

The more I look at it, the more he appears to be 'floating' as if superimposed on to the background image... like he wasn't originally in the shot at all.

BTW, I was refering to the image linked to in the above post by spacevisitor


[edit on 1/31/2008 by uv777bk]


The astronaut has jumped in this picture. He is in mid air. His shadow is on the right.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Some other flag examples.

Top view footprints near flag Apollo 14




Placing flag Apollo 15.




Placing flag Apollo 16 ?? I am not shore




There are some blue pixels scattered near the top left corner of the image GPN-2000-001120. What are they?



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Some other flag examples.

Top view footprints near flag Apollo 14




Placing flag Apollo 15.




Placing flag Apollo 16 ?? I am not shore




I guess I am wrong in thinking that it would be impossible to setup the flag sideways, judging by those photos above, especially the last one where astronaut is standing beside the flag with his arm stretched out holding the pole. Perhaps it does not require as much force to put it into the ground but then other things they told us about Moon surface are wrong?! So which one is it?

But then the claim from Rense's page could be wrong in that the flag is from Apollo 16, the pole is quite different than the NAZA linked photos above. To be honest looking at the linked images none of them appear at first sight to match the pole in the Rense's page photo. The pole clearly tapers and the upper portion and seems to be 1/2 the diameter of the base portion.

Otherwise, someone said that we are questioning whether we went to the Moon or not. That's really not the subject here, but the validity and origin of the photo claimed to be a smoking gun. We need to establish the mission it really comes from and find more photos of flag poles from all missions to see the footprints around the flag. That's really all the information we have to work with, other speculations are irrelevant at this point...



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Some other flag examples.

Top view footprints near flag Apollo 14



Placing flag Apollo 15.



Placing flag Apollo 16 ?? I am not shore




There are some blue pixels scattered near the top left corner of the image GPN-2000-001120. What are they?


In my opinion are these some instruments they put there, just follow the foot traces.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
If you see the last pictures i don't understand that even the most truly believers that we went there are getting some doubts.....




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join