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 just have to!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
thought that with my twisted mind that the ligns spoken by those guys have double meanings.
Like you sometimes say something and some begins to laugh because he thought you meant it sex tinted.
just like this : Are you riding a horse . it can be interpreted 2 ways.




posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheThinker"Can cause" or "does cause" ? I am not saying you dont know what you are talking about. When that happens it makes the dark spaces look like an earthy color ?
Does cause. When something is heavily compressed, the codec looks to average the colors and reduce the overall file-size, then attempt to only save the changes between frames, not compress each individual frame. This is why the pixelization of the background appears to remain constant, while the astronauts are moving... only the important changes between frames are saved.

Originally posted by HamiltonThey are obviously in some studio. At least to me. Don't you see when that thing happens to the flag, and what about the light when it nearly goes out. Is there a death row prison in the near vicinity or what....
You've stated before that you are inexpereinced in science matters... it's confusing why you continue to try and provide commentary on such things... in any event... The rover camera (that is shooting this) was controlled by earth-side. It's clear that someone made adjustments to contrast in an effort to get the best picture to give what you seem to think are lights going dim. You can discern this easily because the overall value of the light areas does not diminish, just the overall picture contrast. If the lights went out, all light ares would diminish as well.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Incidentally, if you notice the movement of the astronauts as they move as well as the movement of the dust as it is kicked around, there is simply no way to recreate that on earth. Without a massive vacuum elevator set. Even the flag would be almost impossible to replicate on earth.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Duh? The flag acts exactly as it would on Earth. So does the sand, the only thing which seems unlikely is how the astronauts move, they seem to be in lower gravity. But if you look closely, they always move along a curved line, like a circle, like if they were attached to wires or strings. Coincidence? Besides, noone has commented on the light. When the main light goes out, the astronauts even laugh......

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
And what is it the technican has problems with going left? At the same time one of the astronauts move towards the right and he nearly falls and says: "How's that?" As if they had trouble with getting the marionette system to work and the astronaut moves in the other direction asking for confirmation whether that was better.... Hmmm......

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Incorrect. Go outside and kick at the dirt. Notice the heavier particles seperate out first, the dust falls slower than the larger particles. In this video all the particles fall together. The dust also flies a lot further from a small kick in this video than it would on earth. There is simply no way to re-create this on earth without creating an almost perfect vacuum.

The flag also would be hard to recreate, you'll notice it doesn't billow, it swings. Go for yourself and play with a flag set up in the same way, you'll notice theres a difference in the look of it.

By circles maybe you mean parabolas, the way anything falls due to gravity?

As far as the light, as SO pointed, the camera is obviously being controlled by someone. They just tweaked the contrast or gain a little trying to make the picture clearer. If you listen to what the two guys are talking about you'll notice the laughing is starting before the image goes darker.

Or maybe mikromarius is right after all....

[Edited on 19-2-2004 by Kano]



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Hamilton/Mikromarius... You've stated before that you have little or no science experience, and also know little about space and such things. If that is the case, why are you trying to analyze aspects of something you profess little knowledge/experience?



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kano
Incorrect. Go outside and kick at the dirt. Notice the heavier particles seperate out first, the dust falls slower than the larger particles. In this video all the particles fall together. The dust also flies a lot further from a small kick in this video than it would on earth. There is simply no way to re-create this on earth without creating an almost perfect vacuum.


And you mean that the USA isn't able to make such a vacuum, or don't already have enormous underground structures like a kilometer+ deep elevator with blue walls?


The flag also would be hard to recreate, you'll notice it doesn't billow, it swings. Go for yourself and play with a flag set up in the same way, you'll notice theres a difference in the look of it.


The flag waves just as any other flag. Astronauten sier til og med: "It does wave when you do that!"


By circles maybe you mean parabolas, the way anything falls due to gravity?


No I'm not talking about the geometric shape of how dust falls. I am talking about how the astronauts move in circles as if they were suspended in via a wire hanging from the roof of the studio. I have been doing some mountain climbing in my life, and you get the same limitations there.

Tech: "I am unable to move it to the left"
The astronaut moves like a hook on a string to the right uppon he nearly trips over, but seems to be held up by a wire: "Like that?"

Is there any footage of astronauts falling? Are there any images of astronauts tossing balls etc.?


As far as the light, as SO pointed, the camera is obviously being controlled by someone. They just tweaked the contrast or gain a little trying to make the picture clearer. If you listen to what the two guys are talking about you'll notice the laughing is starting before the image goes darker.


Wrong, the laughter comes first when the light's back on, like some kind of relief.


Or maybe mikromarius is right after all....

Very funny.

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Hamilton/Mikromarius...

You've stated before that you have little or no science experience, and also know little about space and such things. If that is the case, why are you trying to analyze aspects of something you profess little knowledge/experience?



I don't know much about space, but I do know a little something about images, film, American spendings on the military and also a little about conspiracies. About how they claim that in space you see no stars. The reason we don't see stars here during the day, is as far as I know because of the athmosphere, not the light of the Sun. Why aren't there any stars in the pictures. Why should the light of the Sun outphase the light from the stars? It doesn't make sense. This should mean that it is only possible to see the stars from the shadow side of a large object like a planet or a satelite. Of course you would see stars in space, in the middle of the day so to say.....

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kano
Incidentally, if you notice the movement of the astronauts as they move as well as the movement of the dust as it is kicked around, there is simply no way to recreate that on earth. Without a massive vacuum elevator set. Even the flag would be almost impossible to replicate on earth.


You could create that effect on earth. It could be recorded and slowed down to 1/2 speed, then released to the public. The astronauts and dust would appear to have a longer hang time.

Also, how would the astronauts have survived the trip? About 20 miles from the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead, and they would need to pass through twice, with the only protection being aluminum foil spacesuits.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
ok...first of all, have any of u guys ever actually BEEN to the moon? how do u know what u can and can not do? it's a whole different enviroment than the earth so we cant base everything on what happens here. notice that the flag is support by a horizontal pole-like thing. that could probably explain as to why the flag was moving so strangely. as for the sky...have u guys noticed that the quality of this clip is not the best in the world? maybe the colors are messed up or something



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by silQ
ok...first of all, have any of u guys ever actually BEEN to the moon? how do u know what u can and can not do?


Exactly, that's the point. NASA could create movementsus that would be consistent with what we would imagine happens on the moon.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard

Originally posted by Kano
Incidentally, if you notice the movement of the astronauts as they move as well as the movement of the dust as it is kicked around, there is simply no way to recreate that on earth. Without a massive vacuum elevator set. Even the flag would be almost impossible to replicate on earth.


You could create that effect on earth. It could be recorded and slowed down to 1/2 speed, then released to the public. The astronauts and dust would appear to have a longer hang time.

Also, how would the astronauts have survived the trip? About 20 miles from the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead, and they would need to pass through twice, with the only protection being aluminum foil spacesuits.


The Van Allen's belt (which was discovered at the last Venus transit btw. an event that will happen again this year) they explain away with saying they weren't in that area very long. Fair enough for the humans, but what about the fine electronics? How would they react to the massive radiation? Naaah not even a glitch of course. Like they were on the Moon. Where are all the pictures of the landing site taken from Earth while they were up there? They can study the planets of distant stars and look at the rocks at the edge of our solar system, but they can't see a spaceship on the Moon. Go figure......

Blessings,
Mikromarius


jra

posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   
wow... where to begin...

Firstly, as to where the sky is, well if some of you actually went and looked up some apollo 17 pics you'd see there are lots of hills all around the landing site. Here are some links for you guys.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

for more images go to: www.apolloarchive.com...

About the flag waving. It's fabric. It's still going to bend and flap around when it's being moved. I don't see what your problem with it is Hamilton. It's not blowing in the wind or some such thing. If it where being filmed in a studio as you so claim to think, than where the hell would the wind come from? they wouldn't be that sloppy if they were faking the moon landing.

About the light going dim at one point. Well if you knew anything about cameras then you'd know that it has to do with exposure. From what i can tell, when the guy in front stood in a certain way, the flat surface of the thing on his back reflected more light right at the camera, so the exposure compensated. If as you claim to think, that perhaps some one walked infront of the light, then wouldn't you see a shadow? when the image goes dark you can still see the white suits of the astronauts. Also, if this were being faked as you seem to think, they wouldn't have been that sloppy. Does this sort of stuff happen in the movies you watch? No it doesn't, if a mistake happens, they reshoot. They wouldn't have let something like that slip. No one would. It just has to do with light and exposure levels on the camera.

oh and about the Van Allen belts. I'd like to post this quote about them.




"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


Hamilton: There are many types of radiation. The radiation in the Van Allen belts is not like radiation that you'd get from a nuclear blast. Most people seem to think all radiation is like that. The Van Allen belts are Protons. You can effectively shield yourself from them with a thick piece of wood...

You can't get that detailed of a picture of the surface of the moon from Earth. Especialy back in the 60's and 70's. Hell even satillites orbiting Earth can't get clear pics of what's on the surface of our own planet. Yes there are some really high res satillite photos out there, but can you see the cars in them clearly? You can make them out, but not well enough to tell what kind of car. So if we can't do that, then how the hell are we supposed to see a LM on the surface of the moon?

Actualy have been some photos that show the landing sites, but they arn't that clear at all.

[Edited on 19-2-2004 by jra]



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamilton I don't know much about space, but I do know a little something about images, film, American spendings on the military and also a little about conspiracies. About how they claim that in space you see no stars. The reason we don't see stars here during the day, is as far as I know because of the athmosphere, not the light of the Sun. Why aren't there any stars in the pictures. Why should the light of the Sun outphase the light from the stars? It doesn't make sense. This should mean that it is only possible to see the stars from the shadow side of a large object like a planet or a satelite. Of course you would see stars in space, in the middle of the day so to say.....
Okay... you say you "don't know much about space" then seem to imply there's a problem with a space-related topic such as "Why aren't there any stars in the pictures?" Simple... film exposure and shutter speed. It's been covered over and over both here and on other sites discussing this issue. Your eyes would see stars, but not film.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Covered and debunked Hamilton:

"The US Never Landed on the Moon!!"
Link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"The Apollo 11 Moon landing"
Link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Moon Landings, etc"
Link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Hard Evidence against moon landing"
Link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Direct links of interest:

"PHOTO ANALYSIS: index of analyzed photos"
www.clavius.org...

www.badastronomy.com...

www.lunaranomalies.com...


Let's see, one (Hamilton) can believe in the existence of a God, but can't believe that Man landed on the Moon?



regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
mmmm......flag.......mmmm....funny people trying to put up flag........they are almost as bad as me, i end up getting angry and throwing the flage on the ground out of spite...but i guess they cant do that on the moon.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
If it where being filmed in a studio as you so claim to think, than where the hell would the wind come from?


Like on the film, by the turbulence created by the astronaut when he pass it. This wouldn't be possible in a vacuum


they wouldn't be that sloppy if they were faking the moon landing.


Is that the best argument you have? Then I have no trouble at all understanding how you can eat what they serve without mocking.


About the light going dim at one point. Well if you knew anything about cameras then you'd know that it has to do with exposure. From what i can tell, when the guy in front stood in a certain way, the flat surface of the thing on his back reflected more light right at the camera, so the exposure compensated. If as you claim to think, that perhaps some one walked infront of the light, then wouldn't you see a shadow? when the image goes dark you can still see the white suits of the astronauts. Also, if this were being faked as you seem to think, they wouldn't have been that sloppy. Does this sort of stuff happen in the movies you watch? No it doesn't, if a mistake happens, they reshoot. They wouldn't have let something like that slip. No one would. It just has to do with light and exposure levels on the camera.


If it was live, it would slip right through, and trust me I have thought about exposure, and it is the best explanation, but why would someone suddenly physically turn that knob unless he did a mistake or was finetuning for the big picture, which would be before they put up the flag I guess. Also if you look at the next movie, they are taking their pictures one after the other. www.hq.nasa.gov... The Van Allens Belt: How would film react to such high ammounts of radiation? Not to mention the tempreature on the Moon. Just how stupid do they think we are......

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 19-2-2004 by Hamilton]



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Well, seeing as though marius is clearly not bothering to read others posts. Combined with the fact all of his points have been discussed at great length in a great deal of other threads.

*click*



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join