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.

 

china to expose americas moon walk

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Phage
 




Heres another one for you everybody likes to say that videos of the astronauts was shot on earths gravity, due to astonauts couldnt jump 15 feet in the air. The reality is the space suits they wore weighed 82 kg or 180.4 pounds. now as an experiment grab 180 pounds of weight and jump see how high you get. If your in good shape maybe 3 inches now since gravity is lower on the moon that 3 in becomes 18 inches. The space suits were so heavy when nasa tested them and an astronaut fell over it took 2 people to get them up.




Just for the record, I never said that the men jumping was proof of a lack of gravity. This shows you did not watch the film either. I have a problem with an astronaut being able to lift his back off the ground before putting his feet down to push himself up. See when someone levitates, then pushes against the ground...that is not normal under any gravity. The film does a great job proving it was not 1/6th gravity without even having to resort to "the astronauts dont jump 15 feet high."




posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Phage
 


Now albedo is based off all light visible spectrum and ultraviolet and infra red the moon dust absorbs most of the ultra violet so albedo is not just concerned with visible light but the entire spectrum. Now back to the video ive already proved several points of the video wrong. But as in any video trying to prove a conspiracy they throw a lot of information at you hoping you buy some of it which will validate the rest. now since this is supposed to be a discussion and your trying to prove we didnt go to the moonI believe you would have to prove we didnt.


Dragonrider, I'm not trying to prove we didn't go to the moon. I know we did go to the moon. I was replying to Phatcat's questions to me about the equipment used as well as how the specific albedo numbers could be used to explain the "lack" of shadows in the videos but not in the photos.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



I knew that didnt mean to imply you did sorry. I just didnt want him to get confused far more visible light reflects off the moon then on earth and i didnt want science to confuse him thanks for helping.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


Not really when an astronaut falls on his back he has his pack on sorta like laying on a park bench can you get up without pushing off. As for the 15 feet thing i threw that in there because people hear low gravity and think you should be able to fly.Reality in every way shape and form the videos show an astronaut in 1/6th gravity.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



I do not know what park bench trick you are referring to but you sure did not watch the video because you apparently have no idea what I am talking about because the only way for someone to just lift into the air and THEN push down to lift themself is magic.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


It doesn't even require very much reflected light. The ladder area is shadowed from the sun but because the lander is not backlit (only a dark lunar sky b behind it) the reflected light from the surface provides the illumination. Because there is no backlighting, the camera can be set with a low f-stop and a lower shutter speed, making the ladder area and the astronaut appear to be bright.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dragonridr
 


It doesn't even require very much reflected light. The ladder area is shadowed from the sun but because the lander is not backlit (only a dark lunar sky b behind it) the reflected light from the surface provides the illumination. Because there is no backlighting, the camera can be set with a low f-stop and a lower shutter speed, making the ladder area and the astronaut appear to be bright.


So you are saying that the astronauts were able to adjust the f-stop on the cameras to achieve the two very different exposures? Please explain how they did that as these cameras did not allow for such adjustments to be made.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

So you are saying that the astronauts were able to adjust the f-stop on the cameras to achieve the two very different exposures? Please explain how they did that as these cameras did not allow for such adjustments to be made.

Whoops, you got me.

Or, maybe not.
According to Hasselblad there were several modifications to the Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera which was used on the moon's surface. I'm sure you are aware however, that the aperture (f-stop) controls are actually on the lens of the camera, not on the body. This camera was fitted with a Biogon f-5.6/60mm lens lens (I made an error earlier about the lens used on the surface. There were actually three cameras aboard the lander, only one was used on the surface). As you can see on the spec sheet for this lens it had an aperture range of 5.6 to 45. It also had a removable polarizing filter.

Do me a favor, have a look at "your" video. Take a close look at the camera shown at the 1:01:50 mark, or you can check the Hasselblad link. See the rings on the lens? The one closest to the body of the camera is the aperture setting (the other is the focus adjustment).

But I can't be 100% sure about this because I've never actually used one of these cameras or lenses. You seem to be 100% sure that the aperture could not be adjusted. Have you used this equipment? If not, please provide a source for your information.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Well, I'm no professor on the subject, just a curious individual with a lot of questions so I don't have the knowledge needed to reason with that.

But.. let's even say that's all true.. what about the photo's that show the targetting reticules underneath objects shown in the picture? (also shown in the docu)

And why has none of the photo's any traces of being exposed whatsoever to the radiation that admittedly reaches the lunar surface due to lack of an atmosphere?

if one of the photo's on a continuous roll has been tampered with, the entire project is suspect..

maybe mankind even wént to the Moon, I'm sure there are secrets that I don't know, nor ever will know.
But the footage that's presented to us that should support this claim simply is lacking in so many cases it's easy to discount the claim.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



So you actually did watch the video enough to know what time to look at the camera but the only thing you can offer in the way of debunking it is that the f-stop controls were accessable by the astronauts? Wow, ok. You win.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Here we go again with the moon landings were fake BS.

I suppose we just built the Saturn 5 rocket for looks and to make noise.

And to reply to an earlier post about gaps and flimsy construction of the LEM. There are no gaps, and that thing isnt flimsy. If it were flimsy, it would not have survived the liftoff from the pad when that massive Saturn 5 rocket lit up.

Now folks...since some cannot do simple searching for facts, I have rounded up a few links for your learning enjoyment.

NASA Link

Apollo landing sites spotted in orbital images

Can we see Apollo hardware on the Moon?

Lots of images with Apollo landing sites taken from orbit

That enough?

Ahh...how bout some more.


Apollo 16 Landing site

More images of landing sites taken by Clementine

Japanese lunar orbiter spots Apollo 15 landing site

Ok so with all this PROOF that we went to the moon and walked around up there, are people still gonna fight the facts with utter nonsense????

The Truth IS Out There...and right at your fingertips.

Cheers!!!!!



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by Phage
 



So you actually did watch the video enough to know what time to look at the camera but the only thing you can offer in the way of debunking it is that the f-stop controls were accessable by the astronauts? Wow, ok. You win.


So your only source was what? One, slick video? Heresay? You don't have first hand knowledge and can't prove the landings were faked? But you sounded like you were so positive about it.

So you weren't actually attempting to discredit everything I've said by bringing up your erroneous information about one detail? There are so many erroneous things in your little video it's not even worth discussing. Gravity changes the speed of light. Ha!

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Phatcat
 


I'm sorry Phatcat. If you're going to bring up every item from the video I'm not on board. The video is full of errors and lies. Everything in that video has been covered time and time again.

If you have something original to bring up I'll give it a listen.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


That must be about the fourth time you have claimed that that video has been debunked over and over and over. Ok...where? when? Please provide all that debunking. As soon as we dispatch with this video, we can move on to the other sources that I have. For now though, one thing at a time. Claiming something has been debunked, is not actually debunking anything. Following your logic of hearsay and first hand knowledge, neither one of us has a valid argument. So...if you feel that neither of us can clear it up since we both were not there, then I suggest that you stop arguing with me and find something else to do. I feel it is still worth discussing. So either debunk some of this stuff or stop claiming that it has been.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Let's see there is video footage, anomalies with measurements of the LEM and the rover, the Van Allen belt, more video footage, and conflicting photographs.

You offer as solid proof that we went..........

(drum roll)

...........pictures. They could not have been touched up could they.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
If you look closely ever instance where the reticules disappear is always over a white object. Its called wash out the reticule was simply not wide enough and the light makes it difficult to see but its still there. You can do this in your own house go get a piece of thread hold it in front of a bright
light and thread disappears. Its simply washed out because the film records light.

Save you a couple questions on other reticule questions yes there are pictures where reticules are crooked the astronauts were not good at orientation no view finder so nasa would recrop them to make the straight.

The other claim i saw in the video was about the dispute between nasa and Mr. Jan Lundberg who was the Hasselblad engineer responsible for modifying the company's 500/EL Data Camera for use on the moon.Truth is there both right! Yes the reticles can be used to judge distance. As a matter of fact, reseau grids are commonly used as measurement references in photogrammetry.

Mr. Lundberg is correct in identifying the primary purpose of the reseau grid as a means to detect and correct film distortion. But he is incorrect in claiming that the reseau grid can correct for lens distortion. Because the reseau plate is pressed up against the film, the reseau grid on the film is entirely independent of the lens. You can even remove the lens and a reseau grid will still be exposed properly on the film.


And why has none of the photo's any traces of being exposed whatsoever to the radiation that admittedly reaches the lunar surface due to lack of an atmosphere?


Radiation doesnt effect film as much as you would think unless the film is designed to use x rays for example. They were more concerned with heat Just simply having a metal casing prevented most of the damaging part of the spectrum except infra red which is why everything was white it absorbs little heat.

I know the video tries to play off a lack of knowledge by making things seem wrong but on examination they are exactly as they should be.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by Phage
 


That must be about the fourth time you have claimed that that video has been debunked over and over and over. Ok...where? when? Please provide all that debunking. As soon as we dispatch with this video, we can move on to the other sources that I have. For now though, one thing at a time. Claiming something has been debunked, is not actually debunking anything. Following your logic of hearsay and first hand knowledge, neither one of us has a valid argument. So...if you feel that neither of us can clear it up since we both were not there, then I suggest that you stop arguing with me and find something else to do. I feel it is still worth discussing. So either debunk some of this stuff or stop claiming that it has been.


Ok getting tired of the video you act like its the word of god lets discuss the producer of yur video shall we. His name is Bart Sibrel he writes books and creates videos to make money surprise huh.

well he has been caught falsifying information on one of his videos but you trust him over nasa huh?


here another vid about your so called evidence


[edit on 10/8/08 by dragonridr]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Let's see there is video footage, anomalies with measurements of the LEM and the rover, the Van Allen belt, more video footage, and conflicting photographs.

You offer as solid proof that we went..........

(drum roll)

...........pictures. They could not have been touched up could they.


Maybe you didn't see my posts earlier. Several of us have now offered evidence that debunks information from that video. I doubt any of us have the time to debunk all 2 hours of it at one go. I have personally seen most of that info debunked before but I am always willing to aid in educating someone so if there is something else from that video you find compelling let me know where in the video I can find it and I will happily debunk it.

Now seeing as how we have debunked several aspect of your video perhaps you could debunk this one little piece of evidence in favor of the moon landing. The Lunar Laser Range experiment. I have already provided several links to this and not one CT has been willing to touch it.

Fair is fair right, we have discussed what you and other CTers wanted to now please let us discuss this as it is absolute proof that man walked on the moon.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


First of all, I never said this video was the word of God. What I said was, instead of just saying over and over that it had been debunked, debunk it. But look just above me, yet again, a claim it has been debunked all over...but no debunking.

As far as the film maker falsifying information...fine, let's say that invalidates the entire film. Like I said, I have more. I never said this one was the word of God but this was the one that was posted here and it was one of the ones that I still feel puts an awful lot of holes in the story. What about the footage of them faking the distance from the earth? This has been asked over and over. It has been called debunked over and over. It has not been debunked. You can call the film maker whatever you like but he did not make this footage did he? Nope, he just managed to be one of many that got to use it. Care to debunk that?

edit to add: Now that I have watched your videos. I take it back. They do not invalidate anything. I can watch any one of these movies without the audio altogether and I can still see fakery. What does removed audio prove? It proves he is a sneaky editor but not that he actually faked any footage. It also does not prove we went to the moon. Neither video debunks any of the things that bother me.

p.s. If you are asking whether or not I believe anyone over NASA. You have to define NASA. Do you believe this?

[edit on 10/8/08 by MorningStar8741]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H
Take a look at the picture below, would you really board this "craft" if someone told you it will take you to the moon?

Take a close look at it.

To me (the un-trained eye) it looks as if it is made of cardboard boxes,tin foil,some plastic poles,and duct tape.

Blow the image up with link below and note the gaps in the joints in the top section.....surely if something was going to the moon it would not look this flimsy?

Full size image.
www.panoramas.dk...
external image
Full size image.
www.panoramas.dk...



Also there is no rocket blast crater in the moon dust upon landing???

Mod Edit: Inserted link to large external graphic.

[edit on 10/8/2008 by maria_stardust]







 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join