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.

 

NASA Exposed! Fake Moon Images?

page: 13
74
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I'm sure you probably know this weed but you can even experience the exposure issue with your own eyes. Just go into a light polluted environment at night and look at the sky. You'll most likely not see stars due to the ambient light.




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by cynus
reply to post by mikesingh
 


hi mike,
have you also studied this picture of the apollo image atlas no.AS17-147-22560
seems that this mountain is a little transparent , looks like if you can see through the mountain and see the mountain behind it.(at the left side in the picture).

Here's AS17-147-22560:
history.nasa.gov...
I see no transparent mountain.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 

I think what Cynus meant was that the hill looks transparent because of the lack of any shadows due to craters/stones/rocks on the hillside. Apparently the hill is pretty smooth which resembles the surface of glass! Compare it to the other hills especially the smaller one on the left.



Looks smooth probably due to the distance and the ambient light effects too!

Cheers!



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Granted, mike. The largish hill in the foreground, right side, does look smooth, because it seems to have no craters or rocks on its surface.

"Smooth as glass"? Doubtful. Asserting that because glass (some glass) is transparent, well....a wee bit of a stretch. As you, and others, certainly will acknowledge, not all glass products are transparent.

But, the real question is WHY does that particular slope appear unblemished? What natural forces were at work? The regolith is virtually undisturbed, visually. Was it the result of a meteor impact a few hundred or a million years ago? (No erosion, remember?).

Or, is it a trick of the sunlight?

Enquiring minds....see no instance of fakery. UNLESS.....the hillside was 'airbrushed' to conceal the existence of a covert Alien encampment, spying on the Apollo EVA?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Greetings Mikesingh,

Notice the red line running diagonally at the bottom left corner of the image you posted; what would account for it?


jra

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Notice the red line running diagonally at the bottom left corner of the image you posted; what would account for it?


It's for the geophones that were setup there. You can see the line connecting to geophone #4 in the previous photo. AS17-147-22559



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Thank you JRA.

This is the first time I've seen any of the cables so visible. It really stands out in those colour images.

*Nice pic BTW


[edit on 1-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


That was one of the things I had noticed about the panorama from the OP, it is almost greyscale.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
reply to post by ngchunter
 

I think what Cynus meant was that the hill looks transparent because of the lack of any shadows due to craters/stones/rocks on the hillside. Apparently the hill is pretty smooth which resembles the surface of glass! Compare it to the other hills especially the smaller one on the left.

They're both more rugged than at first glance, especially when viewed up close in full res. The thing is that the moon's surface is low contrast, so small rocks don't stand out on those hills. The only difference between the hill on the right and on the left is the sun angle - fully illuminated, the hill on the right looks a bit washed out and is easily mistaken for smooth, the hill on the left is being viewed from more of a sideways perspective with regards to the sun, and you can clearly see the shadows which reveal its bumps and give more of an appearance of "depth." If you look at the top of the hill on the right though, it's possible to tell that it's not smooth at all. This same effect can be seen even in the large rock in the forground; notice how smooth the sunlight face of it seems, yet notice how jagged it actually is on faces that are slightly shadowed, perpendicular to the sun-facing side. In fact, we even get this effect from earth during a full moon - even in a scope it looks smooth when fully illuminated except where there's a hint of shadow on the edge. When the terminator designating sunset or sunrise crosses a region, shadows grow long and the craters and ridges stand out.
Compare:
farm4.static.flickr.com...
vs
farm3.static.flickr.com...

I really don't see what any of that has to do with transparency though, or seeing a hill through another hill.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by mikesingh
 

Greetings Mikesingh,
Notice the red line running diagonally at the bottom left corner of the image you posted; what would account for it?

Hi Exuberant! Greetings!
Yep, jra has answered that question.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mikesingh
 


But, the real question is WHY does that particular slope appears unblemished? What natural forces were at work? The regolith is virtually undisturbed, visually. Was it the result of a meteor impact a few hundred or a million years ago? (No erosion, remember?).

Or, is it a trick of the sunlight?

Enquiring minds....see no instance of fakery. UNLESS.....the hillside was 'airbrushed' to conceal the existence of a covert Alien encampment, spying on the Apollo EVA?


Hmmm…Hillside air brushed to conceal alien activity? Or is it a hill superimposed on the image? Take a look here:

The hill in question, untouched….



Notice the sharp contrast of the hill in the foreground with its base and background? No? Ok, here it is, colored in yellow. Now instead of a covert alien encampment, I would think it’s a superimposition of a hill in the photograph. No wonder it looks totally different and resembles a cut-and-paste job!! Elementary, Dr Watson!!




Food for thought, what? Cheers!



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


When viewed in the original resolution it's quite clear that what you designate as one hill with a "fake hill" superimposed over part of it is actually two hills; on in the foreground a slightly different tone (you can even see where the top of the foreground hill is before you start to see the more distant hill), then the bright hill facing the sun, then the farther hill with its back facing us.
history.nasa.gov...
By the way, the south massif you claim is fake is easily visible in telescopic images of the moon where Apollo 17 landed, taurus littrow valley:
the-moon.wikispaces.com...
The closest hill in the apollo image is bear mountain, north of the south massif in this image:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
The farther hill behind the massif is also visible as being behind the foothill of the south massif.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


The bottom left of that hill is strange.

It almost looks like you can see the farthest hill right through it. It is as if that hill were just a translucent film cell that has been cut and inserted into the landscape.


Nice Find mikesingh!


[edit on 1-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


It looks smoother because its facing the Sun, making less shadows.

In this version (the full size) it's visible that the hill is not that smooth.


(click for full size image, although not directly, you have to choose the "Original Size" button on that page or download it, sorry)

And no, it does not look superimposed on the photo if you look at the whole photo and not just at the area with greater contrast.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
This is photo shopped.

Is there a reason these things aren't being flagged as fakes?

Its like the people who claim to be Jesus.

Give me a break.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lady_Munin
 


What makes you think this is "photo shopped"?
Any thing in particular?

PS: welcome to ATS.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Lady_Munin
 


What makes you think this is "photo shopped"?
Any thing in particular?

PS: welcome to ATS.



The fact that both of the rocks are mirror images of each other and the colors aren't mixed enough to be apart of the actual picture. That picture was a black and white photo. If it was yellow it would have been grey.

I use photoshop quite a bit and this is the worst job I've seen since myspace girls started using it.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

People, download google earth. It shows you the moon and mars.

And thanks : )

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Lady_Munin]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lady_Munin
This is photo shopped.




I agree.

Past experience leads me to make this decision





posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lady_Munin
This is photo shopped.

Which photo are you talking about? This one?
history.nasa.gov...
Or the stitched panoramas from earlier? If the latter, of course they're processed, that's how you get stitched panoramas. If the former, I don't see any evidence of alterations. Also, it was definately a color image, as were all the other images in that film roll, 147:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

[edit on 1-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Many years ago, as I watched PBS, a show aired about moon landings being a hoax. Of course I watched intently, without bias, to what seemed to be both sides of the story. Unable to form an opinion due to a severe lack of technical knowledge, I watched all the more intently and even called a friend of mine known for his scepticism. During our questionable debate back and forth, both of us arguing for and against both sides of the story, a moment of jaw droping, uterly amazing footage crossed the television screen. The shot of the astronaut bouncing lazily toward the camera, along with footage of the lunar rover jaunting back and forth took on a whole new light as the deep, dark voice said "Now watch as we speed up this footage by 50%." To my amazement it was damn obvious they were on earth. My friend also, scooping his jaw from the floor, utterly convinced in a short few seconds that the footage we were seeing was filmed on earth, said no more of the subject. I tried to put a few things together in my own mind like the fact of the moons smller size, less gravity and virtualy no atmosphere, so why did the "rooser tail" from the wheel of the lunar rover look exactly like the ones on the "Dukes of Hazzard"? Seemingly in spite of televisions abundace of repetition, I have never seen this show again. Anyway, something to dig for. Speed up footage of moon missions by 50%. I myself am still very new to computers, and would like very much to see something about this.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Tyler 720
 


No, look again. Speeding up the motion by 50% (a completely arbitrary number, BTW) makes everything look completely fake!

Everyone moves too fast, watch the arms and legs. Look at the way the soil falls, no dust! No air resistance, no tiny particles suspended and floating away.

"Rooster tails"? The wheels consisted of a metal mesh. They picked up soil and kicked it back. At that (completely arbitrary) speed of 150% it falls too quickly.

Hours and hours of uninterrupted video, especially on the later missions...not even the best Hollywood experts could re-create that. The shadows never move, so it wasn't on Earth. Show me ONE light source, other than the Sun, that can illuminate an alleged 'set' that is as extensive as several kilometers!!

ALL of the audio rings dead-on true. If it was acting, it would be obvious.

You probably saw the 'Hoax' program on Fox, right?? It was loaded with inaccuracies. Still, if it gets just a few people to buy these charlatan's books and DVDs then it's done its job, apparently.




top topics



 
74
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join