Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Photographic evidence that at least one moon mission is fake!!

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I submit stills from video of Apollo 16 moon rover footage. I believe they speak for themselves, but you be the judge. The area of interest is the astronauts visor.

I have also included video from which the stills were taken.

As a bonus, I have included the press conference with Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins of Apollo 11. I find this video extremely interesting because of the astronauts body language. They seam very fidgety and nervous. Armstrong appears as if he is biting his tongue. Boy Scouts are taught not to lie, perhaps our Eagle Scout is remembering his vows.

First the pictures. I have noted in the first picture what I believe the reflection on the visor of the astro not to be.







Here is the Video. Enjoy!


(click to open player in new window)




posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


If those white dots are some sort of "backdrop support," why do they cut through the astronaut's helmet in the image? Also, if they used a "backdrop," why do apollo images taken kilometers apart on the moon show the expected parallax and therefore produce 3d images when viewed as cross-eye stereo images?
i14.photobucket.com...
Lastly, why did you fail to mention that the press conference took place after a three week quarantine where Neil was forced to spend his birthday, or the fact that Neil Armstrong is always stoic and reclusive? Here's a guy who wasn't even phased by nearly being killed in an LLTV accident and just kept working that very day.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


If those white dots are some sort of "backdrop support," why do they cut through the astronaut's helmet in the image? Also, if they used a "backdrop," why do apollo images taken kilometers apart on the moon show the expected parallax and therefore produce 3d images when viewed as cross-eye stereo images?
i14.photobucket.com...
Lastly, why did you fail to mention that the press conference took place after a three week quarantine where Neil was forced to spend his birthday, or the fact that Neil Armstrong is always stoic and reclusive? Here's a guy who wasn't even phased by nearly being killed in an LLTV accident and just kept working that very day.


I propose the white dots are clouds. I placed a green line as a marker for the support truss as an example of what is seen in the reflection through to pieces of visor, first a clear pain then a reflective pain. Also notice the faint blue that surround the clouds and the orange hue of the sun.

In the stereo image, why is the left image blurred and altered? It is clearly the same scene, also how did they get that image before they had landed as seen in the right image?

As for Neil Armstrong. It is good to know that info. I was unaware of that, but I still believe his dazed character is for other reasons.

Peace



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
The evidence is also the camera on their chests. There is no way they could manipulate them with their bulky fingers. No way.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
I propose the white dots are clouds.

...they cut through the astronaut's helmet, they're not clouds. I get similar lines on some of my astronomy cameras at the edges, proves nothing.


I placed a green line as a marker for the support truss as an example of what is seen in the reflection through to pieces of visor, first a clear pain then a reflective pain. Also notice the faint blue that surround the clouds and the orange hue of the sun.

I see glare of the lunar surface reflecting off a helmet, that's all, sorry.


In the stereo image, why is the left image blurred and altered?

Because I pulled it directly from one of your own conspiracy sites, they have a bad habit of doing that to images. I then rotated it to match the angle of the other picture.


It is clearly the same scene, also how did they get that image before they had landed as seen in the right image?

LOL, clearly the same scene?
A)There's massive parallax causing the mountains to be 3d, proving they were taken kilometers apart
B)The rocks in the foreground are all different. This because the left picture was taken after they had driven in the rover several kilometers to a new station where they took this picture. It was taken a long time AFTER they landed.


As for Neil Armstrong. It is good to know that info. I was unaware of that, but I still believe his dazed character is for other reasons.

Considering how closed you to the other clear-cut issues, I'm not surprised. Just thought I'd let the truth out there.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
The evidence is also the camera on their chests. There is no way they could manipulate them with their bulky fingers. No way.


not only this .. but who's taking the side shot with the camera? Didn't think they had a hand held....only the ones on their chests. Noticed as well the steadiness of the side shot. I'd like to see a comparison of the chest on the drivers suit to the one of the passenger side hand held.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


The chest mounted cameras were 70mm Hasselblad still cameras. They were modified for use on the Moon.

Modifications to the cameras included special large locks for the film magazines and levers on the f-stop and distance settings on the lenses. These modifications facilitated the camera's use by the crew operating with pressurized suits and gloves. Additionally, the cameras had no reflex mirror viewfinder and instead a simple sighting ring assisted the astronaut in pointing the camera.
history.nasa.gov...

The movie camera was a 16mm which was mounted on the LRV.



[edit on 4/24/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Ok, here is the picture you just posted laid one over the other. How are these from different angles?




posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Wow, my professional knowledge can actually be put to debunking use - that's a first for me!

What you're seeing is what we call 'data in vision'. This is where the scan method used causes some of the VITC (vertical interval timecode) to appear within the video frame. VITC is stored in the vertical blanking which is the space between the last line of one frame of the video and the first line of the next. If a display or transfer method scans more than the usual number of video lines, then it can also end up scanning some of the VITC, which result in a series of white dots at the top of frame.

Sorry to disappoint, but that's definitely not clouds.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by TheStev]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
The evidence is also the camera on their chests. There is no way they could manipulate them with their bulky fingers. No way.


Busted! They would never have been able to demonstrate the way they used the cameras to the press, would they.

Oh.

But they did demonstrate using the cameras to the press. In their suits. They even pointed out the big square button that replaced the shutter release. And the preset exposure setting and focus setting.

Okay, not busted. Wanna try again?



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Ok, here is the picture you just posted laid one over the other. How are these from different angles?

Did you bother to look at them as a cross-eye stereo image? Look at my first post again, cross your eyes until the images overlap and notice how the mountains are clearly 3 dimensional - that's because of the parallax. You can't tell it's there just by layering two images at 50% opacity. For those interested, the images we're talking about are known as:
AS15-82-11057
AS15-82-11082
Here's a gif animation to give a better perspective of the parallax, made using copies of the above images taken from ALSJ:
files.abovetopsecret.com...
*As my image is said to be headache-inducing due to its rapid motion, I turned it into a link instead. Click at your head's own expense.


[edit on 24-4-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 

Looking at the cross-eyed images gave me a headache.
You just made it worse.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodonot only this .. but who's taking the side shot with the camera? Didn't think they had a hand held....only the ones on their chests. Noticed as well the steadiness of the side shot. I'd like to see a comparison of the chest on the drivers suit to the one of the passenger side hand held.

For some strange reason NASA thought people would like footage of the first step on the Moon. So they mounted a camera on an arm, and you can hear Neil saying it's extended before he climbs down for the re-entry test.

This falls under the "obvious" category, btw.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I guess I'm confused because first of all, they are not the same image as seen from two different vantage points to render a "parallax". They have two different light patterns, are shot at two different times of two different scenes.

Wouldn't you want to use a marker to get a true parallax? Also, the depth of field is messed with in the left picture to distort it.

I understand what a stereo picture is, perhaps your other examples you listed will have a good representation. I haven't got to see them yet. thank you for posting them.

Peace



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Here are some 3D models of how I believe the set, to be set up. It could be filmed in broad daylight with an easy to set up cloak for the darkness of space.
Perspective can be fooled in a very short space and by using a round set wall, the witness of the airwaves is easily fooled.

Again, these are examples of how I believe it is easy to fool the perspective of the audience.

This first one is almost over head of the set. The rover is directly in the center of the model.

The second is at about 45% of the "set" still centered on the rover in the middle.

The third is giving a perspective from the floor. The open sky is visible from here, but would not be in filming using a different perspective filming down, not from the floor.

The fourth again shows the open sky over the backdrop. As is the case above, a different angle line of sight would be used to conceal the actual sky framing close to the head of the astro not.

The fifth again demonstrates the sky above the set truss at another perspective to show the view what is going on.


I'm working on an animation. It will show how perspective can easily be manipulated to make distance appear farther.

Peace


[edit on 24-4-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
serious question

if you honestly believe that the US faked the moon missions, why not go visit the good people at mcdonald observatory in Texas ? They claim they have never gotten a visitor who challenges the apollo missions. They could show you the lunar laser ranging station, and it's significance to this debate

make history !

unless, of course, you are just bored and looking to kill time on the web...



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest


serious question

if you honestly believe that the US faked the moon missions, why not go visit the good people at mcdonald observatory in Texas ? They claim they have never gotten a visitor who challenges the apollo missions. They could show you the lunar laser ranging station, and it's significance to this debate

make history !

unless, of course, you are just bored and looking to kill time on the web...


Seriously, no one has ever challenged them? Yes, they could show me a lot of things I'm sure, everything but the moon. Besides, I never said they didn't go to the moon, I'm providing evidence that what is shown the public is a publicity (For public consumption) stunt, and only one mission as that is all I have evidence for.

Does no one understand that the Apollo Missions ran almost the exact same length as Americas involvement in the Vietnam War? Does no one understand what both Eisenhower and JFK warned of? There is more than enough reason to lie to the public...Lots and Lots of money...Not aliens, not superiority in the space race. JFK had other plans like actually going to the moon, not Johnson or Nixon. But, they saw a cover and something that could wash all that money made by bell, and Northrop and Boeing and every other war profiteer as white as the moons surface.

Everyone forget the fact that the navigation computers were not as powerful as a watch computer from the 80's? The Van Allen radiation Belt?



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Here is a 3d animation to give people perspective on how this can be accomplished. Hollywood has been doing it for years. I have made it so that the camera angle always keeps the sky out of view.


(click to open player in new window)


Peace



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Here is a new version of the animation.


(click to open player in new window)


Peace



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   
heres an interesting movie thats being released today i think..I personaly think we did fake it to win the space race...www.youtube.com...





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join