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

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]

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.

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]

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?

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.

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]

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...

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?