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.

 

Moon Rising - The truth about the moon revealed

page: 4
71
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


That clip was from the set of the IMAX movie that was made, Wonderful Devastation or something like that, Excellent video, but didn't do the moon justice as to perspective IMO, meaning the scaling was way way off and they could have done a lot better.




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by reugen

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by reugen
 


To the human eye maybe. But digital images have limited color values. Add some noise or blur and you won't see a difference in those colors on a image taken with low exposure times.
Your "obvious" comes from not knowing enough to analyse the images.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by DGFenrir]


Hasselblad - analog


But the image was inverted on a computer



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaraThustra
If we really landed on the moon don't you think they would have the Hubble Telescope pointed at it every Fourth of July showing us the flag. Or for that matter don't you think they would have done it at least one time in the last 40 years? The moon landing is pure Bullsh*t.


Hubble wasn't built for that kind of stuff.
Don't think it could even take any clear shots of the moon..


Edit:
"The Apollo descent stages left on the lunar surface are too small to be seen by Hubble, which can see objects as small as 60-75 yards, about three-quarters the length of a soccer field. The left-behind descent stages are only about the size of a small truck."
www.nasa.gov...

[edit on 8-5-2009 by DGFenrir]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Existing thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...




I still havent found the acctual video anywhere though

But in this clip they go through alot:



[edit on 8-5-2009 by Daniem]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
Funny, having studied physics and math most of my life, I am somewhat at a loss here as to why no one has ever considered the probabilities.

Distance, time, gravity, the Van-Allen belts, electromagnetism, solar wind, temperature variances and so on.

...

walking on the moon and returning to earth safely. The looks on their faces and their reactions are quite shocking to say the least.

Do the math. It will shock you as to the variables. The odds were not in their favor in 1969.


Where rock have been hiding under?
That's one of the tenants of of the moon hoaxers.

You realize they DID have computers back then. Primitive, and my iphone can do more than those old hulks could even dream of, but they did exist. Not to mention some of the smartest people on the planet backing them.

Don't forget the time and training that went into everything. Apollo 11 was not the first manned mission to the moon, it was only the first to actually land. The Apollo program was the biggest endeavor the human race has ever mounted, and still is.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Saganite]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 



daddio, you say you've studied math and physics for most of your life, yet you write a sentence like this:

"Distance, time, gravity, the Van-Allen belts, electromagnetism, solar wind, temperature variances and so on. "

The full LM had a mass of about 33,000 lbs (that's Earth mass. In Lunar gravity it'd be 5,500 lbs). How, exactly, would that be such a difficult spacecraft to navigate?

The Space Shuttle can, depending on its mission and orbital requirements, carry a payload of as much as 53,000 lbs. Note that that is payload, doesn't even include the vehicle weight. So, unless one wishes to allege that the STS is impossible too your argument against Apollo doesn't hold water.

The beauty of space is that the calculations are very stable. The math is predictable. Orbital mechanics are not variable. You mention temperature variances - a vacuum is an excellent insulator. Ever seen a Thermos bottle??

Solar Wind?? pffft, a fly's wings in a hurricane. Van Allen Belts, not lethal for short times of transit.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Sorry, Daniem. That Utube maker is off his rocker!!!

The lengths some people will resort to in order to perpetuate a 'pet' theory!!!

Let's see, when was digital image manipulation technology developed? 1968???



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
back to the OP's comment about "who was there when we landed", there's audio of buzz aldrin saying on tape about something already there. he made several comments about it.

that part intrigues me the most. they DID see something, and apparently it was pretty spectacular.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DGFenrir

Originally posted by SaraThustra
If we really landed on the moon don't you think they would have the Hubble Telescope pointed at it every Fourth of July showing us the flag. Or for that matter don't you think they would have done it at least one time in the last 40 years? The moon landing is pure Bullsh*t.


Hubble wasn't built for that kind of stuff.
Don't think it could even take any clear shots of the moon..




Umm, back to the drawing board, huh?

www.space.com...



If SMART-1 can get an eyeful, why not use the Hubble space telescope to take photos of the Apollo landing sites? Hubble did photograph the Moon, in 1999.
"Anything left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any Hubble image," According to the Space Telescope Science Institute, which operates Hubble for NASA. "It would just appear as a dot."



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by DGFenrir

Originally posted by SaraThustra
If we really landed on the moon don't you think they would have the Hubble Telescope pointed at it every Fourth of July showing us the flag. Or for that matter don't you think they would have done it at least one time in the last 40 years? The moon landing is pure Bullsh*t.


Hubble wasn't built for that kind of stuff.
Don't think it could even take any clear shots of the moon..




Umm, back to the drawing board, huh?

www.space.com...



If SMART-1 can get an eyeful, why not use the Hubble space telescope to take photos of the Apollo landing sites? Hubble did photograph the Moon, in 1999.
"Anything left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any Hubble image," According to the Space Telescope Science Institute, which operates Hubble for NASA. "It would just appear as a dot."


Did you even read my post? I don't think so..

I even provided a link and an explanation to why it can't photograph the flag.
People just don't read on this forum..



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 

The images used in that video do not come from NASA, they come from www.spacearchive.net...
Here is what the owner of the site says about the images on his site:

SpaceArchive.net is always in search for new pictures not yet present on the archive so, if you are in possession of images that can't be found in SpaceArchive.net, do not hesitate to contact me or e-mail me a good scan accompanied with all available data for the image.

Many pictures were restored by me, restoring the original colors, enhancing the contrast, removing scrubs, scratches and dust maks. I hope that this work helps to remember in the best way the epic of space exploration and the men who were involved.


He has taken scans of photographic prints and "fixed" them. Unfortunately, his fixing has introduced a lot of stuff which is not in the original negatives or prints from those negatives. The "anomolies" shown in the video appear only in the images from spacearchive.net.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by DGFenrir

Originally posted by SaraThustra
If we really landed on the moon don't you think they would have the Hubble Telescope pointed at it every Fourth of July showing us the flag. Or for that matter don't you think they would have done it at least one time in the last 40 years? The moon landing is pure Bullsh*t.


Hubble wasn't built for that kind of stuff.
Don't think it could even take any clear shots of the moon..




Umm, back to the drawing board, huh?

www.space.com...



If SMART-1 can get an eyeful, why not use the Hubble space telescope to take photos of the Apollo landing sites? Hubble did photograph the Moon, in 1999.
"Anything left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any Hubble image," According to the Space Telescope Science Institute, which operates Hubble
for NASA. "It would just appear as a dot."



Pretty convenient huh?


wZn



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ok, i am trying to understand, i am still researching the Reseau plate /crosshairs (fiducials). Your reply is appreciated Phage, your logical thinking is good. According to a wikipedia article:

"The publicly-released version of the photo was cropped and recomposed by NASA within hours of the film being made available, with extra black space added at the top of most released versions for what NASA calls aesthetic reasons." Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe the editing is the cause for confusion, add NASA secrecy to that.

NASA history pages, Hasselblad equipment.
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

P.S I suspect that these kind of questions have already been covered in this forum, more so in Hoaglands Dark Mission, still, it is fascinating that people are asking the same questions 40 years later.



[edit on 2009/5/8 by reugen]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by reugen
 

Yes, they dressed up a badly composed photograph for aesthetic purposes. It was not easy to aim the camera without a viewfinder and Armstrong aimed low. They added a black area where there was nothing.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Since scans of the original slides are available, it is quite obvious what was done.


[edit on 5/8/2009 by Phage]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
This gets so tiring year after year some new "breakthrough" evidence
Comes to the surface. Personally i think that Jose Escamila is a quack
People, this is entertainment! And this is how they make a living.
I personally know a few astronauts from the Apollo missions and I'm telling you it's pure B.S. Unfortunately when you want to believe something bad enough you refuse true facts and replace them with your own sci-fi fantasy.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by reugen
"The publicly-released version of the photo was cropped and recomposed by NASA within hours of the film being made available, with extra black space added at the top of most released versions for what NASA calls aesthetic reasons."

Source: en.wikipedia.org...


You are taking the quote out of context. The photo they were talking about was this one:

www.hq.nasa.gov...


When the image was prepared for release for publication soon after the mission, it was cropped at the bottom and sides and a black area was added at the top to give the released version visual balance.


Because Neil Armstrong is an astronaut and not a professional photographer, and because the cameras were strapped to their chest and they couldn't use a view finder, the image of Buzz Aldrin was not centered, and there was more lunar ground in the shot, and the top of Buzz's head was cut off. Since it is such a cool picture, and they can't just fly back and retake it, they just edited it to make it look more professional.

See:


They added black sky, because one didn't exist. That is the exact opposite of what people claim, which is that they "removed sky to hide something".

Also, off subject a bit, if you think the moon landing was a hoax, ask yourself why they didn't take better pictures, and why they didn't retake pictures instead of edit them to make them more "visually balanced".


---edit

reply to post by Phage
 


Oops, we cross posted, and you finished first.



[edit on 8-5-2009 by 0nce 0nce]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 0nce 0nce
 


Just implying that editing one? photo will compromise the rest of the photos. A photo taken on moon will be looked upon as hard evidence and will be heavily scrutinized. Cheers.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by reugen
 


The photograph in question was a print made from a transparency. The transparency was not edited, the print was. As I said, scans of the original transparencies are available.

Of course, there are those who claim that the scans have been tampered with (as in this either ignorant or deliberately deceptive claim about the crosses). Yet many of those same scans are used as is as evidence of a hoax or cover-up. It amazes me that the ones that make these claims insist on having it both ways.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by Phage]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Pretty convenient huh?


wZn


What is pretty convenient? That Hubble can't photograph the moon in full detail?
Hubble isn't our only telescope.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
We didnt land on the moon. It was a HOAX.

Get over it..



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join