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.

 

Did those who faked the moon photos make intentional errors?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Anyway, all this doesn't prove that the moon photos were not faked, no more than the fact that the photos were faked proves that man didn't land on the moon.

And what proves us anyway that the Americans just didn't have better robots than the Russians which were able to better align the retro-reflectors?



[edit on 8-6-2009 by InquisitiveGuy]




posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by InquisitiveGuy
 



WoW! Just, wow!!

Where to begin....?


(T)he American government wanted to give an idyllic version of what happened on the moon.


Huh? Everyone wanted to see what was really happening. In fact, having the video available to Mission Control, as extra eyes, was necessary to success. Allowing the US public to see also, was a bonus for us.



The lunar ground is too rocky for a flag to be planted into?


No, that is rubbish.



It's too dangerous to make the astronauts jump like grasshoppers for the delight of American public, because they might fatally rip their suit?


Even more rubbish! It was quickly determined, by the Astronauts, that the most efficient method of locomotion was the hopping skip movements that we saw.

This was because of their suits. The ability to bend at the knees and hips was limited. The lower gravity allowed them to use all of the muscles in their legs, including their ankles, to kick themselves along. Otherwise, it would have been very tedious to cover even a few feet.

If you'd do some research into the design of the suits, it would help you to understand that, and also just how strong the fabric was. I was very resistant to abrasions.


Never mind, we then fake it on earth.



It has already been shown, numerous times, not only here at ATS, but in multiple places, how that statement is further rubbish.

No way to simulate the lower gravity....it is not possible to simulate the vacuum.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The man behind it was Werhner Von Braun, of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency. He designed Project Horizon, an official Army proposal for a Base on the Moon, and designed the Saturn V as a covert heavy-lift vehicle to build the base.

Do the math on Saturn V's ISP and payload, and you will find it was WAY too big to lift just Apollo. Under the shroud was more- much more. Resupply and rotation was by Titan II.

The public cancellation, lunar treaty and bogus number of flights info took Project Horizon black, just like MOL.

The fake audiovisuals are cover for Project Horizon.

Parallel programs were the Air Force LUNEX and Navy's proposal.

Anybody seen a copy of that no-name navy proposal? The Air Force and Army are public record.


[edit on 6-9-2009 by Chakotay]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Do the math on Saturn V's ISP and payload, and you will find it was WAY too big to lift just Apollo. Under the shroud was more- much more. Resupply and rotation was by Titan II.

I've done the math, simmed whole missions, and I find that the Saturn V was not "way" too big to lift just Apollo. The fuel margin for the missions is tight; there IS extra fuel, but they needed that to provide a safe margin for error (something you quickly learn to appreciate when trying to fly the missions for yourself). There certainly isn't enough to safely haul up an entire moon base with the CSM/LEM stack.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


The base wasn't launched in its entireity on one stack. It was launched incrementally, on every S-V flight. Look at the architecture: lava tube liners. Cheap, simple, lightweight. Think Titan launch complex setup, several silos and a central crew space. Small, minimally sustainable, and by now, probably abandoned like the old Nike sites.

When you do the math, recheck 'public' figures. Calculate available tankage volumes, fuel ISP's, drag coefficients.

Look at the new Constellation ships. How come we can go back to the moon with smaller stacks?! Its published knowledge that Gemini could make it to the moon, land and return. Saturn V was not needed for that.



[edit on 6-9-2009 by Chakotay]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
This guy compares various official photos and points out discrepancies.

BTW.. why are there no stars in the moon sky? If I'm on the atmosphere challenged moon surface looking up, all I can see is a very bright sun, the earth, and nothing else? not even a faint hint of one star.

Check out a video called "Astronauts gone wild", it's entertaining.



In the below video, the NASA dude refutes all 'conspiracy' claims with general denials, 'they're wrong and NASA is right..'



51 min google video which has some of that recently discovered NASA video marked not to show the public... some reporter found it while rummaging through NASA archives.. it was mis-marked.

Interesting if nothing else.

video.google.com...#



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


Today, any PC has the computer power to run a star position program like Redshift and plot the positions of the stars in the sky at any time and place. So if the stars were visible- and wrong- you'd know the pix were fake. Foreseeing that capability and not having the computing power back then to predict all star and planet positions for the lunar places and times correctly, or the special FX ability to sim them realistically, they were left out of the PR stuff. Space is full of stars- as Kubrick reminds us in 2001.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by Chakotay]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
The base wasn't launched in its entireity on one stack. It was launched incrementally, on every S-V flight.

Again, they were struggling just to find room for all the science equipment they brought with them, let alone construction materials for a base. The capability simply wasn't there.


When you do the math, recheck 'public' figures. Calculate available tankage volumes, fuel ISP's, drag coefficients.

So in other words, you fudged the numbers by re-estimating the available tankage based on what you think should have been there rather than going with the actual numbers... got it.


Look at the new Constellation ships. How come we can go back to the moon with smaller stacks?!

Constellation isn't launched on a single stack.


Its published knowledge that Gemini could make it to the moon, land and return. Saturn V was not needed for that.

Putting it that way is incredibly deceptive; the Gemini capsule could be launched to the moon using multiple boosters to put up an earth departure stage (Centaur) and capsule separately simply because the Gemini capsule is smaller and lighter than that of Apollo (also far less capable technologically and smaller crew capacity). The Gemini landing proposal would have also required the use of a Saturn C-3, which is just a smaller Saturn V with fewer engines.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Space is full of stars- as Kubrick reminds us in 2001.

Where are all the stars in these pictures then?
www.gerhards.net...
www.nasa.gov...
news.xinhuanet.com...
thewondrous.com...
farm4.static.flickr.com...
farm3.static.flickr.com...
It's called exposure settings; daylight exposure settings that can be taken hand held and properly expose the lunar surface are incapable of detecting stars, especially on the low ISO film emulsions they were using on Apollo.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
BTW.. why are there no stars in the moon sky? If I'm on the atmosphere challenged moon surface looking up, all I can see is a very bright sun, the earth, and nothing else? not even a faint hint of one star.

The atmosphere doesn't make the stars significantly dimmer; they aren't magically super bright when you get out into space, so daylight exposure settings will still not show stars. You should be asking yourself the question why there aren't any stars in any of these pictures:
www.gerhards.net...
www.nasa.gov...
news.xinhuanet.com...
thewondrous.com...
farm4.static.flickr.com...
farm3.static.flickr.com...


Check out a video called "Astronauts gone wild", it's entertaining.

Entertaining is right, Sibrel's a joke who lied to the astronauts before accusing them of lying, and has not a single valid point.
www.clavius.org...



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
You should be asking yourself the question why there aren't any stars in any of these pictures...


Oh, but we are. If stars are so much more invisible in space than on Earth, then why bother to fly Hubble above the atmosphere? I mean, it would be too blinded to see stars too, right?

Face it. There is more going on in space than in your press releases, my friend.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay

Originally posted by ngchunter
You should be asking yourself the question why there aren't any stars in any of these pictures...


Oh, but we are. If stars are so much more invisible in space than on Earth, then why bother to fly Hubble above the atmosphere? I mean, it would be too blinded to see stars too, right?

Face it. There is more going on in space than in your press releases, my friend.

except the hubble telescope is set up to look at stars. the astronauts were not! they where looking at stuff astronauts were doing, this included not focusing on stars.

of course there is a lot going on in space, all kinds of things. just not the absurd things the OP claims.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Oh, but we are. If stars are so much more invisible in space than on Earth, then why bother to fly Hubble above the atmosphere? I mean, it would be too blinded to see stars too, right?

Face it. There is more going on in space than in your press releases, my friend.

Thanks for falling into my trap; I took two of those pictures through my telescope, which can pick up stars even easier than the naked eye can, and I know I didn't fake them. The stars are no more visible to daylight exposures taken on earth than they are in space. This isn't about the camera being blinded; that's a strawman. This is about the exposure being too short to record stars, as it would be any time you're trying to properly take a picture of the moon, space station (farm3.static.flickr.com...), or an astronaut in space.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
Thanks for falling into my trap; I took two of those pictures through my telescope


Never looked at your pictures. I'm interested in NASA moon pictures, not your backyard trap stuff.


[edit on 7-9-2009 by Chakotay]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Never looked at your pictures. I'm interested in NASA moon pictures, not your backyard trap stuff.


[edit on 7-9-2009 by Chakotay]

My pictures prove you shouldn't expect to see stars in short exposures. You said you were asking the same question of my links, now you're backpeddling. Your unwillingness to view my pictures tells me you're incapable of applying your theory consistently..



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
My pictures prove you shouldn't expect to see stars in short exposures.


Go outside on a moon with no atmospheric scattering (scattering is why stars are not visible in daylight exposures on Earth, not short exposure times) and take a short exposure photo of the sky. You can simulate this by taking a short exposure shot of the night sky with fast film. Without atmospheric scattering, I have stars on my pics.

Rather than bicker with you endlessly, I invite others to continue discussion of the original topic of the thread: were intentional errors made? Why?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Go outside on a moon with no atmospheric scattering (scattering is why stars are not visible in daylight exposures on Earth, not short exposure times) and take a short exposure photo of the sky.

Scattering is why stars are not visible in daytime exposures, which is totally different from the term daylight exposure settings. Now your sentence here is almost indecipherable, but if you meant scattering of moonlight, my telescope is more than capable of compensating for loss of signal due to moonlight scattering thanks to its light gathering ability, and one shot I took and posted previously didn't even involve the moon at all.


You can simulate this by taking a short exposure shot of the night sky with fast film. Without atmospheric scattering, I have stars on my pics.

Not that they used fast film for Apollo photography, but short exposures taken without interference from moonlight still do not reveal stars because they're just short exposures. Here's an example I previously posted:
farm3.static.flickr.com...
The space station is properly exposed, may a little over-exposed in parts, but no stars are visible at all. This is due to short exposure settings, the same settings you'd find with any shot taken in space of an astronaut, the moon, or the space station. Perhaps with a telescope and a very high quantum efficiency you can detect stars in a fraction of a second exposure, but astronauts taking hand held pictures aren't using telescopes, in fact they aren't even using ridiculously high ISOs (very high ISOs are not used in standard daylight exposure settings unless you're doing very high speed photography, which would still prevent you from detecting stars).


Rather than bicker with you endlessly, I invite others to continue discussion of the original topic of the thread: were intentional errors made? Why?

So rather than debate the issue your side raised, which still pertains to the topic of so-called "intentional errors" (in particular, whether this was an error at all or not), you'd rather go back to starting with the assumption that a hoax is going on. How convenient.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
In fact not all my evidence is correct.
Most of it is good, but some is incorrect.
In fact I have worked on a misconception that I know now to be wrong.
I was thinking that when the camera was rotating (around a vertical axis) to sweep the landscape, the lines on the ground were rotating too.
But it's not true, I was wrong on that; the other day I made photographic tests which showed me my error.
I was taking photos, not moving, just rotating to sweep the landscape, and when I saw the photos, I saw that the lines on the ground were not rotating at all, which surprised me a lot (and the background was following the foreground, but I was expecting that).
So when I say:" See this line on the ground, it is not rotating, so the camera is not rotating either", I am wrong as a matter of fact; the camera may be rotating, and most times it is effectively rotating.
I have also studied the photographer's shadow; it may be seen obliquely when his shadow is pushed on the edges of the photo; it is only facing the photo when it is on the middle of the photo.
But it is not oblique randomly, it is oblique in a definite way; when the shadow is pushed on the left, the shadow is seen turning on the right and vice versa.
So, for instance in photo AS12-46-6731, the astronaut's shadow is pushed a little on the left; if you look well, you can see that the astronaut's shadow is seen turning on the left; it is wrong: As the shadow is pushed on the left, it shoudl be seen turning on the right instead.
The direction of the shadows of objects on the photo also depend on the position and orientation of the photographer's shadow (which are related).
So, I have apparently lost a little of my evidence, but it's only temporary, for I have redone the analysis of all the photos on which I had made a wrong analysis, and I have found a new evidence, correct this time.
It is possible to make misinterpretations on some photos, but there is nonetheless overwhelming evidence the photos are fake.
It's just as obvious the fakers gave themselves the evidence the photos are fake.
Why they did that is the big question.
It seems that the NASA engineers didn't appreciate to be forced to play a comedy they were finding lame.
The fact that the photos are fake doesn't necessarily mean that the moon landings didn't happen, but it at least proves they were not able to take that good photos on the moon, and that they had to simulate them on earth in a studio.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join