[Revealed] Apollo Hoax Betrayed by UFO Reports?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
The lie is different at every level.
NASA is under the umbrella of the DoD.

That lie has been the same tired old fabrication for years. Why do you keep promoting it?

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Kandinsky

Not to be pernickety, but you implied as much in this thread yesterday...

Now you are making assumptions based on my stating of a few facts.

Poor form Kandinsky.

Had you bothered to check any of my other posts, you would see I have wrote about how the Apollo astronauts might have discovered structures when they were on the moon, a secret space program has facilities and men there, etc.

Edit: When it comes to the Space program and Moon landings, my views are quite similiar to those of Zorgon - if that helps any.

Here is what you want me to accept as proof that Apollo 14 Landed on the Moon :
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/44bbc597ddef.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is an image of what I say might be an alien or ancient Lunar structure - Compare it to the crappy image you say is of Apollo 14:

(This shadow of the LEM looks 'manipulated')

Here it is colourized - for those suffering with Propsoprognasia





[edit on 18-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



This is a perfect example E....

If I were to say some images with exactly the same resolution was a structure on the moon or craft or whatever...I would be ridiculed because lack of clarity from the image....and it would be debunked.....YET....Here we have the very same image quality and are being told its "proof" of what NASA says and now its supposed to be good enough.... right

FBS

reply to post by Overload


Does the "ancient structure" match the shape, location, and size of a known object that was predicted to be there? We didn't just dig around LRO images till we found something we thought looked interesting, we knew exactly where it should show up to within a meter and what exactly it should look like, as well as the craters surrounding it.

reply to post by Overload


There are many ways these new images could have been hoaxed.

Maybe they had someone from Langley add them in:



Even the moon landing scenes can be hoaxed. Here is is John Young and Charlie Duke in the simulator at Langley, showing us how easy it is:


(Fullscreen this video and switch on the High Quality mode - then pay particular attention to the screens on the simulator. )

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Overload

 

There are many ways these new images could have been hoaxed.

Maybe they had someone from Langley add them in:

Yes, because those models are definately as large and high in resolution as the new moon photos .

Even the moon landing scenes can be hoaxed. Here is is John Young and Charlie Duke in the simulator at Langley, showing us how easy it is:

So training for a mission in a simulator proves it can be faked? In that case, why should we believe the shuttle is real?
www.sti.nasa.gov...
www.charlesinspace.com...

Sorry, but the images of simulators don't come close to the real thing.
www.udel.edu...

reply to post by Kandinsky


Just on that mythbusters episode.... that busts the Myth that they could recreate the shadows to prove it happened on the moon.....

Am I missing something.... or did all Mythbusters prove was that they could recreate those shadows ON A MOON SET IN A FILM STUDIO. Now the fact it was to scale is completely irrelevant..... it's a fake set in a studio using spotlights as the sun.

Isn't the entire conspiracy based around the fact we were on Earth when those shadows were made..... I love mythbusters... but my god were they off with that one... using that experiment as any kind of "proof" to bust a myth.

reply to post by Total Package

Yes, you missed something. The claim of hoax enthusiasts is that the shadows in Apollo photographs point in different directions, thereby proving that there had to be more than one light source.

The Mythbusters demonstrate that uneven terrain causes shadows to be cast in different directions by a single light source. Proving that the hoax enthusiasts' "proof" is wrong.


[edit on 7/20/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Yeah and you know what.... when they do that outside... using the sun as their source and can replicate that in conditions half close to what we saw on the moon I will believe it.

I don't believe the conspiracy focuses entirely around the fact there are multiple light sources..... the conspiracy is around the fact the light source is so close to the object. A spotlight is close... the sun isn't.

Building models inside a room and using a spotlight as your source of the sun ..... and saying "Look we have proven you can make shadows go different ways by building different terrair... so it's debunked" I am afraid is not science..... when one of the basis of the conspiracy is around the fact shadows are being cast as a result of artificial light in a small area.

All mythbusters did was prove that by building a moon set.... and putting in an articifical light...... they would replicate what was in the original moon photos... by building higher terrain. Errrr yeah... that's the entire conspiracy you've proven.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Total Package]

reply to post by Total Package

At your service:
Trees. In sunlight. Some on flat ground some on sloped ground. The shadows from trees on flat ground run parallel to each other. The shadows from the trees on the slope run parallel to each. The shadows from the trees on the slope run at a different angle than the shadows from the trees on the flat. Outside. One sun. Different shadow angles. The shadows follow the slope
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1b1bcbd93832.png[/atsimg]

[edit on 7/21/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Yeah Yeah seen it all before and fits the "theory" nicely.... but how does it prove these length shadows?

Originally posted by Total Package
reply to post by Phage

 

Yeah Yeah seen it all before and fits the "theory" nicely.... but how does it prove these length shadows?

In that photo it looks like the terrain is probably sloping up on the left side of the photo, and the upward sloping terrain will shorten the shadow, just as downward sloping terrain will lengthen it. The reason I suspect this, is that it also gets brighter on the left hand side of the photo, and increasing brightness would be another sign of upward sloping terrain, as it's angled up to reflect more of the sun's light back.

You could duplicate that photo on earth using the sun as a light source, if you can duplicate the terrain elevations.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

In that photo it looks like the terrain is probably sloping up on the left side of the photo

It isn't.

The terrain is level.

That is why we use this particular example....

Edit:

Here is the image you are discussing and another taken a few seconds before:

The shadows are the same length in the one:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f786340634cc.jpg[/atsimg]


Now look at the difference as the astronaut nears the light source - this doesn't happen with sunlight and on level terrain:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/82934bd9b7ff.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


and you know this how? you were on the moon that day I assume?
oh wait...

this is exactly why people don't take you seriously. all evidence points towards non-level terrain. you *are* aware i assume that multiple light sources cast multiple shadows. ever been to a sporting event at night?

[edit on 21-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by Total Package

I thought we were talking about angles and how the Mythbusters didn't prove that a single light source (the sun) can produce non parallel shadows. Why did you change the subject?

[edit on 7/21/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
The shadows are the same length in the one:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f786340634cc.jpg[/atsimg]

because they are both standing at the base of the elevation in the terrain.

Now look at the difference as the astronaut nears the light source - this doesn't happen with sunlight and on level terrain:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/82934bd9b7ff.jpg[/atsimg]

because it is not level terrain.

if you're going to try to refute the argument that the mythbusters so eloquently illustrated, you might try actually addressing it instead of pretending to know the exact topography of the terrain they were standing on. it is vastly more likely that the top left corner is a slight hill simply because that is exactly how shadows behave on that kind of terrain.

here is an extreme example:

notice how stretched the shadow is on the flat ground, and how proportional it is on the wall? it is the exact same principle.

here is what shadows look like under multiple light sources:


[edit on 21-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by JScytale


Those are poor examples.

You can do better than that...

*Above the images which I posted, it is clearly stated that it that it has been determined that there is only one light source.

Now look at the difference as the astronaut nears the light source...

Your second picture has multiple light sources. Nice straw-man.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


if you don't understand the principles illustrated, you are a lost cause. is your brain incapable of understanding what the photographs demonstrate and using what you learned in another situation?

Better examples for your viewing pleasure:
www.clavius.org...

reply to post by nablator


thanks, nablator.
good work finding those.