Apollo Hardware Spotted!

reply to post by Exuberant1

Why do you slander people so often? ... - If you can't debate without calling names...

The person referred to is NOT on ATS. 'his' ego is so fragile he blocks anyone who even slightly disagrees.

AND...you should have seen what he posted on my page...disgustiong is hardly the way to describe it.

Topic: We're here, discussing the FACT that Apollo hardware is seen, as expected and as will be confirmed more and more in coming months.

Ongoing attempts to continue with the same old BS that has been seen for at least the last decade, whether it is drummed up by intentionally misleading hacks like 'Bart Sibrel', or just picked up by those who cannot fathom real science, or who willingly ignore real science, and prefer to mindlessly parrot the absurd seem to be finally a dying breed; yet, their desperation continues to show. . .

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The person referred to is NOT on ATS. 'his' ego is so fragile he blocks anyone who even slightly disagrees.

AND...you should have seen what he posted on my page...disgustiong is hardly the way to describe it.

Perhaps you reap what you sew...

Would it harm you to 'turn the other cheek' once in a while and tone down the 'character assassinations of people you disagree with?

reply to post by zorgon

Perhaps you reap what you sew...

Check your U2U. . .

Originally posted by Exuberant1
In this case, it is harder to see the line because the edge of stage is angled relative to the camera.

Stage huh? How do you explain cross-eye stereo images showing real distant mountains on this "stage"?

i319.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Exuberant1
In this case, it is harder to see the line because the edge of stage is angled relative to the camera.

Stage huh? How do you explain cross-eye stereo images showing real distant mountains on this "stage"?

i319.photobucket.com...

It clear where the line between the stage and the screen is in this shot
www.hq.nasa.gov...

There are no more rocks beyond a certain point.

another example
www.hq.nasa.gov...

another example
www.hq.nasa.gov...

why there no rocks in the distance?


[edit on 20-7-2009 by conar]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by jfj123

To actually believe the mythbusters are on the CIA's payroll is beyond absurd and beyond paranoid.

Is that what you believe?

If you're going to believe that a show that almost failed is somehow on the CIA payroll, you might as well assume everyone is.

I know I didn't say anything about a payroll...

Well this is what you said

*This would mean Adam and Jamie are 'Assets'...

Now lets go ahead and define "Asset within the context of our discussion.

Asset - In intelligence, assets are persons within organizations or countries that are being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy.

So basically what you're saying is that the CIA "owns" the mythbusters. Come on.....REALLY??? You actually believe this?

An asset doesn't need to be on a payroll - But you already knew that.

Doesn't need to be but USUALLY IS. But of course you already knew that

reply to post by ngchunter


Has anyone checked out the images from Google?

www.google.com... moon/

zoom to 11 and look at the circular? and above it to the right.
Sorry if someone has already posted.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by ngchunter

Why would the mythbusters be motivated to do so?

They explain everything in the episode.

Since you obviously haven't watched it, it is titled 'Magic Bullet'. Now you can watch the show you are commenting on.

Actually I've been only commenting on the episode about the lunar landing as that is the topic

Originally posted by Exuberant1
They used the retroreflectors as proof of the Apollo landings, even though the Russians proved those could be placed via unmanned mission (they omit this from the show).

There was more to the episode then just the reflectors. But of course you already know this
Also, if an unmanned mission can land on the moon, as you ADMIT, there's no reason a manned mission couldn't land on the moon. You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Edit: Why do you slander people so often? Your consistent use of ad hominem attacks goes to your credibility - If you can't debate without calling names...
[edit on 20-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

It's only slander if it's not true.
Just an FYI

Originally posted by conar
It clear where the line between the stage and the screen is in this shot
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Meaningless since stereoimages already prove it's not a stage. The moon's surface is not flat, you're seeing a small rise in terrain followed by a drop off followed by another rise in terrain before the distant mountain. You're making the false assumption that the more distant terrain is close enough to resolve small rocks.

Here's a cross-eye stereogram constructed using this picture and one taken earlier by the astronauts at a greater distance to the mountain and to the side, AS16-108-17676, proving the distant mountain is real:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

That's no soundstage.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by ngchunter]

Try this one?
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by conar
Try this one?
www.hq.nasa.gov...

The question isn't whether or not every single image of a distant mountain has a compatible stereo pair, the question is whether or not your problem can be explained and proven to be real mountains. I think I did that with my last post (and in fact the image I posted earlier from apollo 17 was taken over the entire landing site and covers pretty much everything), and seeing as how I just spent 15 minutes finding a useable image and creating a cross-eye stereogram out of it, I think I'll leave it at that for now.

*Because I'm feeling generous, here's a tip:
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
These two are compatible enough to be assembled into a stereo pair of the distant mountain in your picture. I'll leave the assembly to whoever wants to bother. They do indeed reveal the shape of the mountain and prove it's not a soundstage.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by ngchunter]

this is good one
www.hq.nasa.gov...

you can see a line between ground textures/no ground textures horizontally

reply to post by conar


Anyone who's done stereo photography knows you can't reveal distant shapes with that small of a baseline (I have a pair of nice shots of Alcatraz where I tried to get the island in 3d, but my baseline was way too small, I'll provide it if you demand to see it). You either go for long baselines and forget the foreground, or go for small baselines and forget the background. You can't have it both ways.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by ngchunter]

www.hq.nasa.gov...

See the base of the mountain/hill on the right. Why does the ground textures disappear?

reply to post by conar


Look at these desert dunes.

Why does the detail in the background blend together???

www.freenaturepictures.com...

reply to post by conar


Why can't I see all of the dry lakebed cracks in the far distance of THIS picture????:

www.freenaturepictures.com...

you are right, the moon has sand dunes
www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 20-7-2009 by conar]

These Apollo images are NASA Bulls**T!!! We can see the mars rover at less than 10 feet wide and its tracks and mast.... in full color... (marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov...) C'Mon , but this is all we get of the landing sites from a billion dollar high def camera.... Lies Lies Lies!!!! Kaguya, Cahndaryn, all of themm. you wont ever see them until ground scopes can digitally image them in high def... we know whats up theri and how long we have been there.... check within.

Government cover up.... people are so hypnotized by the distractions...