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.

 

Buzz Aldrin Book Signing in Atlanta 9/11

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by fls13 And please explain how in the 1969, they could produce more convincing special effects than can be done today, 40 years later.



Hmmm were they really better than today?

Dunno but they did a great job


What the heck slow day today...

Set the stage..



NASA Airbrushing? Heck no... they did it the hard way...






100% painstakingly accurate detail from the Lunar Orbiter images... had to be careful to not get too many anomalies into the work
The LO mosaic is behind him and he is standing on the camera track..



So now its done... we get the lighting just right...



And don't forget that spacecraft window... it was pretty small...



Now lets add that pukey color we see in those Apollo moon pics...



Then sit down in the pilots seat and off you go...





This final picture shows Charlie Duke (pointing), and John Young, at the simulator controls for lunar approach/orbit. The picture on TV screen is reminiscent of the pictures we saw on our TV screens. We were told it was the Moon, but the picture showing on TV screen in photograph is not the Moon. It is a camera filming the plaster paris model of Moon.


www.thelivingmoon.com...











posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Building 9 at the Manned Spacecraft Center

Lights on...




Lights off... but sometimes you still see anomalies in the black background





Mwahahahahah



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by JimOberg
 

My friend, if you are going to make that kind of push-up of your arguments, I suggest that you read some pilot manuals, because in the category of disasters they included the space programs deaths.

Just for your knowledge (counting to the current day) the fatalities percentage is on 4,1% on the NASA astronauts and 0,9% on Russian cosmonauts...

If you are going that way off, at least give a good example, like the Nedelin disaster. At least in that one 130 people died...But again, not space related.

[edit on 10/9/09 by Tifozi]


Umm, you do know who you're talking to in this above quoted reply right?
Jim Oberg

That is of course providing that "JimOberg" is in fact Mr. Oberg.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Cinder Lake Sunset Crater, northeast of Flagstaff, Arizona

Or...

Recreating the Moon on Earth

Compliments of the USGS and several tons of TNT









But hey... your right...

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that they could have faked it




And about that black sky...







posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


For the record, yes the member JimOberg is in fact that Jim Oberg.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


*not trying to seem arrogant* Which doesn't impress me much, since he wasn't even able to realize that the "Fallen Astronaut" memorial has astronauts that died from disease and car crashes.

Was waiting to see if knew all this stuff...Guess not. Don't know where he got his numbers since he doesn't know who is on the Fallen Astronauts.


(Yes, I was wrong. Prior to the Moon landing more people died in the Soviet side... But it was almost the same)

[edit on 10/9/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

But hey... your right...

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that they could have faked it





I am right. You're not posting material that purports to be from the moonwalks themselves. Thousands of photos and hours of seamless video . . . . views of the moon visible to the horizon . . . and no sign of steel beams . . . .



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


I understand. It would seem that there may be some technicality of misunderstanding here.

But, I think it's fairly safe to say Mr. O is vastly more knowledgeable than members of this forum when it comes to the space program (although I don't assume to speak for him - that's strictly my point of view).



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package

Of course that is all just hearsay and anecdotal evidence that he went to the moon... there is no actual proof. On top of that poor old Buzz refuses to swear on a Bible that he has walked on the surface of the moon... because you know... that would put him in jail for life if the truth came out that he didn't and he had sworn on a bible that he did.


What are you talking about "put him in jail for life?" Where is there a law saying that if you swear on the Bible and it's not true that you go to jail for life?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
That is of course providing that "JimOberg" is in fact Mr. Oberg.


Well he is... most days...

But some days I swear... they put in a pitch hitter



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Diplomat
 


Doesn't mean a damned thing, unless you're in a court of law. I spent a couple of minutes with Edgar Mitchell some time ago, and when he was asked about how he felt that a portion of people don't believe astronauts went to the Moon, and if that angered him, he said "No." He went on to relate that it's sheer stupidity and ignorance that makes people believe that kind of thing. In short, he doesn't even acknowledge these dolts who think such stuff.

So it doesn't surprise me that an Astronaut who's been to the Moon wouldn't take the time to put his hand on a Bible and swear for some guy making a film about how the landings are faked. These nimrods aren't worth an astronauts time.

Of course, let's now realize that what...2 or 3 other countries have now imaged our stuff on the moon? Sheesh. It's time for some to find a new hobby.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by fls13


Well there is this one...

Big Picture AS14-66-9295


That has this thingy in it...




I guess it could be a UFO on the Moon



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Neither photo demonstrates anything.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by fls13

Originally posted by zorgon

But hey... your right...

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that they could have faked it





I am right. You're not posting material that purports to be from the moonwalks themselves. Thousands of photos and hours of seamless video . . . . views of the moon visible to the horizon . . . and no sign of steel beams . . . .


Actually Zorgon, those are cool photographs you posted! But don't those photographs actually show how much training and preparation went into the missions? At least that's what I'm seeing.

Seems like you're arguing that the landings COULD have been faked. Well lots of things COULD have happened, I could have had a V-8 but i didn't
But in order for me to go confront Buzz and get punched out by him, someone is going to have to come up with evidence that they actually WERE faked, and I've never seen any evidence of that. Oh yeah, I've seen claimed evidence that made me either laugh or shake my head at the ignorance of the claims like "no stars in the sky" or "the flag moved" or "the shadows don't look right" or "radiation". Actually the claim about radiation is the only one I recall with any science behind it and as I recall the astronauts get roughly a chest X-ray or two worth of equivalent radiation on the mission, and I had a chest X-ray myself and it didn't kill me either. So unless somebody does better I guess Buzz will miss me at his book signing.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by fls13
reply to post by zorgon
 


Neither photo demonstrates anything.


Well, it demonstrate one thing: that the blue "object" falls in a perfect vertical alignment with the hottest area on the picture (a spot on the moon surface, and is, therefore most likely a lens flare.

Drop it into Photoshop and over adjust it for light areas. You'll see exactly what I mean. You can lay a guide rule on it.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArbitrageurSo unless somebody does better I guess Buzz will miss me at his book signing.


I would like to see Buzz moderate a debate between someone who thinks the moon landings were faked and someone who thinks they happened but the astronauts found ancient alien ruins there.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by fls13
 


FLS that's the best laugh I've had in a while, I had this mental picture of Buzz punching a debater each time he heard a ridiculous argument. I laughed so hard!

But I think now he's reaching out to people with non-mainstream ideas with his comments about the monolith on Phobos and saying things like "who put it there"? (which I just took out of context, I think he actually said something like "some people are going to wonder who put it there").



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur shake my head at the ignorance of the claims like "no stars in the sky"


Ah yes those silly stars...

See I have a problem with the 'no stars' thingy...

The reason?

Because NASA told me that... if you take away the Earth's atmosphere's ability to scatter light, that the daytime sky would look like THIS



And to date NO ONE has been able to show me a convincing reason why a few hundred thousand kilometers away on the Moon that is would be any different.

The same sun shines on the moon and the same stars are in the same space... so explain to me why NASA is telling me that with no atmospheric dispersal on Earth we would see billions of stars during the day, but on the Moon we cannot see ONE?

Apply that scientific logic to that if you can. So far every time I have asked it gets ignored




SOURCE: NASA APOD 2007 June 21
apod.nasa.gov...

As to did they go?

My personal opinion is yes they did, but they had help... and they faked the pictures some for publicity reasons and some because they don't want us to see something

THIS ONE is absolute proof of a faked image for publicity




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Science one-on-one:

If you are in a room with lots of light and you go to a dark room, you can't see anything. Does that mean that small and tiny lights aren't there? No.

Another thing is that if you take pictures during the night of places with lots of light, you can't see the stars either, being a place with lots of luminous polution or not.

In the moon it happened the same thing. There is no atmosphere and there is nothing to "cover" the stars, but there is a Moon lighten up like a christmas tree from the light of the Sun.

What you say that proves that they faked it according to the stars, is what actually brings that argument to the ground.

Not having a atmosphere, and by having such a reflective and bright ground, it's impossible to the camera to be able to focus the stars that are much weaker than all the massive light in front of the camera coming from all the objects and the Moon itself.

I seriously don't understand how this is so hard to figure out.

For the fun of it, I give you a picture of my city:



You can't see stars either, can't you?

You can say "oh, but here you have atmosphere and luminous polution".

Well, it's true, but on the Moon you have a reflective surface (the actual Moon) that reflects light up 10 times more than this photo, meaning, it ends having the same effect.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi


You didn't answer the question

WHY does NASA say the picture I posted would be what the day looks like without atmosphere and why does the same not apply om the moon?

I guess its something you can't wrap your mind around huh?

:shk:



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join