apollo 11: 100% perfect picture without seeker

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


For questions about the television transmissions, may I recommend Live TV from the Moon. The author lives in Germany and is a regular over at the ApolloHoax forum under his handle, "dwight". He knows a lot and is happy to answer questions.




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I have seen many moon photos that were crap due to poor centering of the objects being photoed. Cropping makes this a non-issue in my book. But why the bulk of the photos are ignored by this fool should be obvious to anyone with over half a brain.

This guy, despite his fancy internet page, is a fool, and so are those that follow him. Ignorance begets ignorance.

Couldn't have said that better!



The basic premise shown during that TV special where they quote Bill Kaysings: “The pictures that we see that were allegedly taken on the moon are absolutely perfect.”

Another version, this time from Ralph Rene: “All the photographs brought back from the moon are correctly exposed, correctly framed, and crisply in focus. This seems suspicious.”


Balderdash!
One can visit countless websites that archive all the Apollo photographs and see quite plainly, that many of the photographs SUCK.

Like these for eg...




Bad Apollo Photograph - AS12-47-7010
Courtesy: pseudoastro



Since this entire Apollo program was a massive public relations campaign – not only to the American public but to the rest of the world – NASA only released the best of the photographs. After all, of the literally thousands of photographs from the Apollo missions, it simply does not make sense for a press office to release all of them, rather they would want to control the release and only put out the best ones.

And not only that, but ones that may have been cropped and rotated to make them the best.

This claim is, in my opinion, one of the silliest that’s out there. It may seem like a good one, but literally any amount of effort to look into it will show that it’s simply wrong. This is a case of anomaly hunting where there isn’t even any anomaly.


More here...pseudoastro.wordpress.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown

No offence, but you need to brush up on your science and your history.


No offense, but you need better reading comprehension skills. I didn't say I agreed with they guy.. just that I hadn't heard those arguments before.


Like I said, "no offence intended" which is clearly what you have taken. I don't need better comprehension skills, its just you did not say that in your post.

I apologise if you have taken offence.

How's the weather in New Orleans right now?

Here in OZ, very typical Xmas, stinking hot and stinking humid.

How 'bout those Dodgers huh!!!


[edit on 23/12/0909 by Krusty the Klown]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 


I didn't feel like I had to say it in my post, because I never implied in my post that I did agree with the guy. I didn't bring it up once. And no, I didn't take offense to it.. i'm just razzin on you like you razzed on me :-)


I don't agree with everything this guy says but if you look at his whole site he does bring up some interesting stuff that I haven't seen before. He says that radio communication over a distance of 380,000 km is impossible. - I'm trying to ascertain why he believes that.

And he also says NASA has kept the lunar probes radiation data a secret. He gives a lot of radiation data that if real may seem to suggest that the fly boys had to have gotten more radiation than NASA lets on.

I think we went there alright, but I also think a lot of the stuff we see footage wise is either made up or heavily doctored.

For instance.. what do you make of this:

"The reflectors are said to have been set up "on the moon" to measure better the distance between Earth and moon. But the reflectors are not more than good "rear reflectors". And when there would really set up these little reflectors on the moon so it would not be possible to locate them, because on a distance of 380,000 km a laser beam is 7 km large, and after the reflexion on the moon surface the laser beam is 20 km large."

He is saying there is beam spread. Thus it would be impossible for a laser bouncing off the moon to be able to measure the distance.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I read a couple of replies and am not reading any more, but will apologise if the following has been previously mentioned. A couple of questions. These questions were posed in an English book written several years ago.

Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers (Paperback)
~ Mary D. Bennett (Author), David S. Percy (Author),

How come Kodak who are well aware of the power of advertising didn't and have never advertised the fact that," Kodak , the film used on the Moon".In any of their adverts?

The temps on the Moon are excessive compared to what we have on Earth. And way beyond the specs of the Haselblad that we are told they used?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 


I didn't feel like I had to say it in my post, because I never implied in my post that I did agree with the guy. I didn't bring it up once. And no, I didn't take offense to it.. i'm just razzin on you like you razzed on me :-)


I don't agree with everything this guy says but if you look at his whole site he does bring up some interesting stuff that I haven't seen before. He says that radio communication over a distance of 380,000 km is impossible. - I'm trying to ascertain why he believes that.

And he also says NASA has kept the lunar probes radiation data a secret. He gives a lot of radiation data that if real may seem to suggest that the fly boys had to have gotten more radiation than NASA lets on.

I think we went there alright, but I also think a lot of the stuff we see footage wise is either made up or heavily doctored.

For instance.. what do you make of this:

"The reflectors are said to have been set up "on the moon" to measure better the distance between Earth and moon. But the reflectors are not more than good "rear reflectors". And when there would really set up these little reflectors on the moon so it would not be possible to locate them, because on a distance of 380,000 km a laser beam is 7 km large, and after the reflexion on the moon surface the laser beam is 20 km large."

He is saying there is beam spread. Thus it would be impossible for a laser bouncing off the moon to be able to measure the distance.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]


LOL, sorry dude, it sounds like we are more like minded than I thought!!!!

I definitely agree with you that we went there but the photos were doctored, simply for PR.

You spend $$$$$million on a mission to beat the Russkies and the photos turn out like crap!!! Easily fixed. You only have to look at any fashion magazine to know it happens.

My problem with the OP is that he makes too many assumptions which are not factual, but purely what he presumes. But some interesting information nonetheless.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
He says that radio communication over a distance of 380,000 km is impossible. - I'm trying to ascertain why he believes that.


Why would it be impossible - we can receive radio signals from light years away

And when there would really set up these little reflectors on the moon so it would not be possible to locate them, because on a distance of 380,000 km a laser beam is 7 km large, and after the reflexion on the moon surface the laser beam is 20 km large."

Why would it be 20km wide coming back? He apparently does not know what a retroreflector does.

Read en.wikipedia.org... for some info



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mixmix
 


Well I'm no photo expert so I'm afraid I can't weigh in on the particulars of taking lunar photos. All I can say is I've seen the images and see no reason to believe them to be faked.

My point about the Saturn V and the other equipment was that hundreds if not thousands of engineers and ROCKET scientists worked to design a rocket and vehicles that could take men to the moon and get them back safely. So if there were a conspiracy either they would be in on it (making it risky one of them would come forward) or all there work was for nothing and an empty Saturn V was launched. Given how much the Saturn V and other equipment cost I find it impossible to believe the USA dished out that kind of funding with the intention of filming and photographing fakes on a studio out in the desert. I find it insulting to the Russians and refuse to believe their scientists would be fooled by faked photos (let alone every other astronomer, scientist or space buff out there). Like I said a hoax would have been more costly and FAR more risky than actually making the attempt.

I don't think China's rocket is a nuke. China already has nukes, probably more than enough to destroy the Earth tenfold.

I'm not sure what the point you were trying to make here was...



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Another brilliant smoking gun thread here on ATS.


You did it - you got "them" Yep we didn't land on the moon.



more useless dribble on another topic that has been beaten to dealth here on ATS and is boring as hell.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I don't agree with everything this guy says but if you look at his whole site he does bring up some interesting stuff that I haven't seen before. He says that radio communication over a distance of 380,000 km is impossible. - I'm trying to ascertain why he believes that.


Probably because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he needs to believe this to prop-up his hare-brained thesis. I mean, this claim is just silly. By the time of Apollo, the US and USSR had sent a two or three dozen probes to the Moon and beyond. This would mean that all such probes were faked; which brings hundreds of thousands of more people into his conspiracy not just the engineers that built and launched them, but also radio astronomers, university students and HAM radio operators all over the world would have to be in on it.


And he also says NASA has kept the lunar probes radiation data a secret.


Wrong. He's hoping that no one calls his bluff and checks. Search the NASA Technical Reports Server for keywords like "radiation", "Explorer", "Pioneer", "Van Allen", etc. Also, check the science library at your local college for back-issues of Science magazine. It has a lot of original publications (of course, this means they're written by and for particle physicists, so they are technical and math-heavy).


He gives a lot of radiation data that if real may seem to suggest that the fly boys had to have gotten more radiation than NASA lets on.


This, of course presupposes that NASA (and the US) somehow holds a monopoly on space radiation data. They don't. Six countries have flown probes to the Moon, and a lot more have satellites in high Earth orbit. Not only can they take their own measurements, they also have to design their satellites to survive in these environments. Electronics are susceptable to radiation, and some of these satellites have to last for years within the Van Allen Belts.

Let me put it this way: If I told you that the oven was set to 350, and you put your tray of cookies in there, and 5 minutes later they were smoking black chunks of charcoal, you would know I had lied to you about the temperature. Similarly, if dozens of international companies spent billions of dollars to build satellites based on the NASA radiation data, and these satellites started suffering early electronics failures, it would be pretty obvious that NASA had low-balled the data. This has not happened.


I think we went there alright, but I also think a lot of the stuff we see footage wise is either made up or heavily doctored.


I have seen zero convincing evidence that this is the case.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
How did they fit that Big moon car into that Little lunar lander???

I'm surprised people still don't know this...I really thought it was common knowledge that the rover was folded up and stowed on the side of the lunar lander. An engineer from General Motors Company devised the plan to "fold" the rover into a 5 feet x 5 feet x 5 feet wedge shape.

Here's a time-lapse video of the Apollo 15 crew deploying their rover. The rover is the silver box attached to the right side of the LM:
www.youtube.com...



Ya know folks.. On this page of the same site ( click Next at bottom a few times) there is a discussion about the live tv footage from the moon.

www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...

Interestingly - It tells how Big tv cameras were in the 60's, they could not be portable and there could be No electricity for the cameras on the Moon.

"And it's strange that there is not one single "moon foto" showing a "moon astronaut" making films with a big TV camera."

That website was wrong. The camera was not too big.
This is the camera used on Apollo 11:
Apollo 11 Video Camera
It was stowed on the outside of the LM and remote-controlled. It took the pictures of Armstrong taking his "Small Step/Giant Leap". The camera was later set up on a tripod. There are pictures of this camera on the Moon on its tripod.

Later missions used other cameras. Apollo 15, 16, and 17 had a video camera mounted to the rover:
Apollo 12 & 14 Video Camera
Apollo 15, 16, &17 Video Camera



"And how should be hold a radio communication over a distance of 380,000 km? A satellite has today about 300 km maximum distance from the Earth. When we admit 500 km maximum and would reinforce the radio signal from the moon to the Earth with satellites we would need a chain of 760 satellites to transmit the radio signal. Add to this the Earth is turning and all satellites would have to turn corresponding to the Earth's turn. So a radio communication from the moon to the Earth is not possible at all."

How in the world does "A satellite today has about 300 km maximum distance from the Earth"??

Thanks completely inaccurate, and a little common sense would tell you that.
Your GPS navigator in your car receives signals from a satellite from 37,000 km (23,000 mi) away, and so does satellite TV like "DirectTV", "SelecTV", or "SkyTV".

The technology to send and receive radio broadcasts over 380,000 km was WIDELY available since the 1960s -- and not just by NASA.

I have no idea why that website would say it was impossible. They should have checked their facts.



This whole site is great.. it brings out Lots of stuff like these Tv camera ideas I haven't heard before.

No -- that site is not great. It is wrong about many, many things. You should not automatically believe everything you read on the internet -- try to get several independent sources of information. With a little of your own research, you will see that the OP's website is a BAD source of information.

It's very easy to do a little research to see how much misinformation is on that site. They are either completely clueless, or they are deliberately lying.

But, please, don't automatically believe me, either -- do your own research.



[edit on 12/23/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, solar radiation, cosmic radiation, Solar flares, temperature control, and many other problems connected with space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology. Any intelligent high school student with a basic physics book can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings.

As proof examine the Lunar Lander on display in the Smithsonian Institute and notice the shrouded and encased cone of the rocket engine INSIDE the Lander which is attached above the rocket nozzle at the bottom center of the Lander. It is this rocket engine which supposedly provided the retro thrust upon landing on the moon and the takeoff thrust during takeoff from the moon. In the actual Lunar Lander this engine is present but in the film and pictures of the inside of the Lunar Lander that was "said" to be on the moon the engine is absent. Then examine the Lunar Lander simulator and you will see exactly where the fake footage was filmed.

It would also be a good idea for you to measure the dimensions of the astronauts in their spacesuits and then measure the actual usable dimensions of the hatch that they had to use to egress and ingress the Lander. Also measure the inside dimensions of the actual Lander and you will see that the astronauts (liars) could not have possibly left or entered in their suits through that hatch. Notice the position of the hinge of the hatch and then examine the Lunar Lander training simulator and measure all the dimensions noted above taking care to note the position of the hinge on the much larger hatch and you may become "illumined"... so to speak.

Please people think for yourselfs. I did the math. Being man and being greedy, we would have already been living on the moon but we never went. This is why they wont go back if challenged by the public. We can't! Think about it, if I was a company I would devlop the moon and make trillions of dollars you know how may selfish rich guys would love to own there own planet?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by I am i
The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, solar radiation, cosmic radiation, Solar flares, temperature control, and many other problems connected with space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology. Any intelligent high school student with a basic physics book can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings.

If a high school textbook states that it is impossible to travel through the Van Allen belts without dying, then that textbook would be wrong.

The RIGHT answer is that the Apollo astronauts were in the Van Allen Belt for about 30 minutes, which is not long enough to get a lethal dose of radiation. Also, the fibrous material in the walls of the spacecraft and the spacesuits offered some limited protection against other cosmic rays -- and there were no bad solar storms during any of the Apollo flights.

It is true that the astronauts got a larger-than-normal dose of radiation, and their chances for getting cancer were increased by a little more than slightly, but these guys were test pilots -- the risk of death was a daily part of their lives even BEFORE they became astronauts.

Do a little of your own research before you say things like "the radiation would have killed them". There are many verifiable independent sources who say otherwise and have data to back up their claims.


[edit on 12/23/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]


jra

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by I am i
The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, solar radiation, cosmic radiation, Solar flares, temperature control, and many other problems connected with space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology.


Clearly you don't know much about the different types of radiation and what can be done to block or minimize there effects.

There weren't any serious solar flares to deal with during the missions for one thing. Cosmic radiation is generally low level, for short term missions like Apollo, it's not a big concern.


Any intelligent high school student with a basic physics book can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings.


No offence, but I think you need to take another look at that physics book.


It is this rocket engine which supposedly provided the retro thrust upon landing on the moon and the takeoff thrust during takeoff from the moon.


I was having a hard time trying to understand what rocket engine you were trying to refer to in your description. The thing is, the rocket engine that is used for landing is not the same one that is used to take off from the Moon. The LM is divided into two halves. The Descent stage and the Ascent stage. So which one is it that you're referring to exactly?


It would also be a good idea for you to measure the dimensions of the astronauts in their spacesuits and then measure the actual usable dimensions of the hatch that they had to use to egress and ingress the Lander.


I don't have a spacesuit and a Lunar Module to measure off of. Perhaps you could supply your numbers and reasons why an astronaut couldn't fit through the hatch. How was the suit measured? Did you have some one inside the suit when your measured it or just empty and laying flat? Did you have some one go in and out through the LM hatch with suit or just rely on tape measurements alone?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by I am i
It is this rocket engine which supposedly provided the retro thrust upon landing on the moon and the takeoff thrust during takeoff from the moon.


What are you babbling about? The landing engine and the takeoff engine are 2 completely seperate engines, with nothing at all in common


but in the film and pictures of the inside of the Lunar Lander that was "said" to be on the moon the engine is absent.


why do you think the engine would be inside the "lander?"



It would also be a good idea for you to measure the dimensions of the astronauts in their spacesuits and then measure the actual usable dimensions of the hatch that they had to use to egress and ingress the Lander. Also measure the inside dimensions of the actual Lander and you will see that the astronauts (liars) could not have possibly left or entered in their suits through that hatch.


Sh tell us those measurements


I did the math.


So show us all this "maths"



if I was a company I would devlop the moon and make trillions of dollars you know how may selfish rich guys would love to own there own planet?


So become a company and do it



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 





My problem with the OP is that he makes too many assumptions which are not factual, but purely what he presumes. But some interesting information nonetheless.


I'm agree with you.
I was too fast about the 100% Perfect, I already said it.
If I had read this link first. very detailed
www.clavius.org...
And this one too
sterileeye.com...
And just take a look at the
I would have been more criticized about the 0% defect.
Apologize.
But before I open this thread, I perform some basic search.
Not enough OK.
This thread is not a duplicate.
Some points have never been discussed before.
Hasselblad 500 EL cameras have been discussed before
But not as the main topic of a thread.

Nevertheless, as you say, there’s good information.

For movies, there’s also “The right stuff” from Philip Kaufman, 1983.
A classic.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 




It's not about believing a particular side. If you investigate thoroughly yourself, you would discover exactly the same as the badastronomy article states.





reply to post by andrewh7 What would possibly make the photo roll up on its own? I will say that the surface temperature is about 100C or 212F, normally if it's a platic cover, it will roll. So I search on ATS, then google, no answer. Did somebody know the answer ?


I don't found any debunk for AS 16-117-18841 ?

john124, did badastronomy.com have the answer to this question ?

or somebody else ?

Please, provide link to any explanation ?



[edit on 23-12-2009 by mixmix]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mixmix
 


Oh, Gawd...not again....

(face/palm)



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mixmix
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 





My problem with the OP is that he makes too many assumptions which are not factual, but purely what he presumes. But some interesting information nonetheless.


I'm agree with you.
I was too fast about the 100% Perfect, I already said it.
If I had read this link first. very detailed
www.clavius.org...
And this one too
sterileeye.com...
And just take a look at the
I would have been more criticized about the 0% defect.
Apologize.
But before I open this thread, I perform some basic search.
Not enough OK.
This thread is not a duplicate.
Some points have never been discussed before.
Hasselblad 500 EL cameras have been discussed before
But not as the main topic of a thread.

Nevertheless, as you say, there’s good information.

For movies, there’s also “The right stuff” from Philip Kaufman, 1983.
A classic.


Actually, this is a pretty good thread. The OP came out with a position. He based it on what he'd seen and referenced it in the post. He defended his position, but was open to new data. Others chimed in with better information. Lots of people learned from it, and the OP acknowleged this. Win!

Waaay too many hotheads open with a complaint based on ignorance, i.e. "Why are there no pictures of 'X'?!" This is not only ignorant, it's also arrogant because they are assuming something which has yet to be determined. This makes them especially foolish when several people come along and say, "Of course there are pictures of 'X'. Here they are..." It's much better to go with, "Do any pictures of 'X' exist?"

Often, the hotheads make things worse. Fearing that they will look bad if they admit they were wrong, they ignore the refutation and immediately jump to another topic.



Re-reading the OP, it's clear that mixmix was soliciting information to determine the veracity of what he'd seen. Not everyone knows where to find the answers, so he asked. That's what makes these boards such good learning tools.

Good job, mixmix. I look forward to more of your threads in the future.





new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join