NASA not responding to FOIA about atypical size and luminisioty of Apollo moon "sun" photos

page: 6
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Not sure if this movie has been posted before but I think that it has some very good info on this subject.

I think that we may have gone to the Moon but, I don't think we have ever seen real footage of it.

A funny thing happen on the way to the Moon!

Google Video Link


[edit on 3/16/2010 by XcLuciFer]




posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I only see a flare in there, nothing else.

They probably did those photos without any filter on the lenses, which causes major flares and halos when pointing the camera directly at sun light.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I appreciate the clarification from people who are more familiar with camera equpment than a lot of us. However, this does nothing to answer the question implied in the thread title. Why won`t NASA respond to these inquiries? I don`t know who inquired. I know they don`t have to respond to every Joe Shmo who defied the official account of the moon landing. But it`s just a thought...


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctor j and inmate c5779
I appreciate the clarification from people who are more familiar with camera equpment than a lot of us. However, this does nothing to answer the question implied in the thread title. Why won`t NASA respond to these inquiries? I don`t know who inquired. I know they don`t have to respond to every Joe Shmo who defied the official account of the moon landing. But it`s just a thought...


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 

As covered previously, the FOIA inquiry did not ask for specific info, ie: data, photo or printed matter. It apparently asked for technical answers to questions posed by the OP.

He may not get an answer.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bochen181
 


Your post on the top of page 3 says it all (mountain perspective one). I love how none of the OS devotees are touching on that one
Probably because you can't argue with it.. and if you can then please I challenge anyone to poke some holes in it!
The problem with believing the OS is that they have to believe all of it to the tee, and as such when a blatant falsehood is brought to light, it is adamantly ignored.
And then a few pages later another one asked for a specific example EXACTLY LIKE THE ONE YOU ALREADY PROVIDED ON PAGE 3..
...
BAH!

keep up the good work bochen!



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I love how we have a lot of experts here ... I mean, if you dont know a lot about how cameras works, you are just watching the discussion, and these people could be saying literally anything

can u guys please enlighten us, do u guys have some kind of degree in physics or what?

its hard to read this without knowing the background of the information ... it looks like a cat fight



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacATK18
reply to post by bochen181
 


Your post on the top of page 3 says it all (mountain perspective one). I love how none of the OS devotees are touching on that one
Probably because you can't argue with it.. and if you can then please I challenge anyone to poke some holes in it!
The problem with believing the OS is that they have to believe all of it to the tee, and as such when a blatant falsehood is brought to light, it is adamantly ignored.
And then a few pages later another one asked for a specific example EXACTLY LIKE THE ONE YOU ALREADY PROVIDED ON PAGE 3..
...
BAH!

keep up the good work bochen!

Did you look at this, in reply to his page 3 post...www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or this.....www.abovetopsecret.com...

?



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


I just said, it is possible. Maybe the original photos are unusable or there is something they don't want you to know


Before I saw the new jaxa elevation data and the direct comparison I didn't also believe they where there. But I don't tink japan and nasa are faking together, only to achieve the same results as i postet on page 3.

There are many things odd on the whole Apollo mission (like the "paper" ship) or the strange movements of the Eagle on the moons orbit.

It looks like it stops rotating in a impossible way...

But they landed on the moon, 100%. The Selene/Jaxa/kaguya Data is the proof. -> www.jaxa.jp...



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by ablue07
I believe we went to the Moon. I also believe that many of the photos were staged.


Well, if we did go to the moon as your believe why would there be the need to stage photos?


Just to play devils advocate here for a moment.

Some say we went to the moon, and within record time we were basically told to get off..so there was need to quickly add more stuff and keep whatever was going on in the moon a secret...

not sure if I buy it, but that could be a good enough reason.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I didn't read through the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been posted, but here is a great website someone shared here on ATS awhile back that talk about the cameras (in full detail) and show the pictures from the moon landing, and basically prove that they are fake.

You can check the website out here:
Fake Moon Landing Photos

To respond to the OP, I wouldn't hold my breath on getting a response about anything concerning the FOIA. It took a few months to get responses back about my friend who was murdered by the FBI (see my link in my signature) and the CIA is basically trying to stall me, and the Marines told me they are "processing my request" so I doubt I'll be getting much, if any, information from either of them.

I just want to add, make sure you are aware of the costs when asking for a request. The first 2hrs of research time is free, and the first 100 pages of paper are free, after that you must pay. However, they cannot charge you without you committing to the fee (you can tell them you're only willing to spend so many dollars, be as specific as you want).



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


No I guess I missed that..

SO the astronaut was jumping when he took the LM pic. Gotcha

?
None of that explains why a mountain in the background should be smaller in a closer picture.


[edit on 16-3-2010 by MacATK18]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MacATK18
 


The angle is completely different in this two shots.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

I'm glad you're able to justify a papier mache looking spacecraft that's flown a quarter million miles and lands on the moon . . .


GF, at least find out what NASA say happened, rather than wasting your energy arguing against your own misguided assumptions. No spacecraft flew a quarter on a million miles and then landed on the moon. Not in the sceptics story, and not in the official story.

That "papier mache looking spacecraft" was the landing module, and only used to ferry the astronauts from the orbiting spacecraft to the surface of the moon, and then back again.



The Apollo Lunar Module (LM) was the lander portion of the Apollo spacecraft built for the US Apollo program by Grumman to carry a crew of two from lunar orbit to the surface and back. It was ferried to lunar orbit by its companion Command/Service Module, a separate spacecraft approximately twice as heavy, which took the astronauts home to Earth. After completing its mission, the LM was discarded.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


The LM ascent stage does NOT stop rotating in an "a(sic) impossible way" once you understand the physics and note the facts of the mission.

Here are the specs for the LM (typical):
(please not the total weight listed is WITH the ascent engine propellant included)


Ascent Stage
Crew: 2
Crew cabin volume: 6.65 m³
Height: 3.54 m
Diameter: 4.27 m
Ascent Stage Mass: 4,547 kg
Ascent Engine Propellants: 2,358 kg
RCS Thrust: 16 × 440 N
RCS Propellants: N2O4/Aerozine 50
RCS Specific Impulse Isp: 290 s (2.84 kN·s/kg)
Ascent Engine Thrust: 16 kN
Ascent Engine Propellants: N2O4/Aerozine 50 (UDMH/N2H4)
Ascent Engine Isp: 311 s (3.05 kN·s/kg)
Ascent Stage Delta-V: 2.22 km/s
Electric Batteries: 28-32V; two 296 A-h, 56.7 kg each


en.wikipedia.org...

So, you can see just how "light" the spacecraft was after it had used its fuel to launch up to Lunar orbit for the rendezvous with the CM.

Also, it is highly probable that the YouTube clip shown is not real-time, but has been sped up. I do not think it was shot at the normal 30 fps.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Topic: The photos of the Sun are perfectly normal, when you understand even BASIC photography techniques! Heck, I only studied photography for one semester in High School (many Moons ago) so I'm not an expert, but I can comprehend that this OP has no basis. It has no claim to make, it is founded on complete ignorance of photographic reality.

[edit on 16 March 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   


thelivingmoon.com


Moon landing was a hoax
at least what we are being told
all they have to do is release the real images
Now isnt that a oxy moron

[edit on 16-3-2010 by blankduck18]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
When I try to pull up the spaceflight.nasa.gov jpeg's it says the following:

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /gallery/images/shuttle/sts-129/hires/ on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request

Why does it say this?



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


The Moon Landing was not faked. None of the claims made by conspiracy theorists to support a hoax hold any water at all and all have been debunked.




I don't think they all have, actually.

Anyway, I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

I think the "Moon Landing" that the world saw could well have been faked but that doesn't mean the US didn't put men on the Moon.

Think about it.

Here we have an occasion where man is stepping into the unknown. For all NASA etc. knew there could've been hidden alien bases or whatever up there, or something that the general populace of Earth maybe shouldn't see. Look how hard the US has tried to surpress info on UFOs over the years, many observers claim that any form of disclosure would cause mass panic/riots/breakdown of society. So does it make sense to show the actual Moon landing live on TV? A situation where anything could've happened? Imagine a 'little green man' popping his head up out of a crater to say "Hi!" The public would've gone nuts!

Plus the last thing NASA would have wanted was something to go wrong live on TV as it would most likely affect their future funding, they needed everything to go smoothly. The best way to ensure that was to have a fake landing for public consumption, and keep the real landing on the hush-hush just to be safe.

Just an idea...




posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sotp
 



Just an idea...


Yes. Exactly that, just an idea.

That has come out of your imagination. Please do yourself a favor, go to a library, look for actual books on the Space Program, and Apollo in particular (but you must understand all that came before, in context, to comprehend it all).

If not the Library, then at least take the time to read the huge amount of information that's on the Web...the real stuff, not the "Hoax" crapolla!



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Look, It's obvious that you people who think that NASA staged the Moon Landings are just "Clutching At Straws" and hoping that someone, somewhere will think you're an expert on the subject. How many photo's do you take that never seem quite right?

There are a whole host of problems when it come to taking photo's. I guess there'd be a whole lot more on the Moon. Without an Atmosphere and "Color Temp" differences between the Earth and the Moon, You'd be sure to OverExpose some of your Photo's and this is exactly what I think has happened here. Some of these Photo's are OverExposed. No wonder the Sun doesn't look right.

Taking Photo's with Film is not quite as simple as everyone thinks it is. I don't blame NASA for not responding to FOIA Requests about another "Pretend Conspiracy" about a few Photo's.

And for you people who start to get on the Bandwagon about this "Photo Of The HUGE Sun/Floodlights", You need to get a brain and use it yourself, seriously. It's people like you who are easily lead down the wrong path. Sheeple.

It just seems that with every Lame thread that get;s started here on ATS, there are a lot of people who "Jump On" as if they know what they're talking about when in fact, they don't.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
This isn't directed at anybody in particular and is just speculative opinion: personally I think they landed, but the Apollo 11 film was faked because NASA wanted to be sure of producing something to show Congress and the world to validate the project and inspire further funding. Once the ploy had worked and approval won they didn't need to worry. Like the forensic economists say, follow the money.
Then there's the issue of the anomalies.
As far as films from the later missions go, obfuscation was largely down to clever camera positioning. But somehow they managed to overlook all sorts of anomalies in the stills photos taken on the ground. Not just the low-res shots from orbit that never look 100% convincing, but close-up Hasselblad shots that were taken and publicised before anybody had thought of image enhancement or zoom-in browsers, or even the web.
most of the anomalous objects are only clearly visible at 2x zoom, and IMHO it is conceivable that NASA simply didn't even try doing that with the originals before they released them.
They just can't have done, and the astronauts taking the photos didn't either. I have already posted about this one before and forgive me if you are already aware of it, but Apollo 17 AS17-137-20993 1400Kb version at 2x zoom: if you haven't seen it before and you are not a sceptic numbskull the floor of that crater will make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.
Maybe it went like this: NASA went looking for the big anomalies they had seen from orbits of the earlier Apollo missions , such as the craters which look suspiciously like quarries, and the six sided hexagonal South Massif.
They literally overlooked the small stuff. Apart from that humungous digging machine I found of course.





new topics
 
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join