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.

 

Who took this photo on the moon ?

page: 11
105
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


...so you're trying to tell me that the "similarly shaded background" is sufficient to make his entire life support system disappear, so it is completely invisible?

I'm currently looking at a very high resolution A2 photograph of Aldrin stepping off the LIM (the famous one taken with him on the stairs and about to step down).

His back pack is clearly visible.

In your own post, there is a comparison with a head-on shot of ?Armstrong? on the Moon. Even his backpack is clearly visible yet his head and body are in the way of 99% of it.

The back pack is larger than you think. Given the angle of the astronaut, it should be clearly visible.




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
For comparison:

[url=http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3f663298ec0.jpg][ /url]
Click for bigger view


[edit on 23-4-2010 by Deaf Alien]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
...so you're trying to tell me that the "similarly shaded background" is sufficient to make his entire life support system disappear, so it is completely invisible?

You know, it would save a bit of time if you READ what I said...

It looks as if he is facing away, but he is NOT. If he is FACE ON, as in the famous picture of ALDRIN (not Armstrong), little of the PLSS shows.


I'm currently looking at a very high resolution A2 photograph of Aldrin stepping off the LIM (the famous one taken with him on the stairs and about to step down).
His back pack is clearly visible.

LIM? You've done a lot of research on this, haven't you...

Let me guess, that would be AS11-40-5868? Umm, yeah right, that's just like the image in question.


Er, he's not exactly facing the camera, even at 45 degrees, in that pic...


In your own post, there is a comparison with a head-on shot of ?Armstrong? on the Moon. Even his backpack is clearly visible yet his head and body are in the way of 99% of it.


Did you bother to actually watch the video?
Given the different lighting (which the video addresses by reversing and contrast balancing the Aldrin picture to emulate the effect) much of the astronaut simply vanishes into the greyscale background.


The back pack is larger than you think. Given the angle of the astronaut, it should be clearly visible.

Sigh... I know exactly how big the PLSS is. I'm disputing the angle of the astronaut, and the lighting...



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
But don't listen to me, look and listen to this posh Englishperson..


Indeed, One would agree with said posh Englishperson, ears..

(and a great example too I might add, on how illusions can make 10 page threads!!)




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
I found a new link that has a larger 2.2M file.

This one is a little brighter and higer res, but it doesn't appear that much different. Maybe somebody with good image skills can find a difference.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Torch of God
reply to post by ppk55
 


I dont think this picture was taken on the moon. The reflection in the visor has no air pack therefore he is either dead or on earth!




maybe the are doing the whole 'weekend at bernies@ gag ?



(if you look closely at the pic it looks like his backpack is hanging down around his a s s like he is on a smoke break? )



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
I found a new link that has a larger 2.2M file.

This one is a little brighter and higer res, but it doesn't appear that much different. Maybe somebody with good image skills can find a difference.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...


I'm impressed, ppk - I had actually forgotten where those slightly larger scans were available. Thanks for that - I might rethink my initial impression of you...
(It might be backhanded, but it's a genuine compliment!)

It still shows the strong effect suggesting the astronaut is at an angle, which is what I, and 'boozyscientist' from my video link, dispute.

I believe it is an optical illusion caused by the lighting, that he is almost exactly face on, and that the shadowing has caused the strange effect.

Now because I always try to walk the walk, I'll use that higher resolution image and do a bit of work on it, using essentially the same process that boozy did, but at higher resolution and with bit of added notation to clarify it. It will be done step by step, so that anyone can repeat and verify the results.

However that will take a while, and.. I have a life. Could be a few days before I get to it. But, I will be back. (If anyone wants to beat me to it, please feel free!)



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
I found a new link that has a larger 2.2M file.

This one is a little brighter and higer res, but it doesn't appear that much different. Maybe somebody with good image skills can find a difference.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...


Huh, thats the same high res image as posted on page 1

Scraze's Post

????



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


I agree with most of what you have said mirage.

This is evidence of a covert agenda, and probably evidence that whilst the mission personnel and hardware were in fact real, and the rocket launches actually did take place, the missions did not take place as was portrayed to the public.

I believe there are several reasons for this, and requires a somewhat lengthy explanation, both of the history of this covert programme, and exactly who the '4th' figure may actually be.

One reason for the covert programme was that the technology used to actually get people there (men AND women), was far more advanced than the official rocket technology shown to the public.

The official method is essentially a couple of thousand year old technology, in use by the Chinese almost 2,000 years ago, albeit in an obviously very crude form...and the Greeks before that, (steam 'rocket' propulsion).
These are two very crude examples of what is essentially the same principle. Newtons third law, of action/reaction, or for every action, there is an equal and opposite re-action.

Or put another way, light the fuel inside a tube, open at one end, and the tube will move in the opposite direction to the rapidly escaping gasses...a rocket. Essentially the same technology, in principle, as shown to us by NASA.

Most of this stuff deserves it's own thread, but i don't know enough about the intricacies and exact histories of it all to to properly tie it all together, it really needs an expert to go over most of this to do it justice, but in brief;

They used rockets as the show for the masses. The actual technology used by the real space programme is obviously secret, so we can only guess at it's operation and composition. But i'm willing to bet, it is based on another captured German/NAZI secret technology being worked on during the 30's and 40's, technology which itself was discovered and re-engineered.

Before the outbreak of war, the Germans conducted many expeditions to remote parts of the world, searching and researching so called esoteric texts, from India, the Middle and far East, and Latin America. They were also very interested in Antarctica.

They had a special interest in the ancient texts and oral traditions of the lands and people they visited, especially the Indian 'Vedas', which precisely described advanced human and 'god' operated flying machines as far back in history as 10,000 - 15,000 years. They speak of many very advanced technologies, well beyond the scope of this thread, but suffice to say, it's very likely that during the extensive explorations and well funded research carried out by Germany at this time, results were obtained, which the US grabbed at the end of WW2.

Operation 'Paper-clip' brought the scientists and engineers over that were working on these projects, and used rocketry as the guise, as there was a parallel NAZI rocketry programme in existence in the form of the V series, and was the perfect cover for research and development of the more exotic craft and propulsion/energy systems.

These systems are the basis for the covert space programme, whilst the NAZI parallel rocketry programme was used as the public face of the overt space programme.

But what does all this have to with the fourth figure in the visor reflection?

Well, my contention is just as controversial as most of the text above, however NASA has been caught lying so many times over the years, it's even earned itself the moniker of Never A Straight Answer, so the fact this is common knowledge, shows not all is as it appears with the supposedly civilian, but ostensibly military organisation NASA.

I contend that although humans have, in modern times, visited and set up bases of operations on the moon, they were not achieved through rocket and associated technology. A far superior technology was and is still being used, and rocketry is still used as the cover.

The Apollo era astronauts never set foot on the moon, although they believe they did, or at least at the time and for years afterwards they believed they did.
MK-ULTRA, was the mind programming projects of the 60's and beyond, and i hypothesise this was used on the astronauts who were selected not only for the obvious critera, but also for the intrinsic ability to be easily hypnotised. They used mind control on these people, to believe the we're on the moon, and not in a giant sound stage / film studio.

The fourth figure, may simply be a set hand, or someone else working on the elaborate and expensive deception.

There are several films of this movie set available around the net, touted officially, as training and /or publicity films, which contain full sized 'mock ups' of the LEM, full suited astronauts attached to 'wires' and modelled and painted backdrops. They even had a giant model of the moon, geographically accurate, complete with all the major craters and features...as a 'training' aid...all inside a...giant...enclosed...sound...stage...film...set, which had a pitch black roof, which incidentally is what the astronauts 'remember' seeing whenever they looked up at the non-existent stars.

I'll find the images and/or film clips and post them as an update if anyone is interested. It may open your eyes a little, if not very widely indeed.

Whatever the truth is, it is definitely NOT what the liars at NASA are telling us.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Your right, sorry my bad ... !


Originally posted by badw0lf
Huh, thats the same high res image as posted on page 1

Scraze's Post

????



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Very odd photo. Is it possible the camera was mounted on equipment or a tripod.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


What about this clip, it's the first EVA for Apollo 17. Is the camera being controlled remotly because it moves around alot when both Astronauts are putting up the flag.

www.dailymotion.com...

Edit: It's ok i just read up on the mission, the camera was able tp be controlled from Earth. Sorry all. The clip still good to watch if ypu into the landings etc

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Havick007]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by badw0lf
 


Wow - I'm impressed at your conviction that this is merely an optical illusion. I plan to have a think through the various angles involved, and will come back with sketches accompanying the results. My gut feeling here, after careful study of the Hi-Res image, is that the person in the reflection is most definitely not the other astronaut who was officially there.

No camera, no backpack, no front-mounted tubing, extremely casual stance (as though observing something that had little or nothing to do with him). No active positioning, or effort to posture himself in a way that would convince anyone that he was trying to obtain a clear photo. Odd shade differences between upper and lower clothing. As per ususal I'm skimming threads, so apologies if I've missed anything or repeated anything. I'm sure there's something odd going on here.

Subscribed now, will come back with time to read and research fully.

Best Wishes,

Noah.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by NoahTheSumerian
 


Your not alone Noah!

Please do have a look at the angles involved, but where the reflected '4th mission' figure is standing, would not be as warped as some on here would have us believe.

The warping effects of the convex visor, is mostly apparent at the extreme edges, or IOW, where it joins onto the helmet itself.

Not so much where the figure is.

If anything, the effect would be one of slight elongation, not a 45 degree shift in perspective.

I'll be interested to see the results of your research.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
This comparison below is from a different Apollo controversy (12). I present it to show how lack of detail can distort things. Bear in mind, this is a relatively direct frontal view and the PLSS outline is very diminished. Add the curvature of face shield, low resolution and further distance from subject and Wah Laa!



i142.photobucket.com...



[edit on 23-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaxBlack
Excellent observation skills. While if there were suppose to only be two astronauts on the moon, indeed it raises the question of who took the photo which implies a third party camera man.

With NASA and all the lies they spread, I wouldn't doubt if NASA claims the photo was taken from a ground observation telescope on Earth. In this way, they can then dispel the concern about a third party and then ignore any future requests for explanations about inconsistencies with the moon photos.

Thanks for the posting and once again I must say, you display some excellent observation skills in finding this anomaly.



NASA stands for:

Never a Straight answer. It is hard to trust them for sure. Especially with what happened with pictures of mars such as the two faces of mars.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Sometimes (like with mirrors) there are reflections of reflections. Maybe do to the angle of the helmet and multiple reflections this was the outcome.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by the_chilla
 


I appreciate the effort put forth. But cmon use a pic hosting site that doesn't put a gigantic unmovable popup ad over the important part of the picture.


hmm.. I tested the link a few times before posting - there were some ads but not any popups or ones that covered the pic! Can you recommend a good hosting site? Popups annoy the sh** outta me too so I wont be using that site again!

Thanks for the comment too. I need to learn how to embed an image as well I think, im new to posting on ATS so thats my excuse!



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


There are several films of this movie set available around the net, touted officially, as training and /or publicity films, which contain full sized 'mock ups' of the LEM, full suited astronauts attached to 'wires' and modelled and painted backdrops. They even had a giant model of the moon, geographically accurate, complete with all the major craters and features...as a 'training' aid...all inside a...giant...enclosed...sound...stage...film...set, which had a pitch black roof, which incidentally is what the astronauts 'remember' seeing whenever they looked up at the non-existent stars.


yeah kind of like this?



I couldn't find the actual upload and had to look at the Hispanic side.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by dragnet53]

[edit on 23-4-2010 by dragnet53]

[edit on 23-4-2010 by dragnet53]

[edit on 23-4-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
For comparison:

[url=http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3f663298ec0.jpg][ /url]
Click for bigger view


[edit on 23-4-2010 by Deaf Alien]


The space suit is in the center of frame of this photo.

In the OP's photo, the rock shadow/gnomon was in the center, and the astronaut was to one side - i.e., the camera was not pointed toward the astronaut, but toward the gnomon.


[edit on 4/23/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join