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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 121
377
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Sorry, dragnet...your ridicule is misplaced.

FOR ALL ATS, I found this stunning video, a 'professional' version of YouTube contribution, 20:35 in length.

(Special mention for dragnet, et al...WHY would NASA make a "fake" mission like Apollo 12 incur a lightning stirke?? WHY?? Hint: The details of the event were not made public until YEARS later....)




jra

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
They had the technology to do this.


They clearly did not. Do you really find that CBS simulation convincing? What part do you find the most convincing? The animated LM with the giant cartoon flame shooting out?

By the way, could you elaborate on the JAXA comment that I asked about on the previous page?



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Pinke
 


Damn Pinkie yet you forget about CBS who was the only station in existence. They had the technology to do this. Some visual effects artist you are. Not even knowing your history in art and television.




Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Phage
 


But I am still correct they had the technology to film the whole thing.


Cool so made an error. At least I can admit I make mistakes. How about you?


[edit on 24-6-2010 by dragnet53]


I was hoping I wouldn't have to go into this much detail but ...

If we say that CBS was willing to fillm the moon landing and ignore any of the other issues which are inherent in that ...

If the USA was behind the Soviets by say 10 years in space technology - as has been a constant statement in this thread ... then the ENTIRE WORLD was around 50 years behind whoever made the moon landing film.

Inviting you to a possible work flow:

A perforated piece of film might be a half inch to an inch per frame. They're filming in slow motion allegedly so we'll be generous ... We perhaps call it 40 - 50 frames a second. So they have several thousand feet of film. This several thousand feet of film is processed and telecined into standard reels to be broadcast. So some film processing company (likely not CBS - probably kodak) has just processed moon footage which has 2x the number of expected frames. They would then be delivering a DI (Digital intermediate) or copy for offline editing which would have wires going everywhere.

To get the movement correct there would have had to be at least some wire work or similar. So the people processing the wire work managed to future proof their work for 2010 ... There are no matte lines, perfect grain, no artefacts which can be brought up via colour correction ... This would be the first film in History to do this. Ever. For me this is seeming unlikely already.

The photoshop eye dropper didn't exist yet, people with the level of knowledge of colour and film to do this work could have been numbered on one hand. Proper motion tracking was yet to be invented, computers didn't exist in force ... Most work back then was done via command line without a GUI using algorithms ... The find edges algorithm and several other important kernals (maths for filters in lay persons terms) did not exist yet. Most of these things we take for granted these days were invented via huge amounts of trial, error, evolution and building on process.

Running with this theory: All of this happened. Someone managed to write a command line script or hand paint out a pile of wire work. It is possible that some keying was being used as the difference key had been invented in 1959 on the set of Ben Hur ... but ... Again this comes back to future proofing the work. Many hours of it.

The biggest issue, however, is the motion tracking. If wires were used extensively during this - ignoring the fact that this was not a well explored technique by any of the directors capable of it at the time ... and Superman released 1978 would pale in comparison ... Calculating motion tracking during this time would require the equivolent of the 400 odd quad core processors to complete the Poisiden Adventure today - the biggest render farm on the planet nearly. Turning it on might have killed a grid back then.

If you were going to make a hoax film would you take 10 years doing it when 10 minutes of footage would be just as convincing?

The volume of footage alone makes this difficult to believe. This is only the tip of the ice regarding problems with this theory. There's a giant ice mountain requiring melting to make this possible without even going into huge amounts of detail.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
So some film processing company (likely not CBS - probably kodak) has just processed moon footage which has 2x the number of expected frames.


I think that film processing company might just be NASA, just a hunch mind you.
They did have a slightly large budget.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I posted this before but never got a response. It directly relates to JW's videos. I really think it is worthy of a response. Is it possible somone could offer just one ?

edit: there's many parts to this video.



What I have discovered is a pattern over the years of the media unjustifiably promising new technology that will once and for all prove we went to the moon. I believe this only appeals to the average reader. They might say 'There you go, I told you we went.' after reading the articles below.

What doesn't happen with the main stream media is follow up.

For all the claims made that we'll be able to take photos of the 6 Apollo landers from telescopes on earth, none have eventuated.

What I am suggesting is this. The media issues a quote such as this

"The space telescope photographed the landing sites of Apollo 15 and 17." AAP Oct 19, 2005.
ottawa.ctv.ca...

Whilst the article doesn't purport that the Apollo vehicles will be shown in the photos, it would be reasonable to conclude that the average reader would infer that the new Hubble space telescope is indeed going to take photos that show the Apollo landing sites and what's there.

However as time has proven, we have no pictures of the landers or even their elongated shadows from these Hubble pictures.

To further prove this point;

2002: World's biggest telescope to prove Americans really walked on Moon
www.telegraph.co.uk...

"Conspiracy theorists, you have a problem. In an effort to silence claims that the Apollo Moon landings were faked, European scientists are to use the world's newest and largest telescope to see whether remains of the spacecraft are still on the lunar surface."


2010: No conclusive photos


2005: Spacecraft to check out Apollo Moon sites
www.usatoday.com...

2010: No conclusive photos

2009: Proof! Probe photos of Apollo landing sites reveal to doubters that man DID walk on the Moon
www.dailymail.co.uk...

2010: No conclusive photos

edit again: so we can take a photo of someone reading a newspaper on earth... but can't even make out the most basic features of the SIX, yes 6 lunar landers on the moon ? ... oh, there's some rovers as well. (apparently)

[edit on 25-6-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


The media aren't making promises, they're over-hyping telescopes. Would you care if some European consortium developed a new Earth based telescopic system? The average newspaper buyer probably wouldn't. As a film-maker and photo expert, you must understand the concept of resolution. Think about it: if you could put an optical system inside of a satellite that could resolve a person on the ground reading a newspaper, shouldn't a large. Earth based telescope be able to resolve that satellite in detail? Consider that. Spy satellites just don't have the capabilities ascribed to them in the movies. They can spot airfields and construction sites, but they can't resolve things much smaller than a house. The really dramatic aerial views that you see on Google Earth are taken by aircraft.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
You are not comprehending what I'm saying.

I'm saying the resource the public trusts most, the mainstream media, have promised we'd see the Apollo landers for the last 10 years, and still we haven't.
See above links for proof.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



What I have discovered is a pattern over the years of the media unjustifiably promising new technology that will once and for all prove we went to the moon. I believe this only appeals to the average reader. They might say 'There you go, I told you we went.' after reading the articles below.


I hope you read this response and take time to really fathom the reply you are recieving.


For all the claims made that we'll be able to take photos of the 6 Apollo landers from telescopes on earth, none have eventuated.

What I am suggesting is this. The media issues a quote such as this

"The space telescope photographed the landing sites of Apollo 15 and 17." AAP Oct 19, 2005.
ottawa.ctv.ca...

However as time has proven, we have no pictures of the landers or even their elongated shadows from these Hubble pictures.

2010: No conclusive photos


No conclusive photographic proof the landers are there huh?

Are you sure? I bet I can show you that no one needed to wait forty years to see the landers on the surface.


Guess who was the first to Image the Apollo 17 decent stage residing on the Taurus-Littrow Plain?

The Apollo 17 DAC!!!! During ACCENT!



Now before you absurdly state that the video supplied could be staged let me refute that right away.

First the DAC is mounted in the LMP side of the accent stage window looking down at a certain degree. During PITCH OVER which happens about 700-800 Feet altitude the camera can see the landing site, and even its own shadow.

Now don't tell me they have a sound stage that is as high as a 100 Story building or you go on eternal ignore! That would be completely INSANE to say that exists!

Now as you can clearly see, there is your proof that the lander exist!

Here is the Landing in Taurus-Littrow that confirms the Pitch-over in flight at about 800 feet.



Plus here is the landing of Apollo 17. There exists no stage in the world that could fabricate this approach, that stage would need to be 10,000 feet high and miles long.




Now again I ask, why fake what you can actually do in real life?



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by Pinke
So some film processing company (likely not CBS - probably kodak) has just processed moon footage which has 2x the number of expected frames.


I think that film processing company might just be NASA, just a hunch mind you.
They did have a slightly large budget.


There are some photos of the lunar landing site taken in 2009 that you can see - some in the middle of this thread. I'm not a telescope expert, but I imagine even the best scopes we have at a couple of hundred thousand miles away are going to struggle. (I googled and the photos are equiv to a google maps image which is quite acceptable to me)

Some people have just been over promised. It's not abnormal in the media and science fields at all. Over promising = grants/funding. How many times have we been promised the cure for cancer???

As for NASA having piles of money ... It doesn't begin to solve any of the problems stated above such as pulling out light year advanced media tech and concepts.

The main issue with the 16mm film is there is a finite and documented amount of the stuff made. It was actually Kodak (not NASA) who prepared the NASA film. They provided NASA with 33 rolls of it and the system to scan the footage so it could be sent back to Earth. If this was filmed in slow motion they would have required more than this.

NASA could not have done any of this without Kodak. So Kodak, a talented film crew, and studio with amazing amounts of technology produced a film with no one knowing and all agreed to be quiet? Even if they did it wouldn't be so much a logistical smoking gun as a billowing artillery battery I feel.

'Hollywood' isn't exactly a huge place. Entire crews with grip and lighting gear can't just go missing with no one noticing. If it is to be believed NASA was killing its own personel to cover this up they would have started with the 10 - 20 world class film makers and a firing squad.

If a hoax was in place Kodak or Kodak trained NASA employees would have had to create the DI for it (see above) or it's being suggested that a huge amount of footage had post work completed on it using the original medium with no errors or mistakes.

Further to this is the issue of film continuity. For the NASA moon hoax to be real it would require both the worst and the best continuity supervision ever seen in any film to this day. So on one hand they perfected the direction of light in relation to the sun, gravity motion, and back plate placement ... Yet they made mistakes such as making a flag move when it shouldn't or absent mindedly forgetting a blast crater? Why would they delibrately leave massive mistakes in this film? It's not like any other film such as say Gladiator where a solid orange light can double for fire and the director would say ... oh the audience won't care/notice ... The director would firmly believe their life was resting on the success or failure of this hoax.

Then there's the further issue of persisting in the hoax which would require new photoshop and VFX artists to process more new footage and photos. This turns into an ever expanding hoax unless we have 70 year old photoshop veterans working away.

As for the moon faker video ... It's not much different from a Michael Moore documentary. Over emphasising specific comments from people, using uneducated 'common sense' and hyperbole. 'A photograph of the exact same mission that was proven to be faked!' etc ... And it just adds more 'out there' concepts - that NASA surveyed the terrain in 1967 then took two years to film an epic with perfect dimensions to the existing terrain. They then created a stage projection or several km long set with this information with perfect grain matching and depth. They then disposed of their several tonnes of moon dust.


I find this subject fascinating, and honestly wish I'd written on it for a thesis or something.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


Hi theability, I don't think you understood my post. It's about how no telescope despite the press releases has managed to take a photo of any apollo remnants in 10 years.

See above for all the promises that were never delivered. The links are all there.

edit: if someone can please post one photo of CONCLUSIVE proof that some apollo remnants are on the moon, well I rest my case. Please remember the word 'conclusive'

[edit on 25-6-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



You are not comprehending what I'm saying.


No, you're not comprehending what the articles are saying:


CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — The Hubble Space Telescope has taken a rare look at the moon to gauge the amount of oxygen-bearing minerals in the lunar soil that could be mined by astronauts and used in a new moon mission.

NASA said Wednesday that the telescope's ultraviolet observations of two Apollo landing sites and an unexplored but geologically intriguing area will help scientists pick the best spots for robot and human exploration....

NASA scientist Jim Garvin described the August observations as "CSI does the moon through Hubble."

"We're going to try to do forensic science using places on the moon we know, two of the Apollo sites particularly noteworthy for their soils," he said.

The space telescope photographed the landing sites of Apollo 15 and 17. Scientists know from rocks collected by the moonwalkers how much of the mineral ilmenite, an iron titanium oxide, is present at those locations.


ottawa.ctv.ca...

In other words, they're comparing the ultra-violet signatures of geologically known areas with unexplored areas to determine if the chemical composition is similar. Where does it "promise" pictures of the actual space litter?


Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use the power of all four mirrors. "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said.
Dr West insisted, however, that the decision to examine the landing sites was not driven by the conspiracy theory. "We do not question the reality of the landings," he said. "It is more for instrument-testing purposes."


www.telegraph.co.uk...

Do you see the word "promise here? I don't. In order to test the resolution of the new system (which involves four digitally controlled mirrors, by the way) they decided to go for something flashy. So they failed. Perhaps one day the atmospheric conditions will be just right on a night when one of the sites is on the terminator and they'll get a "smoking gun" photo of the space litter. (This is a speculation, not a "promise!") When that happens, of course, Moon hoaxers will point to the digital imaging aspect of the photograph and claim it was electronically "faked." That is a promise!

Edit to fix quotation.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


It doesn't bloody matter!!!

How many times, in how many different ways must this be explained to you?

The resources needed to devote and focus on the landing sites cost time and money. It is a foolish waste, and no one is willing to waste it. Would serve no purpose, especially since the LRO photos are now available. THEY are probably better resolution anyway...

In any case, even IF a 'telescope' photo was made, after the time and effort (and if someone bothered to finance it)...the "hoax" and "conspiracy" crowd would STILL wave it away!! They will not allow any facts get in the way of their ridiculous "beliefs"....



[edit on 25 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


My gawd, my gawd perpetuating ignorance at your own demise.

I can't see the logic in your statement.




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Still haven't seen that conclusive image of the 6 lunar landers still on the moon.

Why after 10 years of promises haven't we seen all 6 of them ... see above posts for links.

If we can read a newspaper from earth orbit, why can't we see the Apollo landers on the moon ?

Can't we even see one of their elongated shadows ?

Don't forget, there are the rovers and those high gain antenna dishes as well.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Still haven't seen that conclusive image of the 6 lunar landers still on the moon.

Why after 10 years of promises haven't we seen all 6 of them ... see above posts for links.

If we can read a newspaper from earth orbit, why can't we see the Apollo landers on the moon ?

Can't we even see one of their elongated shadows ?

Don't forget, there are the rovers and those high gain antenna dishes as well.



You really don't read other people's posts, do you? Go back and read my posts. No-one ever promised you anything. Satellites can't read a newspaper from orbit, at least not in the real world the rest of us live in.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


:shk:


Still haven't seen that conclusive image of the 6 lunar landers still on the moon.

I showed you the best image and conclusive proof of the decent stage on the lunar surface and you still say this above?


Your awareness level is that of the motto of ATS DENY IGNORANCE!

Which is a lack of awareness.

pk55, why do you post here about the moon? Seriously I really need to ask this question, because no matter what anyone has to refute, you have your mind made up and nothing even LOGIC and EVIDENCE seems to sway you from wanting to jump from the hoax bridge.
:shk:
Why? I mean seriously why?

I mean seriously what is your goal, to be right even though you have all the proof to show you that your stance is incorrect?

You definitely don't care about the truth of things that is completely apparent.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   


Originally posted by theability
reply to post by ppk55
 



What I have discovered is a pattern over the years of the media unjustifiably promising new technology that will once and for all prove we went to the moon. I believe this only appeals to the average reader. They might say 'There you go, I told you we went.' after reading the articles below.


I hope you read this response and take time to really fathom the reply you are recieving.


For all the claims made that we'll be able to take photos of the 6 Apollo landers from telescopes on earth, none have eventuated.

What I am suggesting is this. The media issues a quote such as this

"The space telescope photographed the landing sites of Apollo 15 and 17." AAP Oct 19, 2005.
ottawa.ctv.ca...

However as time has proven, we have no pictures of the landers or even their elongated shadows from these Hubble pictures.

2010: No conclusive photos


No conclusive photographic proof the landers are there huh?

Are you sure? I bet I can show you that no one needed to wait forty years to see the landers on the surface.


Guess who was the first to Image the Apollo 17 decent stage residing on the Taurus-Littrow Plain?

The Apollo 17 DAC!!!! During ACCENT!

---

Southern? Californian?










Now before you absurdly state that the video supplied could be staged let me refute that right away.

First the DAC is mounted in the LMP side of the accent stage window looking down at a certain degree. During PITCH OVER which happens about 700-800 Feet altitude the camera can see the landing site, and even its own shadow.

Now don't tell me they have a sound stage that is as high as a 100 Story building or you go on eternal ignore! That would be completely INSANE to say that exists!


What visual cues inform you that the so called craft has risen 700 or 800 feet ?
This trick can be easily done with scale models. What you imagine as 700 feet can actually be just 7 feet.

Next.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

I believe it would be impossible to prove to you that anything exists.

EX: Did New York City exist in the 60's?
All we have is photographs, videos, eyewitnesses, etc. All of which you have discounted in this thread. All of which could be faked.

By your reasoning, it's quite possible that New York did not exist prior to the 90's. It's even possible that it doesn't exist even now. (scale models?)

(If you happen to have visited NYC, then substitute New York with Istanbul, or anywhere you haven't been to.)

My point is, short of taking you personally to the moon, I don't think you'd ever be convince. Even if you did go personally, it would be quite possible that you were actually a victim of MK-Ultra mind control. Like I said, there is no convincing you.

 

question (to everyone)

Is JW posting in this thread?

[edit on 25/6/10 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Still haven't seen that conclusive image of the 6 lunar landers still on the moon.

Why after 10 years of promises haven't we seen all 6 of them ... see above posts for links.

If we can read a newspaper from earth orbit, why can't we see the Apollo landers on the moon ?

Can't we even see one of their elongated shadows ?

Don't forget, there are the rovers and those high gain antenna dishes as well.




files.abovetopsecret.com...

Are you BLIND! picture above posted MANY times first by jra!

Still from DAC video as Apollo 17 left the Moon compared with the LRO

Use ctrl and + on your keyboard and zoom in see the shadows you asked for then compare the track marks left by the ASTRONAUTS you still have not answered are you the guy who claimed to be a cinematographer YES or NO.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Pinke
 


Damn Pinkie yet you forget about CBS who was the only station in existence. They had the technology to do this. Some visual effects artist you are. Not even knowing your history in art and television.


I doubt CBS was behind all the faked footage,
(And ouch, they weren’t the only station on air at the time… they wont let you off easy for that one…)

But, anyway CBS definitely implanted the landing into the minds of people. And you will find plenty of people who swear the saw the ship land, when all they saw was a simulation; because CBS simply filled in the gaps that could not be ”realistically” filmed and the human mind did the rest.
CBS didn’t need to make their simulations too realistic looking, because they wanted to create a distinction between what they called “actual live footage” and their simulation. Although CBS used more than just animation, they used miniature models as well, as you can see in the links that I posted:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and lets not forget my comparison between the CBS coverage and the German film “Woman In The Moon" (Frau Im Mond) from 1929. The similarities are simply uncanny.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also



Douglas Trumbull, head of Trumball Film Effects, and creator of many of the effects for the film "2001: A Space Odyssey" also worked on CBS coverage of the Apollo 11 presentation. Trumball worked in Studio City, California for six weeks to prepare for the Apollo 11 broadcast. Trumbull developed a "graphic display projection system" that composed sentences, created moving diagrams, and simulated events for CBS television news coverage of the Apollo 11 mission. (Source: October 1969 issue of "American Cinematographer" magazine, page 984.) Trumbull's involvement in the Apollo broadcasts means that some of the same talent was involved in 2001 and Apollo.







Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Phage
 

But I am still correct they had the technology to film the whole thing.
Cool so made an error. At least I can admit I make mistakes. How about you?
[edit on 24-6-2010 by dragnet53]



Well lets find out if s/he is willing to admit to mistakes or false preconceptions



I was hoping I wouldn't have to go into this much detail but ...
If we say that CBS was willing to fillm the moon landing and ignore any of the other issues which are inherent in that ... If the USA was behind the Soviets by say 10 years in space technology - as has been a constant statement in this thread ... then the ENTIRE WORLD was around 50 years behind whoever made the moon landing film.

The rest of the world was pretty much behind because they were recovering from WW2 and various other hot and cold conflicts.





Inviting you to a possible work flow:
A perforated piece of film might be a half inch to an inch per frame. They're filming in slow motion allegedly so we'll be generous ... We perhaps call it 40 - 50 frames a second. So they have several thousand feet of film. This several thousand feet of film is processed and telecined into standard reels to be broadcast.


You have mentioned this before.
What do you mean by thousands of reels of film?
Where are you getting those numbers from?
Are you referring to the 16mm film?




THE "DAC" The Maurer "DAC" cameras used to shoot this footage were modified variable frame rate 16mm motion picture film cameras that were used by the various Apollo crews throughout their missions to the Moon to film scenes of interest through the windows of the spacecraft, as well as to shoot exterior footage during lunar surface "moonwalk" operations and Trans-Earth-Coast EVA ops in cis-lunar space during that return-to-Earth phase of the missions. When it was being used in "automatic" mode, the DAC camera could be set by the astronaut to expose the film within it's magazine at one of three set frame-rates - 1, 6 or 12 frames-per-second. In the 1 fps mode, the DAC also could be (and occasionally was) used as a still picture camera to shoot single frames of film. When placed in "semi-automatic" mode, the DAC camera also offered a 24 fps filming capability, although that mode was used somewhat sparingly during the Apollo program as it only allowed for a maximum 3.7 minutes of run time before a film magazine change was required… the DAC was functioning more as a sequential still camera rather than a true 24fps motion picture camera (I realize all motion picture film cameras are essentially stop-motion sequential still cameras, so I am referring to the frame-rate playback issues here). The DAC camera could be used as a hand-held movie camera or it could be hard-mounted to various points inside or outside the spacecraft (or to the LRV or the MET during lunar surface ops) in order to provide a stable platform and hands-free filming capability.

I love using UFO believers because they scrutinize everything from Apollo to minute details:
www.youtube.com...



The volume of footage alone makes this difficult to believe. This is only the tip of the ice regarding problems with this theory. There's a giant ice mountain requiring melting to make this possible without even going into huge amounts of detail.



So again, how much footage do you think was filmed? What was filmed? How many frames? And what do you base it on? Until you can produce evidence for volumes of footage then there is no iceberg to worry about.
And even so, you think NASA didnt have the budget for it?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join