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: 143
377
<< 140  141  142    144  145  146 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well, i think im basing my opinion on a documentory i watched a while ago.

im not too good with arguments.

But what do you belive?

I kinda look at the videos and see fake written all over them.

And the fact that they wont go back to the moon is a good sign of the Fakery, beacuse they know the technology we have today could do a better job catching them out than using it to fake another landing.

The technology they had in the 60's and 70's was used in advantage to pull off the Hoax. Take the Camera quality for example.
They had soo much better in those days.

Im no expert though, these are my own thinkings.

Anyway, they dont need to returm to the moon. They proved to the russians that they could do it.

Prove me wrong




posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Prove me wrong


I hope no one falls for this, as it seems like an obvious attempt at trolling. No offense, but this is the same line used by a handful of people already in this debate and you've just registered.

You've been asked to read and said that it is too difficult for you. Why then would you bother reading anyone's replies in this thread?

And proving it to you ... no that seems too much like a never ending trap. The moon landing is complex. No one person knows everything about it. A media person might be able to advise you on the footage and light conditions, a physicist might give you advice on the maths, an engineer might ... blah blah ... Then you may just say 'ah but you still haven't explained the ninja I saw in frame 223 of footage roll C!!!!'

No one person will be able to do this for you.

I'll also point out that using Adam Savage as a target to say 'oh people who believe in the moon landing are wrong!' ... Anyone that uses Penn and Teller or the Mythbusters as a single reference for all their thinking is just going up the wrong path. They have a commercial half hour of television to deal with topics others have written novels about.

Jarrah ambushing Adam is nothing useful. Ambushing a special effects artist on one topic out of 169 he has dealt with will obviously make you look good.

en.wikipedia.org...


jra

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Robottix
And the fact that they wont go back to the moon is a good sign of the Fakery...


How so? Could you elaborate on that? What about the fact that NASA isn't given enough money to go back?


The technology they had in the 60's and 70's was used in advantage to pull off the Hoax.


Again, how so? Could you be more specific? Special effects in movies of that time didn't come close to being convincing, nor are the special effects in movies today. So how were they able to do it so well with Apollo?


Take the Camera quality for example.
They had soo much better in those days.


What camera's are you talking about. The 70mm Hasselblad? The 16mm DAC? or the live TV camera?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Robottix
 


They used HASSELBLAD cameras on the Moon surface some of the best cameras ever made
and they STILL ARE TODAY but if you actually knew ANYTHING about photography you
would not use that to back your CLAIM.

Prove me wrong



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Robottix
Well, i think im basing my opinion on a documentory [sic] i watched a while ago.

im not too good with arguments.

But what do you belive[sic]?

I kinda look at the videos and see fake written all over them.

And the fact that they wont go back to the moon is a good sign of the Fakery, beacuse[sic] they know the technology we have today could do a better job catching them out than using it to fake another landing.

...Take the Camera quality for example. They had soo much better in those days.

Im no expert though, these are my own thinkings.

Anyway, they dont need to returm to the moon. They proved to the russians that they could do it.

Prove me wrong


I guess those last two lines should show you are just a troll, but just in case, let's just er.. kinda.. summarise..

You just registered.

You seem to be having a bit of a problem with your spelling and grammar, and admit that you are 'no expert', aren't good at arguments, and are basing your opinion on some unnamed 'documentory' (er, you 'think' you are, anyway..).

You say they had better cameras back then, indicating that you haven't seen any of the high resolution Hasselblad scans, OR don't know the difference between video/film/still imagery OR don't have a clue about what sort of camera equipment existed then or now.. or some combination thereof.

And you haven't been specific, and seem unwiling to commit yourself to discuss any of it.

You finish off by giving a reason for non-return that contradicts your position.

Did I mention you just registered?

And do you see where I'm heading here? (I'm heading in two directions actually, but just pick your favorite..)

So, why don't you redeem yourself by doing just one simple thing. Tell us which particular issue raised by Jarrah White is the VERY BEST, most convincing information, in your opinion.

That way, you show you have a grasp of the topic that deserves respect, and makes your posts worth something.

Also, if you express your opinion well, you will be engaged in a sensible discussion on that topic and you may well learn some stuff.

If you pick something that has been thoroughly debunked, you will tell us something else, of course... but hey, it's all good!

So, back to you...



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Robottix
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well, i think im basing my opinion on a documentory i watched a while ago.

im not too good with arguments.

But what do you belive?

I kinda look at the videos and see fake written all over them.

And the fact that they wont go back to the moon is a good sign of the Fakery, beacuse they know the technology we have today could do a better job catching them out than using it to fake another landing.

The technology they had in the 60's and 70's was used in advantage to pull off the Hoax. Take the Camera quality for example.
They had soo much better in those days.

Im no expert though, these are my own thinkings.

Anyway, they dont need to returm to the moon. They proved to the russians that they could do it.

Prove me wrong


Good for you. Common sense prevails again!

They haven't gone back... even though they had money to do so. And as a matter of fact, nobody has gone there at all since. Therefore we have no independent verification.

You look at the videos & photos and you see them as fake. Good, you dont need to be an expert in photography to notice it. Just like you dont need to be an expert to identify special effects in movies. The first Apollo missions had 16mm cameras and I dont recall them bringing them onto the surface. No instead they used those crappy TV cameras that sent signals to the Earth, and Im wondering why they didnt transmit signals after the Astronauts left?

I mean they put remote controlled video cameras on the moon and they stopped using them. And we know they worked without LM because we saw them shoot the LM leaving! The opportunity to but a telescope on the moon was completely blown!

And if it was an issue of weight, they could have launched packages to the moon for the astronauts to assemble experiments and devices. I mean, look how close they landed to their targets. 600 feet from Surveyor?


How did they even find it?
They must have had some sophisticated top secret navigation systems onboard and detailed maps.

Check out this map of the Apollo 11 landing site.
Look at the details:
history.nasa.gov...

This 1978 site map is a product of a long collaboration between the Defence Mapping Agency and the US Geological Survey. It was originally drawn at a scale of 1:250. Compare with a USGS site map dated 11 August 1969. The 1978 map may derive from more sophisticated photogrammetric analysis and the rough-and-ready analysis used to get a map ready for the Preliminary Science Report.


You wonder what the Defense Mapping Agency has to do with Apollo landing sites.

So anyway thats 1978. And Im thinking, nahhh that cant be. That much detail, at 1:250 scale? It must be guess work, artists renditions. It cant actually be the real topography of that terrain.

Now check out current photos of landing site:

JAXA/SELENE
history.nasa.gov...

SMART-1
history.nasa.gov...

I dont see any LM or anything relating to it. And the scale sucks.

So the final test must be the LRO pictures.
They will show that the 1978 map cant be the real deal.
We shouldn't be seeing the same topography because we couldnt have
taken such detailed images of the landing site at that scale, right?

Third Look - 01 October 2009

This image was taken from 50 km altitude with the Sun at an elevation of 87.8 degrees and an azimuth of 195.3 degrees.

From what I understand the closest this craft came to the moon.
history.nasa.gov...

I tell you what, that LRO image looks pretty close to the 1978 traverse map, I see many of the same terrain features. And the Traverse map shows more detail!

Now lets ask this question readers.
If you were going to land a craft on a foreign country or planet, would you not want detailed maps of the area on a scale useful traveling, to ensure safe landing, and to ensure explorers do not get lost? I mean, look at the size of the LM, thats what I would expect from the LRO.

So its logical that a Traverse map of that scale would exist prior to landing. But that brings up another problem. After 40 years NASA cant get better images than what they could get in the 60's and 70's? They can land a man on the moon, but they cant take better pictures of the moon on a scale that we can clearly see and identify the LM and its debris?

Can anyone explain this? Otherwise I will say, taxpayers, you have been had.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Robottix
 


Hello and Welcome to the forum.



Well, i think im basing my opinion on a documentory i watched a while ago.


Be careful relying on Jarrah White as evidence. There is 143 pages, 2844 posts devoted on this thread with people claiming that he offers proof about the landing being faked. Those videos have thoroughly dismantled to pieces already.

Jarrah White offers nothing credible, nor scientific.


im not too good with arguments.


ATS is a place you can learn. But I guarantee you that listening is required. If you don't read what people have posted, your not going to get far.


But what do you belive?
Again as others have asked, read the thread.


I kinda look at the videos and see fake written all over them.


Kinda looked? Let me take the time to explain to you that the people here on ATS, on this thread, KNOW about APOLLO.

It takes more than a glance to call something a fake.


And the fact that they wont go back to the moon is a good sign of the Fakery, beacuse they know the technology we have today could do a better job catching them out than using it to fake another landing.


Let me point out the technology your using today is a direct descendant of the Apollo program. So the technology your using today is from the 1960's.

The military is way ahead of you or I in regard to advancement and always has been that way. Without programs like Apollo, you'd never be on the internet calling Apollo fake!



The technology they had in the 60's and 70's was used in advantage to pull off the Hoax. Take the Camera quality for example.
They had so much better in those days.


Again, a kind of look isn't enough to make claims. You have your work cut out for yourself if you want to come into this thread claiming hoax about Apollo. You need to present WHY YOU THINK APOLLO IS FAKE TO US. We have no reasons to prove anything to you, after 143 pages and 2844 posts.

The burden of proof rests on you.


Im no expert though, these are my own thinkings.


Remember that when people try to explain thing to you. It will help you on your journey to finding out the truth.


Anyway, they dont need to returm to the moon. They proved to the russians that they could do it.


What? I thought you said it was fake?



Prove me wrong


See the part, where you claim to be no expert. Remember than when you say to someone prove me wrong.

The presentation of material rest in your hands....



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Good for you. Common sense prevails again!


Foosm lets remember common sense when evaluating your post.


You look at the videos & photos and you see them as fake. Good, you dont need to be an expert in photography to notice it. Just like you dont need to be an expert to identify special effects in movies.


By the way what are you an expert at? What Photographs Foosm? What source you using this time? Now common sense would dictate to include the images that your calling outright forgery but you have failed to you your part on ATS once again! You do not include the source, because you know you have no proof!


The first Apollo missions had 16mm cameras and I dont recall them bringing them onto the surface. No instead they used those crappy TV cameras that sent signals to the Earth, and Im wondering why they didnt transmit signals after the Astronauts left?


The TV your referring to stowed with the MESA package on the Lunar Module.


I mean they put remote controlled video cameras on the moon and they stopped using them. And we know they worked without LM because we saw them shoot the LM leaving! The opportunity to but a telescope on the moon was completely blown!


Ok now did you ever think to ask if they wanted to put a telescope on the moon or is that just your personal opinion of what you think should have been done?

Again common sense Foosm, opinions have nothing to do with the Apollo Missions.


And if it was an issue of weight, they could have launched packages to the moon for the astronauts to assemble experiments and devices. I mean, look how close they landed to their targets. 600 feet from Surveyor?


Wait your still on this Telescope thing? An issues with weight? No an issues with Telescope technology back then was HUGE, the mirrors weigh TONS. So thereby making it impossible for Apollo to take a telescope like you state, to the Lunar Surface.


How did they even find it?
They must have had some sophisticated top secret navigation systems onboard and detailed maps.


It is called the Apollo Guidance Computer. Yes it was sophisticated. It lead to the development of the Computer you use today.

And Yet again Foosm common sense would dictated one look up how did they navigate to the moon? It isn't a secret but you act like it was impossible to do!

Remember Common sense? Research helps to answer questions.


You wonder what the Defense Mapping Agency has to do with Apollo landing sites.

So anyway thats 1978. And Im thinking, nahhh that cant be. That much detail, at 1:250 scale? It must be guess work, artists renditions. It cant actually be the real topography of that terrain.


You have to have no common sense to say this quote above.

NASA IS PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE!

Every technology that comes from the space program is classified by the DOD so that enemies could not use the technology against us.

You do know during the time of Apollo, we were engaged in a Nuclear Cold War right????

WHERE IS YOUR COMMON SENSE FOOSM?


Now lets ask this question readers.
If you were going to land a craft on a foreign country or planet, would you not want detailed maps of the area on a scale useful traveling, to ensure safe landing, and to ensure explorers do not get lost? I mean, look at the size of the LM, thats what I would expect from the LRO.


You need to do more research, the Lunar Orbiter Programs had resolutions of the landing sites down to a few meters per pixel.


So its logical that a Traverse map of that scale would exist prior to landing. But that brings up another problem. After 40 years NASA cant get better images than what they could get in the 60's and 70's? They can land a man on the moon, but they cant take better pictures of the moon on a scale that we can clearly see and identify the LM and its debris?


jra posted images from LRO and the DAC camera imagery of Apollo 17 decent stage resting on the Lunar Surface.

You never listen to what people post. THIS ALREADY HAS BEEN COVERED FOOSM!


Can anyone explain this? Otherwise I will say, taxpayers, you have been had.



So much for common sense I explained this already. We have gone over all this in your post in the last 2844 posts and 143 pages.

FOOSM READ!!!



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Okay first of all, im not a "Troll" and my arguements are weak beacuse im litrelly not a good Pointmaker.

But i allways give it my best shot and as far as research goes the Hassleblad Cameras where not a bad piece of Kit.

These are my most Horrible Concerns about the Landing.

Who Filmed the following shots? :

(Apollo 17 - 1972) Source Video #1

(Apollo 17 Departure) Source Video #2

Whats most astonishing about the last shot is. They are the last people on the moon and they are filmed leaving the moon. So whos on the camera shooting the whole thing?

I havent done my research on automatic panning and zooming systems.
But i really dont think they had the technology for that in 1972.
And it couldnt be operated from Earth, the delay in signal would have affected the movment times too much for a good shot.

I welcome any conflicts to my theorys.
Im new to explaining these and would be nice to find out if people agree.

I have tryed to find out when motorized mounts where invented but i cant seem to find any informative pages.

PS: Yes, my spelling is pretty bad. I appollo-gise (pun intended ha)



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You look at the videos & photos and you see them as fake. Good, you dont need to be an expert in photography to notice it. Just like you dont need to be an expert to identify special effects in movies. The first Apollo missions had 16mm cameras and I dont recall them bringing them onto the surface. No instead they used those crappy TV cameras that sent signals to the Earth, and Im wondering why they didnt transmit signals after the Astronauts left?


Am not sure about why the 16mm wasn't brought to the surface but it might be to do with film/moving parts/operation of the camera/any number of reasons.

Your statement you don't need to be an expert to identify special effects in movies . . . You are probably referring to visual effects - which are post effects. Special effects are explosions and things of this variety. I realize you will probably use this to back up your debate by reversing it ...

But the majority of FX shots aren't anything to do with aliens and explosions. Usually they're reframing a shot, moving a lamp post, changing a logo, altering a few colors, a little camera shake, removing an actor, adding some atmosphere ... I would absolutely guarantee you need to be a knowledgeable person scrutinizing a shot to notice these things.

A film without scripted/obvious visual effects can have upwards of 300 - 500 shots to process by VFX studios. A film with them can have anywhere from 900 - 3000 shots done by different studios. Out of those shots some of them will be obvious, some of them won't be ... It all depends on time and talent.

A standard person noticing 'something wrong' doesn't really indicate anything to the artist other than the person watching isn't 'feeling' it. I've had physical explosions captured on camera that viewers didn't think were 'real' till we added camera shake and a piece of fake junk hitting the camera lens. People have expectations of what things *should* be like and 90% of the time they're just not that way ... Not to mention most effects slip by simply because people aren't aware of what to look for.

Besides, you were pulled up on a few things in the last few pages. I would like to think you would go back and address or retract those statements as you keep pushing other people to do instead of ignoring them.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Robottix
 


These are my most Horrible Concerns about the Landing.

Who Filmed the following shots? :

(Apollo 17 - 1972) Source Video #1

(Apollo 17 Departure) Source Video #2

Whats most astonishing about the last shot is. They are the last people on the moon and they are filmed leaving the moon. So whos on the camera shooting the whole thing?


There is a TV camera on the Lunar Rover!

Look at the page here: Source


I havent done my research on automatic panning and zooming systems.
But i really dont think they had the technology for that in 1972.
And it couldnt be operated from Earth, the delay in signal would have affected the movment times too much for a good shot.


As you said you haven't done enough research on the technology they had.


I welcome any conflicts to my theorys.
Im new to explaining these and would be nice to find out if people agree.


No I do not agree the technology was sound and proven, you see the images right?


I have tryed to find out when motorized mounts where invented but i cant seem to find any informative pages.

PS: Yes, my spelling is pretty bad. I appollo-gise (pun intended ha)


Here is another link Source

The LRV (Lunar Rover Vehicle) was a billion dollar electric car! Trust me it has all the bells and whistles!


jra

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
The first Apollo missions had 16mm cameras and I dont recall them bringing them onto the surface.


All the Apollo missions brought 16mm camera's and all of them were used while on the surface of the Moon.

One of many examples: Apollo 15 Mount Hadley


I mean they put remote controlled video cameras on the moon and they stopped using them. And we know they worked without LM because we saw them shoot the LM leaving!


The Lunar Rover doesn't have unlimited power you know. The TV camera's did run for a while after they left. With Apollo 15, the TV camera's were turned on again a few days after the astronauts already left. You can find it at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, if you're interested.


The opportunity to but a telescope on the moon was completely blown!


What good would a small portable telescope be on the Moon? Apollo 16 brought one, but it was for UV imaging only. What advantages would a telescope on the Moon have over one in LEO?


How did they even find it?
They must have had some sophisticated top secret navigation systems onboard and detailed maps.


They knew where Surveyor 3 was located on the Moon. I don't see why Apollo 12 landing near it is so unbelievable to you. All the Apollo missions landed in areas that were chosen well in advance and they all managed to land within their chosen targets. Or did you think they just landed in some random place once they got there?


JAXA/SELENE
history.nasa.gov...

SMART-1
history.nasa.gov...

I dont see any LM or anything relating to it. And the scale sucks.


Neither SMART-1 or Kaguya had the resolution needed to see the Apollo hardware. Simply looking at the information about there camera's would make that obvious.


I mean, look at the size of the LM, thats what I would expect from the LRO.


Find out the cm per pixel resolution of the Apollo 11 image and divide that with the size of the LM and that will tell you how big to expect in in pixels. If you're expecting the LM to appear as big as it was in the traverse map, then you have some unrealistic expectations. The resolution that the LRO would be capable of was stated years in advance. You only have yourself to blame if you were expecting something more.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
The TV camera's did run for a while after they left.


Actually, this is a great point of interest that I've never considered before .. so kudos to you.

Is there a photo that shows this battery near the TV camera as the ascent module blasts off?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Is there a photo that shows this battery near the TV camera as the ascent module blasts off?




What??? The camera is working isn't that proof enough the battery is there?



Edited to add:

Here is a detailed description of the lunar rover. Again haven't we covered this already?

source



[edit on 20-7-2010 by theability]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
By the way what are you an expert at? What Photographs Foosm? What source you using this time? Now common sense would dictate to include the images that your calling outright forgery but you have failed to you your part on ATS once again! You do not include the source, because you know you have no proof!




Funny after I just made several lengthy posts looking deeply into Apollo photography and video. And the reactions I got? Not many, nothing substantial. The only one that was clearly answered was the white blob being Neil Armstrong... (btw I may have a few comments of that in the future
)

But everything else was just mediocre theories.




I mean they put remote controlled video cameras on the moon and they stopped using them. And we know they worked without LM because we saw them shoot the LM leaving! The opportunity to but a telescope on the moon was completely blown!


Ok now did you ever think to ask if they wanted to put a telescope on the moon or is that just your personal opinion of what you think should have been done?


Something I heard through the grapevine...


Angel, a leading astronomer at the University of Arizona, is proposing an enormous liquid-mirror telescope on the moon that could be hundreds of times more sensitive than the Hubble Space Telescope.
www.wired.com...

There are many advantages to building a deep-space telescope on the moon.
A lunar LMT would be free from the atmospheric distortion that afflicts terrestrial telescopes of all kinds, and from the self-generated winds that produce troublesome waves in the largest earth-based LMTs.





Again common sense Foosm, opinions have nothing to do with the Apollo Missions.


Yeah because that would be too American lol:





And if it was an issue of weight, they could have launched packages to the moon for the astronauts to assemble experiments and devices. I mean, look how close they landed to their targets. 600 feet from Surveyor?


Wait your still on this Telescope thing? An issues with weight? No an issues with Telescope technology back then was HUGE, the mirrors weigh TONS. So thereby making it impossible for Apollo to take a telescope like you state, to the Lunar Surface.


Did I say take large telescopes on Apollo? Didnt I just say send it as a package prior to their launch?

A relatively small lunar LMT could be deployed robotically, its rotating dish unfurling like an umbrella. But building a 20-meter or 100-meter instrument would require human hands.





How did they even find it?
They must have had some sophisticated top secret navigation systems onboard and detailed maps.


It is called the Apollo Guidance Computer. Yes it was sophisticated. It lead to the development of the Computer you use today.


oh really?


Yeah... maybe you are right.




And Yet again Foosm common sense would dictated one look up how did they navigate to the moon? It isn't a secret but you act like it was impossible to do!




Paul Spudis of the Johnson Space Center wrote:

"There are two fundamental reasons why you are seeing different numbers quoted as site coordinates. First, until recently, we did not have a very accurate cartographic control network for the Moon. Although the Apollo zone (the near-equatorial area where the Apollo landings took place) was very well mapped, and we know exactly where those sites are to very high degree of precision, when you express site coordinates in degrees, it must be in reference to some global system. Thus, your coordinate knowledge is only as good as the global control network you are using. (As an illustration of this "paradox", imagine that I know that the Apollo 11 site is exactly 301 km from the Apollo 16 site. I know the RELATIVE positions of the two sites extremely well, but where are they in relation to any other lunar feature, arbitrarily chosen? This is the basic reason why control networks are important). Moreover, to make this even more confusing, the flight people at the Houston mission control and the lunar map makers used different control networks, and those networks were constantly being modified during the Apollo flight program, as our knowledge improved, so many different numbers found their way into print."




NASA IS PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE!

Every technology that comes from the space program is classified by the DOD so that enemies could not use the technology against us.

You do know during the time of Apollo, we were engaged in a Nuclear Cold War right????

WHERE IS YOUR COMMON SENSE FOOSM?




No S/He Didnt. Did you just say NASA is part of the DoD and thats why tech from NASA is classified? Well yes you did. Do you realize you have just contradicted many other persons on the Apollo Defense Force? The Propagandists? Who claim that NASA is a civilian agency and their technology and programs, especially Apollo, are open to the public?

Do you realize you just opened the door to Apollo being faked?






Now lets ask this question readers.
If you were going to land a craft on a foreign country or planet, would you not want detailed maps of the area on a scale useful traveling, to ensure safe landing, and to ensure explorers do not get lost? I mean, look at the size of the LM, thats what I would expect from the LRO.


You need to do more research, the Lunar Orbiter Programs had resolutions of the landing sites down to a few meters per pixel.


FOOSM READ!!!


Relax, Im reading, Im reading... and I cant believe what Im reading. You are agreeing that NASA or the DoD, lol, managed to take hi-res photos of the Lunar surface prior to Apollo? To a scale and resolution that one could accurately simulate the terrain's features here on Earth? Is that what you are saying? Its hard to keep up because you guys tend to contradict each other.

According to SATWEAVERS we should be seeing images three times the detail from the 1970's and other LRO images.


Where are those photos?
those 0.5 meter resolution photos?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Until this morning, this thread was going along quite nicely... Then personalities began to rear their heads again...

At the risk of repeating myself...and I am.


The off topic commentary, the rude name calling, and assorted related activities will stop.

You all can discuss this with civility because I've seen you do it.

Denying Ignorance involves showing the person being ignorant where they're wrong. Multiple times, if necessary. What it is not, is calling that member ignorant. That will stop, and I mean now.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   



Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by FoosM
You look at the videos & photos and you see them as fake. Good, you dont need to be an expert in photography to notice it. Just like you dont need to be an expert to identify special effects in movies. The first Apollo missions had 16mm cameras and I dont recall them bringing them onto the surface. No instead they used those crappy TV cameras that sent signals to the Earth, and Im wondering why they didnt transmit signals after the Astronauts left?


Am not sure about why the 16mm wasn't brought to the surface but it might be to do with film/moving parts/operation of the camera/any number of reasons.


But in later missions they did didnt they?
On the Rover there was 16mm camera attached if I recall correctly.
Those beautiful shots of the landscape passing by, and repeating according to some.

Anyway...



Your statement you don't need to be an expert to identify special effects in movies . . . You are probably referring to visual effects - which are post effects. Special effects are explosions and things of this variety. I realize you will probably use this to back up your debate by reversing it ...


I'll put it to you this way, mistakes in movies can be due to a variety of reasons:
www.moviemistakes.com...

And a variety of reasons are being pointed out in the Apollo footage and photography.




Besides, you were pulled up on a few things in the last few pages. I would like to think you would go back and address or retract those statements as you keep pushing other people to do instead of ignoring them.



I will in due time, but Im waiting for more questions to be answered. I posted a lot if info and questions, and a lot of the answers were mediocre at best. Earth shine on the helmet, sorry not buying it. The MET tracks not going to the MET. There was some attempt at showing tracks around it, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the tracks didnt go to it!

Then I discussed placement of the MET, I asked why (well why NASA explains but HOW they dont) the FLAG moved so many times during the mission, there were many things I pointed out, and much of it wasn't even addressed. And I tell you what, I prefer if those who DONT believe in NASA debate what Im bringing up because then I think real discussion will occur without all the name calling and people getting defensive.

Here is one to think about:

Moon Fountains
When astronauts return to the Moon in the years ahead, they might encounter electrified fountains and other strange things.


Now I ask, and probably many other wills too, why didnt any Apollo astronauts talk about this? Or experience this? Or should I say, do we see this in the photos or the films? And if not, why not?


It appears lunar dust does levitate above the Moon's surface because of electrostatic charging. And the first evidence came almost the way Clement had described.
In the early 1960s before Apollo 11, several early Surveyor spacecraft that soft-landed on the Moon returned photographs showing an unmistakable twilight glow low over the lunar horizon persisting after the sun had set. Moreover, the distant horizon between land and sky did not look razor-sharp, as would have been expected in a vacuum where there was no atmospheric haze.


Notice:

But most amazing of all, Apollo 17 astronauts orbiting the Moon in 1972 repeatedly saw and sketched what they variously called "bands," "streamers" or "twilight rays" for about 10 seconds before lunar sunrise or lunar sunset. Such rays were also reported by astronauts aboard Apollo 8, 10, and 15.


Not the guys on the surface. I suppose from orbit (earth) they could possibly see such anomalies.


"The Moon seems to have a tenuous atmosphere of moving dust particles," Stubbs explains. "We use the word 'fountain' to evoke the idea of a drinking fountain: the arc of water coming out of the spout looks static, but we know the water molecules are in motion." In the same way, individual bits of moondust are constantly leaping up from and falling back to the Moon's surface, giving rise to a "dust atmosphere" that looks static but is composed of dust particles in constant motion.

It's not science fiction any more.

science.nasa.gov...

You doggone right about that




posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Funny after I just made several lengthy posts looking deeply into Apollo photography and video. And the reactions I got? Not many, nothing substantial. The only one that was clearly answered was the white blob being Neil Armstrong... (btw I may have a few comments of that in the future
)


I mostly don't care much for the debate, but I will point out some things you've missed that you haven't investigated as it seems you pick and choose your subjects randomly each morning when you awaken.


Now watch when Neil goes down the ladder... you see how bright he is near the end. Even though he says how dark it is? Is he visible in the shadow of the LM because of Earthlight? And if so, why doesnt Earth light help him to see?

The Earth glow causing 'spot like' light reflections on the um... helmet and ladder (which is vertical) yet doesn't seem to make the multiple shadows... as a secondary light source... You see where this is going?


Misunderstanding of how shadows add together (multiple light sources do not make multiple shadows or we would be swimming in them). Misunderstanding of how basic camera equipment operates. Misunderstanding of the human eye.


Ahhhh thank you PINKE.
Finally someone admitts its possible to use fill lighting without causing extra shadows.
Anybody would know that who works as a professional photographer or in the film business. The control of light and shadow is the art of film and photography.


Then from this misunderstanding you make the above statement trying to take your misunderstanding it seems and turn it into some form of logic which goes against your very first debate point on this subject.


And this is why many people, from photographers to filmmakers, have issues with Apollo photography when they see photos like these knowing there is no atmosphere on the moon to scatter light.


There still hasn't one who has been named in regards to this statement. And by one I mean a technically skilled film maker who understands match moving and lighting plans, not some videographer that has made the odd indie flick.

Light does scatter on the moon as has been explained to you.


Sun rays, halos shouldnt happen in a vacuum. Should it?


You have had how halos work explained to you, as well as how they work on the moon in conjunction with volumetric light and the moon's atmosphere. You simply took my explanation of halos and without any research you attempted to use it to further your the debate. You should have at least attempted some of my suggestions regarding experimenting.


Why is the SUN so BIG? Was there a zoom lens on the camera?


Basic misunderstanding of how light works when applied to a camera lens.


Obvious fill lighting.
That cant be done from Earth shine, or reflection off the ground.


And with all of the above misunderstandings you apply the term 'fill lighting' to a photo.

You need to address all of these misunderstandings about both the moon environment, and how light works to begin to debate any of these points. I'd suggest the following:

- Read about how light and shadows are formed (I can suggest books) and how they blend together
- Take many photos so you have experience on how light sources alter chromanance and luminance of an image

My big suggestion: You could get a match moving program and use it to track the shadows on the moon and then use this information to work out the general position of the light sources in your shot in 3D space. Then you could apply this knowledge to real life examples to prove 100% without a doubt that the moon landing was a hoax.

If you're right you'll be the first person to perform these equations directly to moon footage, and you will prove Jarrah White correct. That's if you believe no one has ever bothered to check I suppose. Enjoy!



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 140  141  142    144  145  146 >>

log in

join