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.
Originally posted by FoosM
If the astronaut would walk towards the LM taking pictures with the South Massif as a background.
Would the South Massif get smaller or bigger? We know the LM would get bigger in the picture, right?
And if he would walk away from the LM, with the South Massif as a background, would the South Massif become smaller or bigger as he is taking pictures? We know the LM would get smaller right?
I dont understand why this is difficult .
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by weedwhacker
THIS video is reply is perfectly addressing that point!:
This is all that is needed, it is not difficult to understand.
The total length of the range is about 600 km (370 mi), with some of the peaks rising as high as 5 km (3.1 mi).
Originally posted by backinblack
Why such a difference?
Does exaggerating the height of the mountains by over 300% make his claims sound more realistic?
Is lying to prove a point really debunking?
Or is there an honest reason for the HUGE difference ??
He doesn't say they're 6-10 miles high. He says they're 6-10 miles from the Apollo landing site.
Originally posted by backinblack
Quick question weed..
In that video your expert debunker names that mountain range as the Montes Apenninus.
At 3:10 he goes on the say they range from 6-10 miles high..(10-16kms)
Originally posted by nataylor
He doesn't say they're 6-10 miles high. He says they're 6-10 miles from the Apollo landing site.
Originally posted by backinblack
Quick question weed..
In that video your expert debunker names that mountain range as the Montes Apenninus.
At 3:10 he goes on the say they range from 6-10 miles high..(10-16kms)
In thinking about possible causes for the markedly non-rectangular pattern seen in the Apollo 17 photos, we considered and rejected the effects of dust on the top of the TV camera. It seems to us that the only likely cause is that the top of the TV camera was not perfectly flat.Distortions in the reflecting surface can produce an irregular 'image' but, of course, this is speculation.
Source: history.nasa.gov...
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
FoosM yuuo never answered my question - was the Apollo 17 rover significantly different from the Apollo 16 one?
and you didn't comment on my contention that the astronautr appears to be downslope of hte rover so his apparent height comared to the front of hte rover (upslope by hte length of hte rover) is much less than it would be if htey weer at hte same level.
spec·u·late/ˈspekyəˌlāt/Verb 1. Form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
Originally posted by DJW001
In other words, NASA has the intellectual honesty to admit when they are theorizing about something. Why didn't you post this image?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/463d2c9c4472.jpg[/atsimg]
Your source.
Seems to me their speculation is not completely ungrounded.
Originally posted by exponent
I cannot believe this thread is still ongoing.
Nothing of value is being produced here, FoosM is posting any picture he thinks might look weird and proving nothing by it, and people are just getting increasingly aggravated.
I doubt anyone fresh is being convinced, and they certainly aren't reading all the past pages. I had a good go at it but I have forgotten where I was several times.
Give it up. FoosM can start individual threads about whatever thing he doesn't understand on his own, this thread is just an ever descending circle.
The gnomon provides local vertical, sun orientation, scale, and color
Originally posted by exponent
Instead of spamming endless identical questions with legitimately uncertain answers, how about you explain how exactly NASA would mess these up.
It makes no sense whatsoever, they would be spending huge sums of money (remember, far far before Photoshop) on faking something virtually nobody would ever see.
So I will do my best to answer questions you pose, as long as you do your best to answer that very simple one
Relevance?
Seems to me their speculation is not completely ungrounded.
But at the end of the day, its still speculation.
Just like the blue astronauts of Apollo 12.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
Relevance?
It suggests that the dish antenna is reflecting the rover and surface below it. No anomaly.
Just like your "1 second" figure for the "jump" into the LRV.
Just like your assumption that your latest photos were taken on similar ground under similar lighting conditions. Your posts are all based entirely on speculation,
yet you continue to fail to find any evidence to support your speculation that the Moon landings were a hoax. But that's okay, you're only human.