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.
The AwE130 archives release Apollo 8 film, this 8mm film has no sound but the footage will show you how it was shown to the people in the sixties. More films are released at the awe130.nl website.
Originally posted by FoosM
Yeah whatever, the question wasn't vague.
You probably just thought the russians landed men... or was it the chinese?
We are talking about the impossibility of manned moon landings.
We are not talking about if Surveyor or Luna happened.
How I want you to answer?
Whats this, a set up to claim later I forced you to answer a certain way?
Just give me your answer.
Is your answer 'false'?
]Now, your turn: when Jarrah interviewed an expert on Aboriginal culture as an "expert witness" on photography, was he lying? Yes or no?
Need more info.
When Jarrah claimed that the Apollo 8 CSM could have hidden in "polar orbit," then reversed himself when someone explained what a polar orbit actually is, then claimed that he intentionally lied to "trap" his opponent, was he lying? Yes or no?
Simple, would JW make such a mistake?
Of course not. He wasnt lying about tricking this opponents.
He made a rookie mistake.
When Jarrah claimed that E. E. Kovalev's data contradicted NASA's, even though it actually confirmed it, was he lying? Yes or no?
What was contradicted?
Apollo defenders cannot stand the fact that NASA deleted the original Apollo 11 telemetry tapes/b] so the only option for them is to re-live the fantasy through TV retrospectives such as this one .... with the dramatic soundtrack later added by a studio sound engineer.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
Three simple yes or on questions. How many answers?
]Now, your turn: when Jarrah interviewed an expert on Aboriginal culture as an "expert witness" on photography, was he lying? Yes or no?
Need more info.
When Jarrah claimed that the Apollo 8 CSM could have hidden in "polar orbit," then reversed himself when someone explained what a polar orbit actually is, then claimed that he intentionally lied to "trap" his opponent, was he lying? Yes or no?
Simple, would JW make such a mistake?
Of course not. He wasnt lying about tricking this opponents.
He made a rookie mistake.
Impossible to answer a yes/no on someone's intentions.
Please get real.
So I did the best thing, making a statement to what was more logical.
When Jarrah claimed that E. E. Kovalev's data contradicted NASA's, even though it actually confirmed it, was he lying? Yes or no?
What was contradicted?
Zero; not one single yes or no answer. Here's any easy one for you, FoosM: did the Apollo 12 SEVA take place or not? Just answer yes or no.edit on 5-5-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.edit on 5-5-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)
This post fails DJ.
I requested more info, you fail to offer that info.
Then you come up with questions that are impossible to verify once answered.
Regarding the Apollo 12 SEVA question.
No, it didn't happen on the moon.
Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Mercurio
There is no atmosphere on the moon, therefore distant objects and terrane will appear as clear as nearby objects because there is no atmospheric haze. Viewing a slope, gradually sloping more distant from you is harder to determine, especially when the horizon is cropped out therefore, can only be visualized by decreasing detail due to the sheer distance. This is part of the reason images on the surface of the moon look foreign to most undiscerning viewers used to seeing atmospheric haze scattering of light to smoothen out the contrast and color to the point of blending into the sky, like here on earth.
edit on 5-5-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Mercurio
I mean all you need to do is just look at the photos that NASA gave the world to see how fake it all is and how there is extensive use of wallpaper to create backgrounds. It's really pathetic that we have been forced to believe this utterly fake moon landing hoax.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by Mercurio
I mean all you need to do is just look at the photos that NASA gave the world to see how fake it all is and how there is extensive use of wallpaper to create backgrounds. It's really pathetic that we have been forced to believe this utterly fake moon landing hoax.
Then do explain the parallax effect that happens when one compares two photos of the same thing, from two different viewing angles.
One of many examples:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ec98ab4615a9.gif[/atsimg
These are photos AS17-146-22402 and AS17-146-22367
The backgrounds aren't flat. The lack of an atmosphere and the lack of familiar objects (like trees, building or other man made objects) make it hard to judge distance and scale on the Moon. The Lunar surface isn't flat either, there are lots of craters, so that makes the surface to be rather undulated. That can cut ones view of the horizon and create a noticeable division between the surface and a mountain in the background, for example.
From what I can tell, they are two images taken at slightly different places and angles. That accounts for the so-called "parallax effect" (whatever that is).
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Mercurio
From what I can tell, they are two images taken at slightly different places and angles. That accounts for the so-called "parallax effect" (whatever that is).
When something is viewed from two different angles, one sees it slightly different from each vantage point; this is what allows us to see things in three dimensions. Perhaps this article will explain it more clearly for you:
WikiPedia
Notice how the mountain in the background seems to change it's shape slightly between the photos? That is because it is a distant, three dimensional object.
..... the so-called "parallax effect" (whatever that is).
From what I can tell, they are two images taken at slightly different places and angles. That accounts for the so-called "parallax effect" (whatever that is).