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: 447
377
<< 444  445  446    448  449  450 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



From Apollo 15, a video from on the LRV as they drove over the surface....looky, looky at the distance they travelled, and at the hills off in the far distance...compare it to other movies you may have seen, filmed from a moving car on Earth:


Is there video of them ever going behind one of the background hills?
I've never seen one..




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
That video really proves nothing. It's a video of them driving the rover around the set. How am I supposed to be convinced by that video that the wallpaper is a real hill?

Look at this photo for example, it is one of many photos from the Apollo Archive website.



Here is a close-up of the FAKE BACKGROUND. You can clearly see the distinction between the surface and the image on the wall. As you can see, the ground is covered in rocks, but once you get to the place where the wall begins, there are no rocks. Wouldn't you say that is suspicious? Only a blind NASA follower would believe this photo is genuinely from the Moon.
edit on 5-5-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 



Here is a close-up of the FAKE BACKGROUND. You can clearly see the distinction between the surface and the image on the wall. As you can see, the ground is covered in rocks, but once you get to the place where the wall begins, there are no rocks. Wouldn't you say that is suspicious? Only a blind NASA follower would believe this photo is genuinely from the Moon.


Do you honestly not see how the hill shifts in the superimposed photos due to parallax? Have you no depth perception?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 



That video really proves nothing. It's a video of them driving the rover around the set. How am I supposed to be convinced by that video that the wallpaper is a real hill?


Seriously???

You sit there, and type that?

HOW LONG is that clip?? Did you look? About 35 seconds. UNEDITED, one continuous shot.

HOW FAST do you think they are moving, on the Rover?

Do the math.

A "set"?!?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercurio
That video really proves nothing. It's a video of them driving the rover around the set. How am I supposed to be convinced by that video that the wallpaper is a real hill?


The video proves a lot.
You show me an indoor movie set where the Astronauts could drive the Lunar Rover for 10 minutes straight without driving into a wall.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Mercurio
 


That video really proves nothing. It's a video of them driving the rover around the set. How am I supposed to be convinced by that video that the wallpaper is a real hill?

Seriously???
You sit there, and type that?
HOW LONG is that clip?? Did you look? About 35 seconds. UNEDITED, one continuous shot.
HOW FAST do you think they are moving, on the Rover?
Do the math.
A "set"?!?


Seen Avatar weed??

But still, is there a video where a rover actually goes behind a hill?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Facefirst
 



The video proves a lot.
You show me an indoor movie set where the Astronauts could drive the Lunar Rover for 10 minutes straight without driving into a wall.


Got a link to this 10 minute uninterrupted rover ride??
That would be interesting..
Weed's was 35 seconds..



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Is there video of them ever going behind one of the background hills?


?????

The hills, in the distance in that particular shot, are many kilometers distant.

Look up the Traverse Map for Apollo 15....do it yourself. Look at the topography from that, and the mission info from the NASA site....it will all tie together.

I get tired of posting up links to stuff that people can research for themselves...

.....the ones who aren't trolling, that is.... (not "you", of course.....)




edit on 5 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



HOW LONG is that clip?? Did you look? About 35 seconds. UNEDITED, one continuous shot.
HOW FAST do you think they are moving, on the Rover?
Do the math.
A "set"?!?


About 150 meters at max speed..



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 


Is there video of them ever going behind one of the background hills?

?????
The hills, in the distance in that particular shot, are many kilometers distant.
Look up the Traverse Map for Apollo 15....do it yourself. Look at the topography from that, and the mission info from the NASA site....it will all tie together.
I get tired of posting up links to stuff that people can research for themselves...

.....the ones who aren't trolling, that is.... (not "you", of course.....)


edit on 5 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Weed, I haven't even seen them go around a little hill...
Always seem to be short distances in relatively flat terrain..



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Facefirst
 



The video proves a lot.
You show me an indoor movie set where the Astronauts could drive the Lunar Rover for 10 minutes straight without driving into a wall.


Got a link to this 10 minute uninterrupted rover ride??
That would be interesting..
Weed's was 35 seconds..


The last one I watched has uninterrupted footage from 2:48 to 4:58 minutes in this video.
www.youtube.com... I'll have to root around the web for a really long cut.

and I saw this video, made me laugh. An appeal to help Jarrah White go to the moon. lol.
www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Facefirst
 



The last one I watched has uninterrupted footage from 2:48 to 4:58 minutes in this video.
www.youtube.com... I'll have to root around the web for a really long cut.


Look closer..
It's a loop..You keep seeing the same film..
Unless they pass the same rocks 5 times



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Mercurio
 



Here is a close-up of the FAKE BACKGROUND. You can clearly see the distinction between the surface and the image on the wall. As you can see, the ground is covered in rocks, but once you get to the place where the wall begins, there are no rocks. Wouldn't you say that is suspicious? Only a blind NASA follower would believe this photo is genuinely from the Moon.


Do you honestly not see how the hill shifts in the superimposed photos due to parallax? Have you no depth perception?


If the hills are so far away, why would they shift?
There shouldn't be a change whatsoever right with objects so, large, far and distant away?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



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.


So you admit that by posing exactly the same type of questions with the same dearth of information and vagueness as you, the post fails. Have you started to get the point of the exercise?


My questions were pertinent to the conversation I was having with that poster.
Yours was used as a distraction. Thats your modus operandi.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercurio
another photo, you can again see the stark contrast between the surface and the background.



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.



Mercurio, Im glad you brought this up.
This brings us to another issue of Apollo photography.

Scale.

Earlier in this thread I asked what would happen to the background if you would walk toward or further away from the LM. Would the hill in the background get bigger or smaller?




Take a look at the following comparisons:

AS17-134-20437-20443 top composite & AS17-147-22494-22521 lower composite – (notice the US flag is missing)





Viewed on their own these shots are convincing, and do the trick. But tricks they are, because:

1) the LM cannot change position,
2) the LM cannot change size in relation to the mountain backdrops if the viewpoint is the same, and if the focal length of the lens (60mm Biogon) and the camera used (Hasselblad 500 Lunar Surface Camera) are the same in each case.


The size of the hill has not changed between these two distances.
But OK, one might say the distance was not signficant...
what happens if the astronauts would go much further away.

Well we get a LM surrounded by... hills??




How can anyone reconcile the relative size of the LM in this telephoto image to the surrounding mountains now towering behind the LM, mountains so enormous that they are dwarfing the LM ? – Very difficult.

How can a Lunar Module appear in different locations at the same landing site? – It can't.


But wait, I know what some are thinking, that shot was taken with a 500mm lens!
So there should be a difference between it, and the 60mm.

AS17-140-21497 & 140-21494

This picture at Split Rock is composited from two images, AS17-140-21494, to the right of the scene and AS17-140-21497 covering the area to the left of the picture.



Now if you zoom in, you can see the LM, resulting in the following frame:



Which is very similar to
www.hq.nasa.gov...

If we put it all together




How did they achieve the look of the 500mm lens shot? – Special effects of course, including the use of models, miniatures and/or image manipulation. Let us not be at all naive about this:

We previously noted that in photo 134-20448 mountain 'D' was only half the height of the LM, so the mountain backdrops in the inset (139-21204) have, to all intents and purposes, been morphed into a totally different relative scaling. Of course defenders of this indefensible situation may argue that the LM now looks smaller due to the lens used. But if the LM looks smaller due to distance, then the mountains would look smaller too – not larger.

Only one ‘genuine’ setting can be valid – each one is mutually exclusive. This scene with seriously HUGE and FORBIDDING mountains might well be the most valid representation of what it's like on the Moon – but apparently not what NASA wanted as a backdrop for the photo action scenes. It would appear that a suitable 'arena' was created for both the action photography and for recording the TV coverage.

Why would NASA even want to make the transition between the less intimidating mountains (behind the LM and astronauts in the previous pictures) to the HUGE and FORBIDDING mountains taken from around five miles away? – Perhaps because when used on their own, images like 139-21203/4 convey SCALE and IMPRESS. Exactly what was needed back in December 1972 as Project Apollo came to an end – powerful images in magazines such as National Geographic promoting the awesome achievements of NASA’s space program – manned or otherwise.





www.aulis.com...


jra

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercurio
Here is a close-up of the FAKE BACKGROUND. You can clearly see the distinction between the surface and the image on the wall. As you can see, the ground is covered in rocks, but once you get to the place where the wall begins, there are no rocks. Wouldn't you say that is suspicious? Only a blind NASA follower would believe this photo is genuinely from the Moon.


You could apply your same logic to this photo here.

You can see small rocks in the foreground, but they become unresolvable the further away they are from the camera. Makes sense right? It's the same thing for the Apollo photo you linked to. The area you consider to be the background wall, is actually further away and it's not possible to make out the smaller rocks. You can see larger rocks in the high res version (link), but not the smaller ones due to the distance.


Originally posted by FoosM
If the hills are so far away, why would they shift?
There shouldn't be a change whatsoever right with objects so, large, far and distant away?


It depends on how far apart your two viewing angles are.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
The size of the hill has not changed between these two distances.
But OK, one might say the distance was not signficant...
what happens if the astronauts would go much further away.


One would be correct if one said that. Those two panoramas were taken less than 200 meters away from each other, and the sites are roughly parallel to the ridge of the South Massif, so one position is not really closer than the other.



Originally posted by FoosM
Well we get a LM surrounded by... hills??

Yup, Apollo 17 landed in a valley. The ridge of the South Massif was about 2300 meters above the landing site, and about 12.5 km away. You can get a good idea of the layout by looking at this topgraphic map.


Originally posted by FoosM

This picture at Split Rock is composited from two images, AS17-140-21494, to the right of the scene and AS17-140-21497 covering the area to the left of the picture.



Now if you zoom in, you can see the LM, resulting in the following frame:

Geology station 6 was nearly 3.5 km from the landing site, over 200 meters above the landing site.

Originally posted by FoosM

Only one ‘genuine’ setting can be valid – each one is mutually exclusive. This scene with seriously HUGE and FORBIDDING mountains might well be the most valid representation of what it's like on the Moon – but apparently not what NASA wanted as a backdrop for the photo action scenes. It would appear that a suitable 'arena' was created for both the action photography and for recording the TV coverage.

Why would NASA even want to make the transition between the less intimidating mountains (behind the LM and astronauts in the previous pictures) to the HUGE and FORBIDDING mountains taken from around five miles away? – Perhaps because when used on their own, images like 139-21203/4 convey SCALE and IMPRESS. Exactly what was needed back in December 1972 as Project Apollo came to an end – powerful images in magazines such as National Geographic promoting the awesome achievements of NASA’s space program – manned or otherwise.


Is this guy really saying the mountains look different in AS17-139-21204 compared to AS17-140-21494? Because they look the same to me. The 500mm lens had roughly 1/5th the angular field of view of the 60mm lens. If you crop a 60mm photo acordingly, you get similar field of view as if the photo had been taken with the 500mm lens. When we do that to AS17-140-21494, overlaying the resulting image on AS17-139-21204, we see that the two photos were obviously taken from nearly the same location, of the same subjects, but just with different lenses:



edit on 5-5-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Facefirst
 



The last one I watched has uninterrupted footage from 2:48 to 4:58 minutes in this video.
www.youtube.com... I'll have to root around the web for a really long cut.


Look closer..
It's a loop..You keep seeing the same film..
Unless they pass the same rocks 5 times


My bad.
From what I've been able to gather, an amateur edited that clip together for a music video. I'll be more careful of my sources next time.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 


only someone ith either zero integrity or zero experience of terrain and perspective would agree with you

it is utterly obvious to any honest person how has been outside that there is ` dead ground ` between the fore ground and back ground

go back and look at the 5 pics preeceeding your " example " and the 5 after it

its blisteringly obvious that the terrain undulates and that dead ground exists



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Mercurio
 


only someone ith either zero integrity or zero experience of terrain and perspective would agree with you

it is utterly obvious to any honest person how has been outside that there is ` dead ground ` between the fore ground and back ground

go back and look at the 5 pics preeceeding your " example " and the 5 after it

its blisteringly obvious that the terrain undulates and that dead ground exists



Yeah... miles of dead undulating ground






new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 444  445  446    448  449  450 >>

log in

join