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: 624
377
<< 621  622  623    625  626  627 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

If this was only a model made Pinewood Studios made for a James Bond movie. Why would they make the detailed plaque and the exact same discoloration of the tinfolie ?



This is just incredible.
I mean, there is no defending this.
It looks exactly like the model used for the Apollo photos.

Hats off for finding this "eyes wide shut" piece of evidence.

And Neil, Buzz, etc would not have airplane tickets, because they would fly
via the US military.
edit on 26-10-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Hats off for finding this "eyes wide shut" piece of evidence.

Strange I just finished downloading that Stanley Kubrick movie a minute ago ?
edit on 26-10-2011 by Ove38 because: a word missing



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Doesn't look like the original ladder to me Foosm and that certainly ain't gold colored foil..



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
This is just incredible.
I mean, there is no defending this.
It looks exactly like the model used for the Apollo photos.

Wonder how long before they remove it from the museum ? Guess they called already.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM
 


Doesn't look like the original ladder to me Foosm and that certainly ain't gold colored foil..


Gold ? Compare the aluminium foil colors with AS11-40-5897
Is it a model for a Jams Bond movie or is it the real Landing Module ?
Why would the film studio bother with such details ?


AS11-40-5897


Science Museum, London
edit on 26-10-2011 by Ove38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 



Is it a model for a Jams Bond movie or is it the real Landing Module ?
Why would the film studio bother with such details ?


Much as I hate to encourage you, isn't it possible that the plaque was added by the museum in order to make the exhibit more accurate? For that matter, is it possible that the museum commissioned the model from Pinewood Studios because of their expertise in prop making? You have elevated the art of non-research to a new height.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



This is just incredible.
I mean, there is no defending this.
It looks exactly like the model used for the Apollo photos.


It's called a "replica" because it is designed to look exactly like the real thing. Why are you letting this guy suck you into his silly . games?



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



This is just incredible.
I mean, there is no defending this.
It looks exactly like the model used for the Apollo photos.


It's called a "replica" because it is designed to look exactly like the real thing. Why are you letting this guy suck you into his silly . games?

You call it a "replica" because you see it's exactly the same Landing Module

The official story is that it was made by Pinewood Studios in London for the 1971 James Bond movie "Diamonds Are Forever" This doesn't seem to be the case. Does it ?

It was more likely made for NASA (George Mueller) in 1969


Arthur C. Clarke, Stanley Kubrick and George Mueller (NASA) at Pinewood Studios in London
edit on 26-10-2011 by Ove38 because: new link



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
.

Think back further, you are supposed to come up with the info.


Foos I guess you missed my question earlier.......I'll give you the benefit of the doubt........so I'll ask it again.

Do you support Jarrah's claim that NASA deliberately let the Challenger shuttle blow up on account of what Christa McAuliffe might report back regarding seeing stars in space?

A simple "yes" or "no" is all that's required.......no quotes, no links needed.

edit on 26-10-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM
.

Think back further, you are supposed to come up with the info.


Foos I guess you missed my question earlier.......I'll give you the benefit of the doubt........so I'll ask it again.

Do you support Jarrah's claim that NASA deliberately let the Challenger shuttle blow up on account of what Christa McAuliffe might report back regarding seeing stars in space?

A simple "yes" or "no" is all that's required.......no quotes, no links needed.

edit on 26-10-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


Only facts are important to the thread..
Asking for someones opinion is just trolling..



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 






Why would the film studio bother with such details ?



They used the same material that was used on the actual spacecraft!! It wasn't sheets of "gold"...it was (is) metalized mylar (plastic) reflective film.

Sheesh, besides being well-known in many everyday applications (they even make pretty balloons out of it!!), it has industrial uses....and still used on modern satellites and other spacecraft and components!!!!

"Mylar" i a trade name...it is also called BoPET


Truly, this ignorance of even the basics of modern life and technology is astounding.

Believing in a *faked* Apollo is right up there in the annals of lunacy, as well.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 



You call it a "replica" because you see it's exactly the same Landing Module

The official story is that it was made by Pinewood Studios in London for the 1971 James Bond movie "Diamonds Are Forever" This doesn't seem to be the case. Does it ?

It was more likely made for NASA (George Mueller) in 1969


Really? I e-mailed the London Science Museum. Here, verbatim, is their reply:


Thank you for your email dated 26th October 2011 with regards to the possibility that the Science Museum’s model Apollo 11 Lunar Lander is (or was) a prop from a film – possibly Diamonds Are Forever or Apollo 13. The object is inventoried within the Museum’s collections as follows:

Replica Apollo 11 lunar excursion module (Inventory number 1977-435)

This object is currently on display within the Museum’s Exploring Space Gallery; should you wish to view it please visit the Museum during normal opening hours – 10am to 6pm, last entry 5.15pm, Monday to Sunday except 24th to 26th December. I have reviewed the Museum’s technical file linked to this, T/1977-435, and there is no mention of this object being used (or potentially used) in any filming production prior to entering the Museum’s care.

The object formerly entered the Museum’s care in 1977. In fact original correspondence (held on nominal file 6954) with the original model makers, Westbury Design and Optical Ltd, indicates that this object was built specifically at the request of the Museum and for display purposes only. Further more the original enquiry into obtaining a quote from the above model making company was made by the Museum in 1975. Diamonds Are Forever was released in 1971 and Apollo 13 in 1995. As you can see the Museum’s model post-dates these films by several years.

Museum paperwork also contains original drawings supplied by NASA and Grumman Aerospace (the company who built the original Apollo Lunar Landers). With further correspondence suggesting the Museum liaised with these institutions to supply Westbury Design and Optical Ltd the most detailed and authentic plans as possible. I trust this information is of some use to you and I wish you all the best with your research.
Rory Cook
Corporate Information and Enquiries Officer
Science Museum


So much for the "official story."
edit on 26-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Thank you, DJ.

It is amusing to note that not even

"Rory Cook
Corporate Information and Enquiries Officer "

....is immune from typos and minor mistakes (**) in his narrative response. Still, the gist of it was factual, and completely buries this nonsense of Pinewood Studios.

And, the incredible WASTE of time initiated by certain ATS contributors............


(**) Here:


The object formerly entered...


(I think he * meant, "formally" entered...)

(* --- I added a hyperlink, just to be sure it was a "he"....just in case...and proving a real person....).




Diamonds Are Forever was released in 1971 and Apollo 13 in 1995. As you can see the Museum’s model post-dates these films by several years.


( Hastily written, or edited to add "Apollo 13", not noticing the slight error when referring to 1995 as being "pre-date" to 1977
)

Of course, as stated, VERY minor, just thought best to point it out before certain "others" try to make hay out of it....(even if capable of noticing....doubt they'd read it fully, in any event.....).


I am especially gladdened to see the reference to the use of official Grumman documents, in the re-creation.

Of course, any hobbyist in scale modeling knows that is commonplace, in order to ensure accuracy in the reproduction, in whichever scale you choose to work.







edit on Wed 26 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Ove38
 



You call it a "replica" because you see it's exactly the same Landing Module

The official story is that it was made by Pinewood Studios in London for the 1971 James Bond movie "Diamonds Are Forever" This doesn't seem to be the case. Does it ?

It was more likely made for NASA (George Mueller) in 1969


Really? I e-mailed the London Science Museum. Here, verbatim, is their reply:


Thank you for your email dated 26th October 2011 with regards to the possibility that the Science Museum’s model Apollo 11 Lunar Lander is (or was) a prop from a film – possibly Diamonds Are Forever or Apollo 13. The object is inventoried within the Museum’s collections as follows:

Replica Apollo 11 lunar excursion module (Inventory number 1977-435)

This object is currently on display within the Museum’s Exploring Space Gallery; should you wish to view it please visit the Museum during normal opening hours – 10am to 6pm, last entry 5.15pm, Monday to Sunday except 24th to 26th December. I have reviewed the Museum’s technical file linked to this, T/1977-435, and there is no mention of this object being used (or potentially used) in any filming production prior to entering the Museum’s care.

The object formerly entered the Museum’s care in 1977. In fact original correspondence (held on nominal file 6954) with the original model makers, Westbury Design and Optical Ltd, indicates that this object was built specifically at the request of the Museum and for display purposes only. Further more the original enquiry into obtaining a quote from the above model making company was made by the Museum in 1975. Diamonds Are Forever was released in 1971 and Apollo 13 in 1995. As you can see the Museum’s model post-dates these films by several years.

Museum paperwork also contains original drawings supplied by NASA and Grumman Aerospace (the company who built the original Apollo Lunar Landers). With further correspondence suggesting the Museum liaised with these institutions to supply Westbury Design and Optical Ltd the most detailed and authentic plans as possible. I trust this information is of some use to you and I wish you all the best with your research.
Rory Cook
Corporate Information and Enquiries Officer
Science Museum


So much for the "official story."

Not so fast,

Company details for WESTBURY DESIGN AND OPTICAL LIMITED
Registered Office THE MATT STUDIO, PINEWOOD STUDIOS, UNITED KINGDOM

Westbury Design and Optical Ltd (a special effects company at Pinewood Studios) says it made this prop at the request of the Museum ? Based on drawings from NASA ? For display purposes only ? Sounds like this was a very important "display"

Established fact: It was made at Pinewood studios

Now, what sounds more likely
1. it was made for a Movie
2. it was made for a Museum
edit on 26-10-2011 by Ove38 because: edit text



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 



Now, what sounds more likely
1. it was made for a Movie ....


It was contracted for, and built, in 1977!!

The "movie" ("Diamonds Are Forever") was produced in 1971!!

Stop beating this dead horse.

Here, try to get a few facts under your belt:

A field Guide to American Spacecraft: Lunar Modules

You might also check that same site, for lots more information. An education is well-needed, here it seems.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
It was contracted for, and built, in 1977!!

No, The Apollo Lunar Module "formerly entered the Museum’s care in 1977"
Before that it was at the Pinewood film Studios, where it was made, right ?

It wasn't made for a James Bond movie. It was made for the 1969 Apollo 11 movie

edit on 26-10-2011 by Ove38 because: link edit



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

No, The Apollo Lunar Module "formerly entered the Museum’s care in 1977"
Before that it was at the Pinewood film Studios, where it was made, right ?

It wasn't made for a James Bond movie. It was made for the 1969 Apollo 11 movie



BS!

Do please try to keep up, and enhance reading comprehension:


(FROM the London Museum's e-mail correspondence of 26th October, 2011)----


....Westbury Design and Optical Ltd, indicates that this object was [color=gold]built specifically at the request of the Museum and for display purposes only. ......

...Further more the original enquiry into obtaining a quote from the above model making company was made by the Museum in [color=gold]1975.



Why do you keep lying (and still pounding on a deceased equine)??



edit on Wed 26 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Well done - good research - glad you have solved that minor mystery!

Unbelievable how teeh shills and di-info agents can't read and/or comprehend such a simple document!!


edit on 26-10-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

If this was only a model made Pinewood Studios made for a James Bond movie. Why would they make the detailed plaque and the exact same discoloration of the tinfolie ?


Ove I tried not to get involved with this "dead horse".......but couldn't help noticing all the photos you keep posting.......that prove........well they prove Nada!

DJW001's previous correspondence with the London Science Museam explaining that it was made at the request of the museum......kinda answers your question above.

But what confuses me is why you now say :

Originally posted by Ove38

It wasn't made for a James Bond movie. It was made for the 1969 Apollo 11 movie


I thought you just suggested that the detailed plaque and colouration meant that it wasn't for a movie.


Ove you seem to be tying yourself in knots over the guts of this dead horse.
:
edit on 26-10-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


Again....rubbish nonsense:


It wasn't made for a James Bond movie. It was made for the 1969 Apollo 11 movie


The LM that flew on Apollo 11 was built in New York State, USA...at the Grumman Corporation factory on Long Island.

It was the fifth LM produced at the Grumman factory. LM-5.

www.militaryphotos.net...

web.mac.com...

fi.edu...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

historical.ha.com...

home.earthlink.net...

en.wikipedia.org...



Actual photos from the currently orbiting LROC aboard the LCROSS satellite, showing the Apollo 11 landing site as it exists today. These were used to compile the video




The video maker's notes on his process:


See stunning ultra close-up views of the Apollo 11 landing site. All Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images were deconvolved and enhanced in order to show the landing site with a remarkable level of detail. The large crater to the right of the Apollo 11 LM descent stage is Little West Crater. Lunar north is up in all photos. Distance scales are accurate to approximately 2 percent or better.

It is funny that there are those who believe that the moon landings were a hoax. The plethora of archived data and Apollo era documents, video footage, photographs, and moon rocks which have been thoroughly examined by scientists around the world, makes it absolutely impossible that the moon landings could have been hoaxed. And now, 40 years later, the LRO photographs of the Apollo landing sites prove that the moon landings were in fact real.

Notes about how the photos were aligned relative to one another:

All images were initially aligned relative to LRO photo M116161085R since this particular photo featured the least amount of distortion. In other words, the LRO was basically looking nearly straight down at the Apollo 11 landing site when photo M116161085R was taken and the landing site is close to the vertical axis of the image. All photos were then registered with M116161085R by aligning the LM's +Y footpad (the north footpad) in each photo atop of the +Y footpad in photo M116161085R. Next, all photos were rotated as necessary about the +Y footpad in order to achieve rotational alignment using small features located west of the +Y footpad. This type of rotational alignment method is necessary since some photos may be slightly skewed depending on the look-down angles of the LRO when it photographed the landing site. Next, the images were independently scaled in the horizontal and vertical axes in order to get the image scales to exactly match photo M116161085R. This was necessary due to the somewhat varying look-down angles as mentioned above. A second iteration of the above procedures was done in order to fine tweak the registration of all photos relative to photo M116161085R. Finally, north-up orientation was calibrated based on the azimuth bearing of the setting sun as seen in the final sunset photo M117338434R. The setting sun, at the moment photo M117338434R was taken, was on a bearing of 269°47' relative to the LM. It was then easy to measure the bearing of the plume deflector shadows in photo M117338434R and then adjust the rotation of all of the stacked photos such that lunar north is straight up.

A note about the resolutions described in my video:

Photo resolution, expressed in either feet or meters per pixel in my video merely is the photo's image scale when my video is viewed at 1280x720 HD resolution and is not the inherent maximum resolution of the deconvolved LRO photos. The maximum inherent resolution achieved so far in any of my deconvolved and enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel. Horizontal and vertical surface coverage for any photo can be calculated by multiplying 1280 or 720 by the stated resolution. Thus 0.5 feet per pixel, when multiplied by 1280 and 720, yields photo coverage of 640 feet horizontally by 360 feet vertically.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 621  622  623    625  626  627 >>

log in

join