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 Tomblvd
Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by ppk55
There is also no shadow difference in the two images. If there is a time difference between the two images, we should see a shadow difference as well. In this two images, the illumination of the background is exactly the same.
Actually, you wouldn't expect to see any appreciable differences in shadows for any mission. A lunar day is 28 days long, so the movement of the sun in the sky over the course of an earth day is practically nil.
So Sherman asked me to work for him and we started a company called The Front Projection Corporation – where I became Vice President and General Manager and he was the President. There we created the only effective Front Projection Background System which we sold to commercial photographic and portrait studios around the world for advertising and wedding photography. We also created a version that worked for Television which permitted video backgrounds, panning and tilting while keeping the background realistic. These we sold to GE for their Television cameras and to movie studios around the world. This I patented in 1965.... Another pan/tilt version of this system was used by Rank Studios then working on Kubrik’s Space Odyssey as well as many James Bond films “Diamonds Are Forever” and “You Only Die Once” as well as Superman and other American films
- According to researcher Bill Wood, NASA heavily subsidized Stanley Kubrick when he produced the movie "2001". Wood claims 2001 was used to develop the special effects needed to fake a lunar landing and its purpose, when it premiered in 1968, was to show the public what a real lunar landing was supposed to look like.
...Sean Connery (as James Bond) breaks into a secret facility in Nevada where fake moonwalking is being filmed. Some people believe Apollo moonwalking could have been filmed at the Nevada Test Site or inside a hangar at nearby Area 51.
Bond's escape through a moon landing "movie set" refers to the popular conspiracy theory of the time that the real moon landings were faked. The scene is filmed in a Johns-Manville gypsum plant located just outside of Las Vegas. During filming the wheels kept falling off. In one scene where a car turns over you can see one of the wheels that had broken off the buggy rolling in the foreground. In 2004, Sean Connery bought the moon buggy for approximately $54,000.
Actor Ed Bishop played the part of a Lunar shuttle captain in Kubrick's 1968 movie "2001: A Space Odyssey." Interestingly, Ed Bishop also played the part of Klaus Hergersheimer in the 1971 movie "Diamonds are Forever" (and his part was uncredited in that movie.) Ed Bishop is the actor who hands Sean Connery a dosimeter after Sean Connery (as James Bond) breaks into a secret facility in Nevada where fake moonwalking is being filmed.
Ken Adam, production designer on "Dr. Strangelove" and "Barry Lyndon", said he was not asked to work on 2001 because Kubrick had already worked for a year with experts from NASA and had done a lot of research; Adam said he would have been "too far behind." (Note: Ken Adam did production design for the 1971 movie "Diamonds are Forever" that includes a moonscape.
James Bond traces suspicious activity back to the recluse Willard Whyte, who resides as a recluse in his penthouse apartment in the Whyte House in Las Vegas, Nevada...
The character of Whyte takes several traits from eccentric industrialist Howard Hughes such as the similar name, his multi-billionaire status, the ownership of aerospace corporations and his reclusive behavior. Around the time of filming, Hughes too, was secluded at a Las Vegas hotel, similar to Whyte's character. The Hughes-owned Landmark Hotel and Casino, since been demolished, was used for the scene where Bond scales the hotel's outside elevators.
Hughes was a friend of Bond Producer Albert Broccoli, who created the Willard Whyte role after dreaming that Hughes had been kidnapped. In real life, Hughes was a great help to his friend in the production of Diamonds Are Forever; as he is known to have used his considerable influence in Las Vegas to facilitate the location film crew. Even so, the production team (especially Jimmy Dean, who was employed by Hughes as a casino entertainer at the time) was worried that that their publicity-shy patron might be offended by such a similar portrayal of himself in the movie. Reportedly, Hughes was pleased with the outcome when he saw the finished project.
Howard Robard Hughes, Jr. (December 24, 1905 – April 5, 1976) was an American aviator, engineer, industrialist, *film producer*, *film director*, philanthropist,
Surveyor 1 was the first lunar lander in the American Surveyor program that explored the Moon. The program was managed by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, utilizing spacecraft designed and built by Hughes Aircraft.
Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by FoosM
Foos, why should we believe you when you are obviously being paid to post Jarrah's videos? If you are an agent sent by someone else to flog his stuff, I think it disqualifies you as a poster.
Originally posted by masterp
Excuse me, but how is it practically nil? it's 28 times slower than Earth, but it's not nil.
Picture 22367 was taken at 166:53:35, whereas picture 22402 was taken at 167:11:55 of EVA-3/GS-8, which means a difference of roughly 19 minutes. Within that amount of time, a change in shadows on Earth is very highly visible, and so on the moon there should have been a very slight variation. We don't have even that slight variation in the pictures posted above.
Even if we take two pictures that are a long time apart:
AS17-140-21387 taken at 164:10:41.
AS17-143-21941 taken at 170:30:00.
We see the astronaut's shadow is roughly the same length.
The time between the two photos is roughly 6 hours and 20 minutes. On Earth, within 7 hours, a person's shadow can grow from 0 to 2 meters (let's say from 12 oclock where the shadow of a man is 0 meters from its body to 7 oclock in the evening where the shadow of the man is roughly 2 meters). On the moon, we should see 1/28 of that change within the same time period, i.e. 200/28 = 7 centimeters.
Now 7 centimeters is not a very big difference, but on little rocks that are roughly around the same size, we don't see any difference in the shadows!
Even with this little difference within 7 hours, the pictures of the hills in the background are extremely identical, when it comes to shadows. There is no practical difference in the shadowing of the hills. In fact, in each and every photo, the hills' shadows are extremely unchanging.
Please also note the distinct lack of any features on the hills. It's like hills have no boulders and rocks on them! For example, have a look at the picture 21387: there are numerous visible rocks up to the base of the hills, but there are no rocks on the hills!
Originally posted by masterp
Here is another picture that shows the ridiculous hill syndrome:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
The hill seems to be extremely close, and up to its base the lunar terrain is normal, i.e. as we know it so far. But on the hill, the terrain is totally different. There are no craters on the hill, and very minuscule rocks.
Originally posted by Tomblvd
Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by ppk55
There is also no shadow difference in the two images. If there is a time difference between the two images, we should see a shadow difference as well. In this two images, the illumination of the background is exactly the same.
Actually, you wouldn't expect to see any appreciable differences in shadows for any mission. A lunar day is 28 days long, so the movement of the sun in the sky over the course of an earth day is practically nil.
Originally posted by FoosM
So how do you explain this:
Originally posted by Tomblvd
Originally posted by FoosM
So how do you explain this:
Differences in exposure and very selective cropping.
For those interested in the continuing dishonesty of Foos, here are links to the actual, untouched, pictures:
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
You've already proven beyond a reasonable doubt you know nothing about photography, so I don't doubt the changes in exposure, along with the massive distance changes mean nothing to you.
Just as I thought, I gave you a little rope and you just hung yourself.
reply to post by DJW001
You aren't paying attention.
Victory has been declared. What more do you need?
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DJW001
You aren't paying attention.
Victory has been declared. What more do you need?
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Phage
reply to post by DJW001
You aren't paying attention.
Victory has been declared. What more do you need?
My bad.