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 mockrock
This should be interesting, vanishing LEM... There will be some scientific explanation more akin to voodoo magic!
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by JohnnySasaki
You want to know how they could have faked the landscapes?
Is that a serious question? The same way these guys did it:
They only had about 10 feet of set. To fake the moon landing, and get the footage they have, you would need miles of set.
Miles of set... so show us these miles you are talking about.
I still haven't seen it. And prove, that its miles.
And while you are at it, whats so difficult about creating miles of set outdoors?
How did Kubrick fake his landscapes and planets?
Most of the time, he didn't. On the video you presented however, it does look like he did, and I'll tell you how he did it. A back drop. Artists drawing of a landscape cleverly positioned behind actual ground to make it look like it goes on forever. Good for movie sets that require little to no movement, because once you start moving the camera too much you can start to see the lack of any depth perception.
So you are saying the backgrounds behind the dawn of man scenes are real, and some are drawn in?
And that explains the lack of depth perception, lol.
Basically, you dont know how they did it do you?
And we are talking about film made back in the '60's.
Old technology.
Could they have done that on the moon? Sure, for some shots probably, but for the shots that were moving in the rover, it would have been impossible.
Why?
I understand your problem.
If we didn't land men on the moon, it kind of puts a damper on all the UFO stuff as well.
It means that space travel is practically impossible.
No problem. Like I said, I fully acknowledge the possibility that Aliens are not visiting us. I said I was split 50/50.
So you actually believe that aliens are visiting us. And I suppose you need proof that they are not?
Well why dont you and Capt. Obvious ask them if we humans landed men on the moon?
They should be able to go check the landing sites easy.
UFO's on the other hand are fact based solely on their definition. It doesn't state anywhere that UFO's have to be alien.
UFO's are not interesting topics for conversations if they are not related to extra terrestrials.
So stop hiding behind the definition. Because if you are really making an issue about not being able to identify Earth based aircraft, birds, or bugs, well thats a personal issue you have and it doesn't need to be brought up in this thread.
Miles of set... so show us these miles you are talking about.
I still haven't seen it.
And prove, that its miles.
And while you are at it, whats so difficult about creating miles of set outdoors?
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by mockrock
What kind of garbage picture is that? It's a jumbled mess of nonsense.
You have been shown the proper relationships of the photos, before....now, you are just making crap up.
DO it properly, or don't do it at all...what a waste of time.
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by FoosM
"Debunking the claims of hoaxers is a little like playing soccer against eleven traffic cones, but I do it in the hopes of preventing others who are new to this from being misled by conspiracy theorists who really don't know what they're talking about."
Oh, how I wish I had coined that sentence, it is spot on!!
Here, for those who are perspective-challenged, and cannot understand, nor grasp, the concept of real-life distance, and how moving in a local area can drastically alter local views, but NOT greatly change the view of a very distant range of hills:
The LEM is in the background on the top image... Therefore it should appear on the bottom image.
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by mockrock
The LEM is in the background on the top image... Therefore it should appear on the bottom image.
You just don't have clue do you? How can it be so difficult to understand.....unless, of course you have another agenda here.
As many others have suggested.
Again your explanation only works on objects in the foreground, why is the LEM not in the bottom photo?
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by mockrock
The LEM is in the background on the top image... Therefore it should appear on the bottom image.
You just don't have clue do you? How can it be so difficult to understand.....unless, of course you have another agenda here.
As many others have suggested.
Originally posted by mockrock
Uploaded with ImageShack.us" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
Use the scroll bar on the image to look to the right.. The Parallax explanation does not explain the missing LEM
Hoax... notice the matching background.. the LEM should be seen on the bottom photo.. This means the photos were staged, whether the U.S later got to the moon is a different question.
But as you can see hoax/staged photographs.edit on 17-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)
The LEM should appear in the background of the bottom photo.
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by mockrock
For the last time, no:
The LEM should appear in the background of the bottom photo.
The bottom photo is of the Astronaut next to the massive boulder. He has moved, and the camera has moved, so that the LM cannot be seen in the field of the camera view any more, not in the direction the camera is pointed.
You didn't even look at the post you just replied to. You have nothing, but are demonstrating well-known troll tactics.
What a shame, when someone thinks it's "funny" to play a punk on the Internet. And, how so very, very sad.......
Originally posted by mockrock
reply to post by ProudBird
I think you are confused,
The LEM should appear in the background of the bottom photo.
You could walk a mile in either direction left or right and the LEM should still be nestled in front of the mountain backdrop. Because it is in the background.. not foreground.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
One of the main points that I have is that the Apollo lunar landings all took place under Richard Nixon's presidency. And that deserves many asterisks **********
But I never referred to Richard Nixon as the devil.
www.abovetopsecret.com...