Faked images from our trip to the moon?

page: 2
37
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 



"That's basically a pretty big rocket engine — just above where the flag is located — and when they did that, it blew over the antenna that was communicating with the Earth and it rotated the flag about 120 degrees."


Oh, is that the "pretty big rocket engine" that didn't create a crater on landing??

Umm, hang on, no, that was the even bigger rocket in the descent stage...




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Oh Lordy my friends...here we go again
Lets just take a step back and consider another perspective...Lets suppose we went to the moon, it was tough and hard...collected rocks etc...put the reflectors there and did everything that was documented. BUT...what would happen if the collective images, photography etc failed.
The hasselblad, the images yes they were bad...would it be so terrible if Nasa suddenly said yeah we did it...but we failed in our technology to give you all what you expected?...and yes if that were the case they should admit it...but then what proof?..and we would all be on their backs....
What is my spin?...damned if they do...damned if they don't...I don't frikkin know if they went or not now...which is sad because I was there at the time...As time goes on...everyone is so into the detail...the evidence of this, the evidence of that.....only the astronauts know...
My only wish is that i hope in my heart of hearts it happened...and if it is proven the images had to be ramped up......I hope they are able to show both sides of the coin....
I hope we went to the moon...pure and simple...and I hope we go back someday.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerThe "man" in this video you saw wouldn't have been Ralph Rene', would it?? He was a loon, a crackpot, and none too bright.....same with Bill Kaysing. Or......(Shock of shocks!) NOT that kid from Oz??? He's not all there....or else, he IS, but just promoting himself....using the gulliblity and ignrance of Moon "hoax" believers, to further his media "career"....


Gee, I can't argue with all those ad hominem attacks. I guess you've proved your point.

Ad Hominem

"An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,....

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions..."

Logical Fallacy

Maybe for an encore you can post a video of yourself yelling (like David Klass), "You're a God-D*** liar!!!!"

That would show everyone.

I'm just sayin.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jools
Oh Lordy my friends...here we go again


Why edit out the horizon, the sky, in 90% of the photos? There are all kinds of photo editing artifacts that show up when you mess with the contrast. Why?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


all I can say is my dad is an ex-navy seal and he said he has seen the evidence and yes we did go to the moon. he says it is not fake.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Let me ask you something - would you go through the Van Allen belts and stand on the surface of the moon with no more protection from x-rays, microwaves and hard cosmic rays than a thin-walled aluminum ship and a linen suit with aluminum foil sewed into it?

edit: Oh yeah I forgot the gamma rays.
edit on 3-4-2011 by grizzle2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsEvolutionBaby
 


Yes.....yes, yes, yes....


Ever hear about Stanley Kubrick and the filming of 2001 A Space Odyssey ...


AND....go rent the movie again, and watch the Moon scenes closely. For the mistakes!

Oh....and the "Moon" sets used in the film? They look NOTHING like the real thing.

.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Yahoo


MONTREAL - Did all the manned U.S. lunar landings between July 1969 and December 1972 actually take place or were they hoaxes?

A Canadian book publisher has taken a closer look at images acquired by the Apollo 14 astronauts just before they left the moon 40 years ago.

What Robert Godwin uncovered will probably provide more ammunition for those who doubt a U.S. astronaut ever set foot on Earth's celestial neighbour.

Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are credited with being the first humans to set foot on the moon, on July 20, 1969.

One frequently used argument is that video of the Stars and Stripes planted on lunar soil appears to show the flags blowing in the wind — even though there's no atmosphere on the moon.

Godwin says two frames of film taken from the Apollo 14 lunar lander in February 1971 may lead some people to believe that's true.
In one frame, the American flag is pointed to the right, while in another frame, it's pointing in another direction — to the left.

Godwin, 53, says he was drawn to Apollo 14 after viewing high-resolution images of that landing site which were taken recently by a lunar reconnaissance satellite.

"I've watched every scrap of film, every scrap of video and looked at every single photograph I got from NASA," he told The Canadian Press in an interview from Toronto. That amounts to about 40,000 still pictures and "many, many hours of film footage" — and all TV footage from Apollo 11 through Apollo 17. (The Apollo 13 mission had to be aborted before the spacecraft reached the moon).

He tried to stitch together a composite picture to show the entire view out the window of "Antares", the Apollo 14 lunar lander, using some photos.

Godwin said one still image was missing — but, fortunately, the astronauts had filmed it with a movie camera from almost exactly the same location.

"So I went to grab the final part of the missing panorama from the 16-millimetre movie and in the process of doing that I realized there was this interesting disparity between frames on the 16-millimetre film," he told The Canadian Press. "My first reaction was: 'What's going on here? How is it possible that the flag can turn around 120 degrees?'."



In the takeoff picture, the flag is pointing away from the rover I think it is called?


Here the flag is pointing at the rover.
edit on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 20:34:09 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


After viewing the photos and thinking about the point of view they were taken from, it appears to me the flag was not pointing in opposite directions. The difference you see is only a change in the point of view of the camera.

In the first image, the point of view was above and a little behind the LEM or landing craft. The second image is from the front of the craft and to the left looking back at the craft.

These point of view differences will account for the direction reversal.

And yes, some one could have moved the flag also, but it doesn't matter, the difference can be explained easily with the point of view change.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by grizzle2
 


You haven't done your research into the actual radiation attentuation provided by the spacecraft walls, all the various materials, and the suits too.

This has been covered at GREAT lengths, already.

DO the research.

The total radiation exposure to those men was on the order of a lifetime of chest x-rays, or MRI scans. Most of them suffered from cataracts, as they aged. One of the lingering consequences of the (slightly) elevated dosages.


HOT off the UTube! Posted up yesterday!!!:

edit on 3 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



C shmee. The central isssue for me is the radiation. Why have all the subsequent space missions been in low earth orbit? Is there nothing of any interest at higher altitudes?
Could it be that (as according to Van Allen and the US Army) if you went through the belts you would fry like a breaded steak? X-rays, neutrons, gamma rays, microwaves, hard cosmic rays. The aluminum would actually accelerate the neutrons, like the "window" on a neutron gun. Did all the Apollo mission astronauts just get lucky? I'm just sayin.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The total radiation exposure to those men was on the order of a lifetime of chest x-rays, or MRI scans. Most of them suffered from cataracts, as they aged. One of the lingering consequences of the (slighlty) elevated dosages.


I have, in fact, looked into it in great depth.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by Jools
Oh Lordy my friends...here we go again


Why edit out the horizon, the sky, in 90% of the photos? There are all kinds of photo editing artifacts that show up when you mess with the contrast. Why?

totally get what youre saying...read my post....on the fence...yeah why why why....i dunno
joolsx



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by kinda kurious
 



"That's basically a pretty big rocket engine — just above where the flag is located — and when they did that, it blew over the antenna that was communicating with the Earth and it rotated the flag about 120 degrees."


Oh, is that the "pretty big rocket engine" that didn't create a crater on landing??

Umm, hang on, no, that was the even bigger rocket in the descent stage...


FYI I am quoting the author of the article in OP who debunks the "selected" quotes in OP. I am remaining ON TOPIC with laser like focus as my point is sloppy investigation on part of OP rather than yet another he said-she said Moon hoax thread. We clear?

The Moon Hoax is what brought me to ATS over 4 years ago and I was in hoax camp. The members here have convinced me otherwise to my satisfaction with interminable and irrefutable proof. It is doubtful I'd be swayed back but thanks for the stoke.


In short and IMHO, there is more proof to suggest we went than that which suggests we didn't.

My .02¢
edit on 3-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX...NASA said the C rock was a hair on the picture during the picture development if it's true or not I don't know.


And many Australians reportedly called in to TV stations to report they saw an empty Coca-Cola bottle on the alleged surface of the moon. Does this all point to Clarence Thomas being involved in the conspiracy?


I have to believe now, after much looking into it, that we went, but not in that aluminium soup can and linen/aluminum foil suits with no radiation shielding.
I think most or all of the footage and pics we've been shown are fakes or heavily altered. I definitely believe there is life on the moon.


I agree totally with this! Furthermore, think about the technology of the day, how complex could the computer systems have been to get them there safely? I do not think they even had floppy drives, and internal memory had to be like 24k or something small. We sent to rovers to mars and they got stuck. Don't you think they could havevtestedvthem on the moon first with astronauts there to move the rocks out of there way first?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerthe actual radiation attentuation provided by the spacecraft walls, all the various materials, and the suits too.


Ok, since you have, tell us. Refs please. Show us these futuristic forms of thin aluminum which will shield against hard x-rays, neutrons, gamma rays and neutrons, and cosmic rays.

edit: Did I mention neutrons? Because the surface of the moon is supposed to be hot with neutron emission.
edit on 3-4-2011 by grizzle2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 



I am remaining ON TOPIC with laser like focus as my point is sloppy investigation on part of OP rather than yet another he said-she said Moon hoax thread. We clear?


Crystal clear..


Just pointing out the engine did NOT rotate the flag 120 degrees..
Firstly because they tell us it hardly moves dust but secondly because if it did then it would only twist the flag, not the pole..
The pics do not show a flag twisted around the pole..



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2
edit: Did I mention neutrons? Because the surface of the moon is supposed to be hot with neutron emission.


Oh dang, I can't help myself. Somebody stop me.



Neutrons

Neutrons created by cosmic rays in collision with lunar materials were postulated to be a potential hazard to Apollo crewmen (Kastner et al., 1969). Two methods for neutron-dose assessment were used. These techniques of whole-body counting and neutron-resonant foil were initiated on the Apollo 11 mission. Later analyses indicated that neutron doses were significantly lower than had been anticipated. Both methods were retained because of the remaining potential for neutron production by solar-event particles and because of possible crewman exposure to neutrons from the SNAP-27 radioisotope thermal generator used to power the Apollo lunar surface experiments packages.


LINK
BONUS READING:APOLLO RADIATION REPORT





edit on 3-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yeah yeah yeah, I know all about it. Some of the hard cosmic rays are iron nuclei travelling with the force of a tennis ball going 76 mph. But it's an iron nuclei, so if it happens to pass through you, RIP. But you don't need such a relatively rare event to spoil your two weeks or so in space. There's plenty of lesser radiation which would practically cook you if you tried to transit the belts in a thin-walled aluminum ship in a linen suit with aluminum foil sewn in.
Like hard x-rays, gamma rays, microwaves and I'm sure I mentioned neutrons, which would be accelerated by the aluminum when they passed through it. The moon mission astronauts should not have returned alive.
Ask anyone who checks for defects in steel with a cobalt 60 source if they'll get anywhere near it with only thin aluminum for shielding. Or radiologists if it's safe to hang out near an x-ray machine in an aluminum foil suit.
Years ago, I read Van Allen's original research, which was done with the help of the US Army, with rockets which carried sensors to high altitudes.
I'm just sayin.

By the way, we're waiting for that info on the radiation shielding properties of thin aluminum sheet metal and aluminum foil. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Oh dang, somebody stop me.


OK, I'll try...


I'm on the fence but how can I accept information supposedly collected during the very missions some believe were faked, to prove they actually took place??

Bit of a dilemma huh??



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kuriousneutron-resonant foil....Later analyses indicated that neutron doses were significantly lower than had been anticipated.


Wow, neutron-resistant foil? Really? What was it made of? Kryptonite? Let us know. I can make a billion selling the stuff to survivalists in this day and age. In fact I'd like to have some myself, if it truly exists.
I don't know how the original measurements of the Van Allen belts' radiation levels changed so much to allow the Apollo missions (but nobody else since) to fly through them. It's not like radiation measurements became so much more accurate somehow that they disproved the Army's (and Van Allen's) original measurements.





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join