Faked images from our trip to the moon?

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2

if you buy into LC claims, doesn't it require you to accept the NASA photos as legit? Hard to resolve one aspect and discount the other, no?


Nope. From earlier in this thread:

"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."

Emphasis on the "heavily altered" part here. There's just no way they could have survived the various types of radiation in those craft made of thin aluminum, nor could they have walked around on the radioactive moon in linen suits with aluminum foil sewed in. That part is definitely BS. I think we went, just not in the way they said. They had to have some other kind of technology to deal with the radiation. What it is, I don't know, but I can say for sure it's not "neutron resistant foil".


Interesting.... Honestly grizzle2 you present a compelling case and a few valid arguments and I don't mean to "pair off" with you in this debate but......on one hand you present an argument that WE DIDN'T GO due to radiation, photographic evidence and inferior technology THEN state you accept we DID GO with a purportedly alternate program which is somehow exempt from your prior scrutiny. I'm a tad confused.


As I mentioned I used to be in hoax camp but now accept the "official story" with the caveat that there was much hype and hoopla and that photos were, in fact, retouched / enhanced as part of the "Public Relations" effort.

I continue to have a little "buyer's remorse" and remain open to further debate / analysis on this topic. Besides, I still find this "conspiracy" fascinating and enjoy discussing it. I tend to find the scientific scrutiny more plausible and compelling than the "photo tampering" for reasons above.

In short: we both share similar opinions.
edit on 4-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
S & F

I've started to believe that we either have never went to the moon, or we went later than the Russians (or whomever went to the moon first)

I feel that we lied because ya know America has to be #1 at EVERYTHING

Damn



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheri2012
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.


We went to the moon EVENTUALLY



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Now tell how to fake this facts?

on the left: selene/jaxa elevation data - right: nasa photo


This are 2 pics from Apollo 15, Some said the forderground is shopped, take a look. different perspective:




posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ItsEvolutionBaby
Ever hear about Stanley Kubrick and the filming of 2001 A Space Odyssey - the movie was released in 1968... and its likely relationship to some of those Apollo moon shots we saw?

Check this out for a little trip down "memory" lane---

www.kubrick2001.com...


kubrick already owes me several hours of my life back, and now i want another 20 mins from you too!
edit on 4-4-2011 by Beavers because: because it must be filled out



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy

Originally posted by cushycrux

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
Actually, looking at the "C" picture again, isn't that a footprint in the lower right corner? Now scale that "eyelash" to the scale of the footprint....

That's somekind of massive eyelash!


OHHH MAN! IT IS ON THE FILM NOT ON THE STONE!
edit on 4-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)


How can it be on the film???? How did the film survive the radiation and take perfect pictures?? Look at pics from Chernobyl....all grainy because the radiation messed with the film....yet on the surface of the moon where radiation is many times more extreme the film stayed perfect. The manufactures of the camera said the ONLY modification on the camera was that it had a cartridge fed film. There was nothing added to stop radiation. Even the buttons were standard....yet the pics were perfect...bulllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll&*&%

Its Bull without a doubt. Theres NO way we ever went to the moon.

Think about this.....the shuttle goes 400 miles and requires SRB and 1.7 million KG of fuel.....how far is the moon? 240,000 miles or so.....how did a rocket get there and back with so little fuel??

How did the astronaut's dock the lander with the rocket travelling at 4000mph, with the computing power of a calculator??

How did the space suits cool the astronaut's in the 250c sunlight? And warm them in the -150c shade??
They allegedly used batteries....to power their life support for 3 days along as all the other equipment they took. hmmmm what kind of batteries were available in 69 that could achieve this? How did they get round the fact they were in a vacuum and normal thermal dynamics dont work?

Im a firm believer it was faked because russia had managed to launch a satellite and the US wanted to show that it was more technologically advanced....whereas it was an elaborate hoax that has/had fooled billions of people.


There is no air resistance in space and how many times should I post this pics he???!
edit on 4-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


FACE/PALM!!!!

You really need to get your perspectives straight. You wrote (about lil' ole' ME):


WW, I can just picture him centuries ago arguing that the world is flat.


Here, let me FIX THAT FOR YOU!!!! In that fanciful scenario, I would have been the one using SCIENCE and REASON and LOGIC to point out to the "Jarrah Whites" and "Ralph Renes" of the era that THEY WERE WRONG!

(Using that little-known ancient "Flintstones version 0.01 BC" internet....) LOL!
(Yabba Dabba Doo!!!)


Because, it would be they (and equally idiotic sorts like them) who would be pushing the "flat" claims.

Just as the ancients (in reality, very few) who were thinking the World may have been "flat", Apollo "hoax" propagandists are coming from a position of UTTER IGNORANCE, before they even begin.

Ignorance that does NOT have to remain in force, of course......that is what education** is for. PROPER education, not "pseudo"-science claptrap like these silly VAB "radiation" claims (all made up) and that bugaboo of a "crater" under the LM's descent engine.......++

__________________________________________________________________________________________

**ON "education". Vital that what is told to you is the TRUTH, and ACCURATE. "Hoax" pushers skew what they say, purposely.....in other words, they LIE through their teeth, to keep their charade going....

....here's an example. Imagine an experiment where you (or others reading this) were told, when young, utterly wrong things about history, math and other sciences information?? Brainwashed, in manner of saying. AND, this false info could be readily found to be incorrect, IF you took the effort to investigate more on your own. But, it was easier to just "believe" what some told you, based on how it was presented....and the ease with which it was "acquired", or "imparted" to you.

PROPAGANDA. BAD science. (Heck....lump "religion" into that mix....that is a topic that is wholly based on "faith", and has no empirical evidence to support it. BUT, look how fervently many will fight, to the death, over conflicting "beliefs".)
**


_________________________________________________________________________________________


......++(BTW --- carried that "crater" nonsense in from another thread, did you?? Well, here it is, out in the open yet again. How about YOU explain, in full detail, just why there "should" have been a crater! Maths, including the forces of displacement the from the engine exhaust gasses, interacting with the density and displacement potential of the Lunar regolith, etc.

    How deep were the uppermost layers, that would be likely moved by the descent engine exhaust?
    How dense was the underlying material? Can we find something equivalent, on Earth, to relate to?
    Hard-packed dirt? Or, more like loose sand? YOU bring the information.....


FACTS!! Prove that there should have been a "crater". (Side note: Whilst at that, show why would NASA neglect to "fake" it, then....IF, as you "asked", there should have been a 'crater'?? The lack of logic is almost palpable, here.....)

See? It's handy for someone to swoop into a thread, drop these innuendos, and soar away again....leaving this detritus behind to stink up the place. BUT, it just rots, and remains crap, unless it is substantiated by facts, evidence, anything to give it even a shred of credibility.

SO far.......Nothing there.


PS: There is also the topic of UTube (and ATS member) "Luna Cognita", and his videos and investigations.

Actually, some of that material is VERY good at popping the fantasy balloons of Apollo "hoax" nonsense. It is hypocritical that some "hoax" propagandists, here, will cite their pleasure at LC's work, and then out the other side of their mouths keep on about the non-existent "hoax".

LC's (not always valid claims, but there we are, in other thread discussions) revolve around a central thesis.....that NASA manned missions did go to the Moon, of course. LC's contentions are that there is a huge "cover-up" involved in what was actually discovered, there.....by our Astronauts.

THAT is the meat of his claims.....in a nutshell.

And, again......it is undeniable that photos are in existence, of late.....due to recent robotic Lunar satellite missions. Photographing the Apollo landing sites was not a primary function.....the sheer expenses involved makes that a ludicrous quest.....since the ENTIRE scientific community has no doubts about the reality of Apollo. However, since mapping and topography (among other sciences) were the mission objectives....well, taking pictures is taking pictures. Naturally, you're going to see the Apollo hardware, up to the limits of the camera resolution you happened to design for your other purposes......




edit on 4 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


What exactly are you trying to prove fro your pics?? Are you saying that because these 2 images match that we went to the moon?

We may have observed the surface of the moon, im not questioning that, im stating that the moon landing (manned) never happened. As for the things on the moon....it wouldnt be unrealistic to assume they were dropped there by unmanned crafts...they bombed the moon a few years back, so dropping off a lunar buggy wouldnt be too hard.

Explain how the pics were unaffected by the huge amounts of radiation?????
Explain how they cooled themselves in 250c heat????
Explain how they traveled 500,000 miles with a little bit more fuel than the shuttle????
Explain how they docked at 4000mph with a computer that is equivalent to a calculator????
Explain how cross hatches appear behind objects when they are part of the lens????
Explain the multiple light sources used...to illuminate the guys coming out of the lander etc????

Theres too many things wrong with the whole moon landing.
Why have we never returned? Aliens...nah.....tight governments....nah.....we know all we need to know....nah....we never went because of radiation etc



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by cushycrux
 


What exactly are you trying to prove fro your pics?? Are you saying that because these 2 images match that we went to the moon?

We may have observed the surface of the moon, im not questioning that, im stating that the moon landing (manned) never happened. As for the things on the moon....it wouldnt be unrealistic to assume they were dropped there by unmanned crafts...they bombed the moon a few years back, so dropping off a lunar buggy wouldnt be too hard.

Explain how the pics were unaffected by the huge amounts of radiation?????
Explain how they cooled themselves in 250c heat????
Explain how they traveled 500,000 miles with a little bit more fuel than the shuttle????
Explain how they docked at 4000mph with a computer that is equivalent to a calculator????
Explain how cross hatches appear behind objects when they are part of the lens????
Explain the multiple light sources used...to illuminate the guys coming out of the lander etc????

Theres too many things wrong with the whole moon landing.
Why have we never returned? Aliens...nah.....tight governments....nah.....we know all we need to know....nah....we never went because of radiation etc



No I will not. I will not debate 1000 times the same, sorry. Use the search on ATS.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Oh sorry i thought you were some sort of expert or astronaut....my mistake


I dont need to read a load of threads to know it was faked, these are just a few of my questions that cannot be explained.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
In both the images in the OP, the flag looks like its pointing the same way to me...




posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux
There is no air resistance in space and how many times should I post this pics he???!
edit on 4-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)


So you are comparing computer generated picture with the older pictures... hmmm
What makes you think that they delivered the right pictures to you ? You know, normally when you lie you tend to provide stuff that goes accordingly to it.

Apollo pictures have been tampered, you just have to open your eyes.
The why is another question.
edit on 4-4-2011 by Fedge because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Caji316
 


do you have a link or name for that doc?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You are doing a huge work replying to so many topics dude, you never take breaks ?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fedge

Originally posted by cushycrux
There is no air resistance in space and how many times should I post this pics he???!
edit on 4-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)


So you are comparing computer generated picture with the older pictures... hmmm
What makes you think that they delivered the right pictures to you ? You know, normally when you lie you tend to provide stuff that goes accordingly to it.

Apollo pictures have been tampered, you just have to open your eyes.
The why is another question.
edit on 4-4-2011 by Fedge because: (no reason given)


Instead of insult me the whole time you should better learn how to use Brain. The left is from japan elevation data, the right from nasa. (Yes I know, you BELIEVE that nasa and japan fakes the data for us.
edit on 4-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Oh sorry i thought you were some sort of expert or astronaut....my mistake


I dont need to read a load of threads to know it was faked, these are just a few of my questions that cannot be explained.




"...I dont need to read a load of threads to know it was faked..."
edit on 4-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Is the jaxa-selene elevation data really that accurate?
I wanted to install the sw that generates those images but was warned that it could fuggup my system... so I didn't


I assume that you can set the point of view in that app to match any other shot taken on the moon?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by snewpers
Is the jaxa-selene elevation data really that accurate?
I wanted to install the sw that generates those images but was warned that it could fuggup my system... so I didn't


I assume that you can set the point of view in that app to match any other shot taken on the moon?


VERY LAST POST HERE:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


I've seen that link to the wiki and to the image you posted before.

I thought you might have installed the application where you can render your own images. Clearly you did not.

The Jaxa image (the LARGE one) has a very smooth foreground surface, but it shows details of smaller rocks in the background. The large rock on the Nasa image (again the LARGE one) next to the vehicle, is not in the Jaxa image.

You made an ironic comment about Jaxa and Nasa working together, but the Jaxa is showing an image from Nasa to comparetheir own data to. Not to be an a$$, but if Jaxa would have shown a different image when comparing the two, there might be, well, at least a slight problem for either organisation.



I dunno
edit on 4-4-2011 by snewpers because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-4-2011 by snewpers because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
Explain how the pics were unaffected by the huge amounts of radiation?????
Explain how they cooled themselves in 250c heat????
Explain how they traveled 500,000 miles with a little bit more fuel than the shuttle????
Explain how they docked at 4000mph with a computer that is equivalent to a calculator????
Explain how cross hatches appear behind objects when they are part of the lens????
Explain the multiple light sources used...to illuminate the guys coming out of the lander etc????


1. Define "huge amounts" of radiation.

2. Assuming you're talking about the astronauts on the lunar surface, sublimation.

3. The Saturn V had about 2,700,000 kg of liquid fuel and oxidizer. The Space Shuttle has about 730,000 kg of liquid fuel and oxidizer and 1,008,000 kg of solid fuel for a total mass of 1,738,000 kg, or about a million kilograms less than the Saturn V.

4. They don't dock at 4000 mph, that would be very dangerous. You typically want to keep your final docking speed to under 1 meter per second.

5. Cross hatches weren't part of the lens. They sat on a Reseau plate just above the film, between the film and lens. And appearance of bright objects in front of the cross hatches is due to internal reflection in the glass plate.

6. There was primarily only one light source, the sun. Any fill light is the result of reflection off the moon's surface.





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join