Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof of moon landing hoax/Neil Armstrong One Small Step

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ckitch
 


Guess you don't know what LENS FLARE is?:


.... this still doesn't explain the long and often high flashes seen ....


Apollo videos are a combination of either a video camera, or a film camera (the 16mm DAC).

Lens flaring occurs in various ways....and is intrinsic to the camera and lens combination, and the method you are using.

Look, here. A modern film where, rather than trying to REMOVE (as most studios and film-makers do) the flares, this director actually encouraged and sought them out, for his "personal touch" effect....:





posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by knowneedtoknow
 




You clearly see that thing emit energy waves all around that means it stays still


Oh and you know that for a fact do you?


As a fact yes i know that is common sense for the stripes. But the stay still part i don't know maybe on the picture
some times yes i make a fool out of my self it happens


If i show you this picture could you tell me what does stripes mean


or maybe this one


or this one


last one


Those stripes are energy universal sighs it means it emits energy



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hmmm? Lens flare eh?

I'm not expert enough on the type of camera or film used in the Apollo missions, but somehow I don't see lens flare being the cause of those flashes. Anyway, it's not just flashes that show its faked, its also the way fallen astronauts get back upright, and the fact they never seem to jump further than they would on earth, unless where wire assisted. Also, what about the obvious faking of the earth shot out of the spacecraft window! etc etc.

I am still firmly holding onto my suggestion they never went, because to arrive at that belief, I have had to weigh up ALL the information... and ALL the information leads me to believe they never landed on the moon.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
It's hard to believe they landed on the moon with a craft that had no more computing power than a cellphone. I can see why so many people remain skeptical.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by coastalite
 


Just like our ancestors crossed whole oceans with even less. Just courage, and a spirit of adventure.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by coastalite
 


This argument also is irrelevant:


.... computing power ....


The main computations that were required were done back on one of the huge mainframes of the day. STILL, though.....a lot of it was also done by hand! Math is math.....and the slide rule was "king" back then!

In any case, the onboard computers were cutting edge, for their day....and they were specifically designed for minimal tasks, per the mission requirements. They WERE perfectly capable, even if they seem so crude because we are spoiled, nowadays, with a glut of memory and speed and miniaturization technology.


en.wikipedia.org...



Invented by MIT Instrumentation Laboratory

Manufacturer Raytheon

Introduced August 1966

Discontinued July 1975


(NOTE: The SAME computers used on the Apollo-Soyeuz missions, after the Moon landings had ended)...


Type Avionics Guidance Computer

Processor Discrete IC RTL based

Frequency 2.048 MHz

Memory 16-bit wordlength, 2048 words RAM (magnetic core memory), 36,864 words ROM (core rope memory)



Another Informative Source.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by knowneedtoknow
 



Those stripes are energy universal sighs it means it emits energy


But earlier one, you said that those lines mean that the object is staying still



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by cushycrux
Please take your time and look at the pix i have posted above. This is no a stage, this is the 3d moon as you can see from this two perspectives. And please don't ignore the fact that jaxa/selenes hight data as you also can see is exactly the same. How can they film this on earth, but the landscape is 100% exact like on the moon, no way.


Well... I'm gonna say that "moon landscape" could easily be produced on a sound stage. Easily. (And for a lot less than firing people to the moon...) I am on the fence about the moon landings. I think some of it was real, and a lot of it is fake. But I am unsure, overall.


Can you tell me how this should work. You were never on the moon, so you fake it with a stage and fake mountains. Okey so long. 30 Years later a Japanese satellite records the elevation model of the moon, and it fits 100% to your 30 year old fake moon stage. That's impossible, right?

Apollo 11 in Picture

My Last post on this Thread.
edit on 4-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)


LOWEST-EARTH altitude for google maps satellite is approx. 150 KM

Moon Reconnaissance Orbiter altitude .....50 KM

and the best moon picture (with no atmosphere) they can show us, is the one above????

what kind of B.S. is this???



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 



LOWEST-EARTH altitude for google maps satellite is approx. 150 KM

Moon Reconnaissance Orbiter altitude .....50 KM

and the best moon picture (with no atmosphere) they can show us, is the one above????


Google Earth uses photographs taken from airplanes flying under 10km.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
ok, but on to the antenna stuff again.. So Apollo 11 never used antennas, but 16 and others did... So wich films are we looking at where you can see those flashes? Cause i am a amateur astronomer and film maker... So i know a few things from lensflare... And although it could be flares, i do not think that is what we see... (if there is no antenna that is...)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter.be
 


What???


So Apollo 11 never used antennas....


Are you just making stuff up, now? (It isn't even logical, is it? How else would their suit radios work???)



Here....photo of Buzz Aldrin....yes, he was on Apollo 11:



(That is photo AS11-40-5902 @ 1185k resolution).

Take a good look.....increase the zoom levels, if you have to. LINK to all of them, below:

www.hq.nasa.gov...



edit on 6 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Grifter.be
 


What???


So Apollo 11 never used antennas....


Are you just making stuff up, now? (It isn't even logical, is it? How else would their suit radios work???)



Here....photo of Buzz Aldrin....yes, he was on Apollo 11:



(That is photo AS11-40-5902 @ 1185k resolution).

Take a good look.....increase the zoom levels, if you have to. LINK to all of them, below:

www.hq.nasa.gov...



edit on 6 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


there was someone who posted pictures from 11, and they did not had visible antennas; so i was not making up, just basing on some rumor then?



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That's a jolly nice fake photo of a landing that never happened, I'm affraid.

Note the lack of dust on the landing feet. This thing would have kicked up a storm with its engines. Watch other supposed real footage and see the dust the astronauts kick up!

And, as has been posted earlier, their antenna were woven into their suits.

edit on 7-4-2011 by ckitch because: typo



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Grifter.be
 


Can you also please explain all the objects seen in the reflection on the visor.

'Buzz' is seemingly stood about 4 feet from the lunar modules foot, judging by the footprints, yet the reflection shows him much further away, and with what looks like a women with her arms down, not an astronaut. Who's taking the photo?
What's the big orange object on the horizon??

Despite the obvious convex distortions of the visor, it doesn't make sense!



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ckitch
reply to post by Grifter.be
 


Can you also please explain all the objects seen in the reflection on the visor.

'Buzz' is seemingly stood about 4 feet from the lunar modules foot, judging by the footprints, yet the reflection shows him much further away, and with what looks like a women with her arms down, not an astronaut. Who's taking the photo?
What's the big orange object on the horizon??

Despite the obvious convex distortions of the visor, it doesn't make sense!



Give a link, so we can see the picture...



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Grifter.be
 


The link is in the post above (from weedwacker).



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ckitch
reply to post by Grifter.be
 


The link is in the post above (from weedwacker).


The orange thing is clearly the moon... Hey, but....
Nah, just kidding....
But if its true, that no visible antennas where used, then what the hell is that antenna doing there?

So believers, please prove that there where visible antennas, and please non believers, prove that there weren't, and we might get somewhere!



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Grifter.be
 


As you've probably gathered, I think the landings didn't happen. As for Antenna, well some info says they didn't have any, some shows pictures where they did. More modern suits have them wired in the suit itself, or so I've read.

So, anyway, the antenna thing is not the most important aspect. But in relation to the 'flashes' seen in youtube video clips, some of them are high above the astronaut, so I doubt its antenna reflection.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ckitch
 


Oh, dear......do you see, now, why this Apollo "hoax" nonsense can continue to spread? Sometimes just from improper understanding of facts and technical details.

I followed this link you provided:

did+apollo+11+astronauts+suits+ever+have+external+antenna
(Your search keyword parameters)

BTW....searching on Google can be done many different ways, in order to better find what you're looking for.


You said "Third line, 7 across".....but, depending on your browser settings, and screen resolution and monitor size...the display on a Google Search won't look the same to everyone. My page loads with only five links across, on each line for example.... However, I'll surmise that maybe it was THIS image you were referring to??:



If so, then it means you didn't understand that the radio, and thus ITS antenna, was located in the PLSS backpack. (Not Included in that image, above of course....since the PLSSs were NOT taken back to Earth. Did you know this? They are still there.....at each landing site. They were tossed out the LM hatch, from the porch.....as they were unnecessary after EVAs were over, and were just excess mass and clutter).

On that same link are EVA photos from Apollo 11 that clearly show the antenna. Others, due to poor resolution, can't see them. Not surprising, since they were pieces of metal less than one-sixteenth inch thick, about 1/2 inch wide, and twelve inches long....approximately (IIRC).

edit on 7 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
just my modest opinion...

instead of tick tacking if we Humans went to the moon or not we better concentrate on the fact why the hack we went ONLY to the moon

Computers used to be large as rooms..figure it out now..
Mobile Phones used to be also good to make weight lifting with them...see them now
Television sets were like pregnant elephants seen from the side...measure their width now
Women's dresses used to be long till their toes..now thank god nope


arent we supposed to have colonized at least our Solar System??

WHAT HAPPENED ON THE MOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join