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.

 

Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

page: 16
19
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by manmental
 


How about a path track turn? the marks are behind the tire because they turned into that spot. Its a true reach to disprove moon landing with a photo you know nothing about. Give us the link to where the photo came from, would go a long way for your short point.
edit on 27-5-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)


I did.




Edit: The second photo has been cropped on insertion here... the original shows a wider view of the floor. Photo is AS17-137-20979.jpg


Does the rover have a reverse gear? If so a hidden turn could be an answer, agreed.

Weed... the atronauts wouldn't pick up the rover for this photo. Really. If they were in the habit of picking up the Rover on the moon surface (after they assembled it) I'm sure there would be audio transcript or some evidence that they did this. Link?

If you look closely at the footprints around the tyre you see a very fresh print at the bottom of screen, perfect new print, and then above and right a foot print that has dust thrown over it (cropped in this ATS insertion, why does ATS crop photos on insert? The one in I uploaded is the whole image... anyway, you can scroll back for full image or click external link). I would expect if there were tracks that had been partially covered in kicked up dust then they would look like this footprint, and they wouldn't disappear completely.




edit on 27-5-2011 by manmental because: confused right and left




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


ONCE AGAIN.....

Too much focus on only ONE image.....and, not taking into account the context.

PLEASE take the effort to investigate the time of EVA, when that ONE pic was taken, and then put the entire event into FULL context....

THAT is the proper way to understand this......



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by manmental
 


ONCE AGAIN.....

Too much focus on only ONE image.....and, not taking into account the context.

PLEASE take the effort to investigate the time of EVA, when that ONE pic was taken, and then put the entire event into FULL context....

THAT is the proper way to understand this......


ONE IMAGE that might prove that photos were recreated on Earth, which in turn gives credence that the mission was faked too.

ONE IMAGE is all that is needed.

I am choosing this ONE image because it is ultra close up high resolution and is very odd in my opinion as to why there are no trace of tracks at all.

Okay... so as you saying that this ONE image is an anomaly, a bit odd? But that I should look at all the images to get a general picture? Is that what you are saying? Clarification.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


ONE image.....but, you won't look at the TOTALITY of the photos, proven to have been taken from ONE CAMERA, and as ONE "BUNCH"....all on the same roll of film??

Reason? Is it dead??

Think, rationally. Those who do so, are satisfied. Try it....you'll like it. Sanity, and reason are the best way to go......




edit on Fri 27 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by manmental
 


ONE image.....but, you won't look at the TOTALITY of the photos, proven to have been taken from ONE CAMERA, and as ONE "BUNCH"....all on the same roll of film??

Reason? Is it dead??

Think, rationally. Those who do so, are satisfied. Try it....you'll like it. Sanity, and reason are the best way to go......




edit on Fri 27 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Yawn. Yet again Weed all the evidence comes from NASA...
The astronauts, not photographers mind, took incredible photos with perfect focus and composition with a far higher ratio of brilliant photos than most pro photographers who aren't limited by pressure filled space suits with bulky fingers and a camera they can't even see through attached to their chests!

Just because NASA says theres a roll of film with photos on it doesn't mean that film was taken on the moon.

What don't you understand?

It is possible, feasible and IMO likely that NASA recreated Lunar photos on earth for a whole bunch of reasons.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by manmental
 


There ain't even sand or dust particles on the tier.
It looks like it has been hoisted on to the spot.



Well spotted. The videos of the Rover in action show them kicking up masses of dust. And none lands on the Rover.

Weed... I'm sorry but your analogy of a car tyre is awful. So your saying that dust is covering up the tracks in this photo? Dust kicked up by astronauts?
Well I'd say that is extremely far fetched given the clarity of tracks and footprints you yourself have presented, but if you choose to believe that then fine.

Others on here, myself included are convinced a lot of Lunar photos were recreated on the Earth.


Read all your posts. Thank you manmental


GREAT FIND.

Myself included too.


P: WHERE is the tracks?????

edit on 27-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
But you can clearly see that the sand stops and falls straight down in a sharp slope.

No, it doesn't. It diverges with the least energetic grains falling first, the most energetic falling last, and as it diverges it becomes fainter. It does not fall straight down.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
It is possible, feasible and IMO likely that NASA recreated Lunar photos on earth for a whole bunch of reasons.

It is impossible to recreate the rover driving footage on earth prior to the advent of photorealistic CG. There is no way to produce the vacuum and 1/6 g conditions necessary.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
I am choosing this ONE image because it is ultra close up high resolution and is very odd in my opinion as to why there are no trace of tracks at all.

Simple, they were working on the fender and/or loading the rover with samples and in moving all around to do it they covered the rover's tracks. There, solved.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by manmental
I am choosing this ONE image because it is ultra close up high resolution and is very odd in my opinion as to why there are no trace of tracks at all.

Simple, they were working on the fender and/or loading the rover with samples and in moving all around to do it they covered the rover's tracks. There, solved.


Not even you believe in that. Tsc, Tsc...


More people will see this picture.

I think they covered the eyes of some people here in ATS too

edit on 27-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 




Read all your posts. Thank you manmental GREAT FIND.


Thanks Russo. But its not my find... I was searching google for Lunar rover tracks photos and i found this, surprise, surprise, on a moon conspiracy website... but I hadn't seen it before and thought it was a brilliant example of missing Lunar Rover tracks... especially as we have footprints there, new and old, that show what the effect of 'dust being kicked up' might do to cover any other tracks/ footprints.

Unless the Lunar Rover has a reverse gear then I just can't see a reason for this anomaly. If the rover does have a reverse gear and was in a tight turn that ended here i would still expect evidence of track on the other side of the wheel/ under the Rover. But that could, I guess be a reason.

I understand why some Americans are so passionate about the moon landings being the OS from NASA, but even so I would have thought from the obvious intelligence of the believers of the OS that they might consider the possibility at least that NASA may have recreated some Lunar photos (or all if the radiation is bad enough to damage IMAX fim in NEO) for many reasons, main one being funding.

Hypothetical: Neil, Buzz and the other one DID land on the moon. They come back but ALL the photos are rubbish.
NASA could either admit the photos were terrible or they could easily recreate them.
The former might seriously affect the whole promotional propaganda programme they had in mind.
The latter would be easy, and as they are doing an exact, and faithful recreation then no-one at NASA thinks this is cheating.
NASA are happy. Employees are happy.

Only the astronauts are pissed off (why are they so miserable here... no-one has explained that)...




edit on 27-5-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by manmental
I am choosing this ONE image because it is ultra close up high resolution and is very odd in my opinion as to why there are no trace of tracks at all.

Simple, they were working on the fender and/or loading the rover with samples and in moving all around to do it they covered the rover's tracks. There, solved.


Brilliant deduction. Not. As there are audio transcripts of what they were doing then I'm sure it will be easy for you to prove this , otherwise its a deduction, the same as mine.

Look at the ground... no way is the dust directly behind the wheel the same as the dust partially covering a fotprint... this is pure untouched 'moon' surface.

Look at the perfect footprint at very bottom. If your deduction is correct then WHERE ARE THE FOOTPRINTS from them loading/unloading/running around/ picking it up etc etc.

Your deduction and Weed's analogy are nonsense.

Ps. I'm so not convinced by the video of the rover... it could easily be earth (with plaster or talc as the dust)... that doesn't look like 1/6th gravity to me...
edit on 27-5-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 




Hypothetical: Neil, Buzz and the other one DID land on the moon. They come back but ALL the photos are rubbish.
NASA could either admit the photos were terrible or they could easily recreate them.
The former might seriously affect the whole promotional propaganda programme they had in mind.
The latter would be easy, and as they are doing an exact, and faithful recreation then no-one at NASA thinks this is cheating.
NASA are happy. Employees are happy.


Not Hypothetical at all. We did go to the moon, but we (people) never saw the real footage from there.

Regarding the "covered tracks", I think the astronauts danced like indians around rover's


Zorgon should see this.

Thanks again mate.

edit on 27-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Please, just watch this doc "How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings" and you will see how they faked.

READ THIS

This is thread where the trailer is:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 27-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


I'm still on the fence as to man has set foot on the moon.

I think the apollo track record is too good (for the many missions that left the launch pad). Look at the shuttle fatalities to see how NASA have seemingly gone backwards with their tech.

I think if it was possible to do it so successfully in the 60s/70s then someone would have recreated the feat as mankind has always sought to recreate its own achievements.

I believe Russia was involved in the cover up to secure economic and trade/ food deals.

It would be possible to fake every part of the mission, including sending an unmanned craft/satellite to the moon to fool astronemers and radio hams.

And no-one, since the Apollo missions has gone past LEO through the van allen belts.

No close up, hi-res, photographic, independant, 100% verifiable and identifiable images of the module or rover on moon. No live telescopic images of the moon in high res.

So... to me... its all from NASA's mouth.

Apparently there are many problems with NASA's so called 'moon' rock samples as well. A certain Australian reseacher is about to release a long documentary about these anomalies soon which I look forward to.

So... I am still sitting happily on the fence as to wether Man has set foot on the moon. But I much prefer you open-mindness about the photos than some peoples anger and vitriol. So thanks you. Stars all round!



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by RUSSO
reply to post by manmental
 


Please, just watch this doc "How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings" and you will see how they faked.

READ THIS

This is thread where the trailer is:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 27-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)


I agree that the innovations Kubrick displayed in his exceptional films might have easily been able to dupe the public. If he was given billions then I believe Kubrick could have faked anything. He was a great master and visionary.

Wether or not he helped NASA recreate the landing photos and videos I don't know... there would have been specialists in the model making/ fx industry that could have known the techniques to pull this off in '69 to be sure.

I think Kubrick's link is a dangerous one to pursue with 100% conviction, as there is the famous mockumentary 'Dark Side Of The Moon' that brilliantly reguritates all the classic moon conspiracy theories with Kubrick being at the helm.

But yes.. the technology was available, so faking the videos and photos would be possible.
edit on 27-5-2011 by manmental because: spellink



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Well, they had to make their move, this mockumentary.

But not this one, I think. This is brand new, with new info. I PM you with a new link (look at your messages). But you are right. 100% sure, only if we could bring Kubrick back. But the faked backgrounds showed in this doc make the moon's original footage hilarious.
edit on 27-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by RUSSO
 


I think if it was possible to do it so successfully in the 60s/70s then someone would have recreated the feat as mankind has always sought to recreate its own achievements.


You still can't grasp the investment/reward for going to the moon since Apollo, for what? Strawman argument.



And no-one, since the Apollo missions has gone past LEO through the van allen belts.


Again, for what? Tell us what you understand about radiation in all of it's forms in time durations and recovery. This should be good.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Jay Wiedner is an idiot.

Sorry.

Can't believe you people fall for that crap, every time.

SO, BTW.....WHY ARE THERE PHOTOS OF THE LANDING SITES??

Come one.....spin your best lies, the "hoax believers" excel at that........(learned at the knee of Bill Kaysing, I reckon?).



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


This is a very weak conspiracy theory with no basis in fact. How many times do we have to hear this one. Why on earth would NASA hire such a well know director to fake anything.

What are the real science issues you seem to have a problem with, one at a time not some website list overload delivered machine gun style, (the favorite deflection mode to sidestep the science).

Rocket craters?
Liftoff debris?
Liftoff thrust?
Radiation in the Van Allen or on the moon?
Temperatures?
Escape velocities?
Rocket fuel?
Rocket propulsion in a vacuum in space as opposed to on earth?
Physical weights, gravity, friction?

Yet nobody ever questions the precise calculations necessary to hit such a moon so far away, (without the aid of Youtube and video monitors in the classrooms you attended when you could use electronic calculators in math class), with little fuel aboard to correct bad projections, weight is fuel, it was calculated to have little surplus. (the Russians did miss the moon more than once).

Besides the video and photography (which 'skeptics' really don't understand), what problem do you have with the Apollo missions? Besides you can't prove anything with a photo after internet compression anyway. You simply can't use a 'visual' to prove anything except general timeframes of events, you simply do not have raw data.

There were nearly 500,000 individual private sector specialists developing the equipment that flew these missions and they proudly state that on their websites. So the whole technological world is telling a fib and laughing at those that believe it really happened? I think not.

Do you realize the number of private and corporate and yes the whole infrastructure of Russia at the time have third party verification that they followed the missions throughout the entire duration?

And you think you know something more than the collective of the greatest technology in the world at the time that they somehow were mistaken of?

Quit siting the conspiracy laundry list of catch phrases and show us in your own calculations or logic that it couldn't have occurred. Give us reputable websites that built the equipment that got them there that say it was impossible. Don't ask questions, show in where you found there to be a discrepancy in the figures that prove lie.

We've already seen wildly inaccurate numbers for weight and thrust from earth and the moon so far in this thread. We've seen a complete misunderstanding of Newton's law of gravitational attraction, in a vacuum opposed to in an atmosphere. Did somebody mention the stars absent in the sky yet? LOL! Film in the cameras would not survive the solar wind, or the trip back? Hogwash!

Get off of the analyses of pictures from the web because that is flimsy at best. What problems do you have about the physical science of the missions. We don't want to psychoanalyze hypotheses here, nothing there can be proven, only implied.

So you're a 'skeptic' A? Good luck getting an aerospace job then.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join