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.

 

Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary

page: 24
67
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 

In some photos you see What appear as nearby hills in some of the photos are actually mountains many miles away my friend. On Earth, objects that are further away will appear fainter and less detailed. On the Moon, there is no atmosphere or haze to obscure distant objects, thus they appear clearer and closer.. P.S not a kubric set im afraid, hope this helps .

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


Buddy, All manned landings happened during the lunar daytime. Thus, the stars were outshone by the sun and by sunlight reflected off the moon's surface. The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars. Likewise, cameras were set for daylight exposure and could not detect the stars. Camera settings can turn a well-lit background into ink-black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing the camera to increase shutter speed in order not to have the foreground light completely wash out the image. . The effect is similar to not being able to see stars from a brightly lit car park at night—the stars only become visible when the lights are turned off. The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon.Again no kubric set.


edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
reply to post by DJW001
 





Look at the left hand side the two lights there, there is a is a simple explanation for this.A lens flare is an image of the Sun reflecting back and forth between the lens elements of the camera. If you examine the photographs in which lens flares are found you will notice they all have a couple things in common. First, they are all taken with the camera pointing in the general direction of the Sun and, secondly, if you were to draw a line from the center of the photograph through the flares (they usually occur in pairs), the line will point in the direction of the Sun, which lies just outside the frame.

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


Also if you see a Spotlight on or around the astronaut there is also another explanation which is a fact for this other scenario comes into play as i will show you on a pic. here the lunar soil's tendency to reflect light back toward its source. There are many reasons for this, but it is mostly due to countless tiny glass spheres found in the lunar soil, and formed by meteorite impacts. When you see a photo taken "down sun", away from the Sun, you see what looks like a spotlight around the shadow's head. This is because the light is strongly reflected back toward the Sun, so the soil around the head of the shadow looks very bright. This phenomenon also explains why the surface fades so drastically toward the horizon. It is brightest near the foreground due to sunlight being preferentially reflected back toward the camera. Farther away, the sunlight is preferentially reflected away from the camera, making the ground look dark. This phenomenon can also be observed in wet grass on Earth, as spherical water droplets act like the glass spheres. The technical term for this phenomenon is Heiligenschein, and is the result of light refraction, reflection, and diffraction on the surface of and inside the glass spheres and/or water droplets. This Apollo 11 photo is very good example with some photos..



edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
reply to post by DJW001
 




I would say that this picture is harder to prove wrong than some others, but I still think it could be fake, I have put in my editing remarks on how it would be set up in a studio. And just because there isn't a lot of evidence in some pictures, doesn't discount the fact that there are many more inconsistencies in other photos.


It is easy sometimes to take an individual photo and claim anomalies are present. However, when you examine a photo with due diligence and an understanding of photo analysis, the results will show the truth of the picture.

In this picture, you see what you want to see because you have a preformed conclusion that this was taken on a set somewhere and then apply that to see inconsistencies in the photo to prove your conclusion. This mistake usually happens because the focus is placed on one photo. So let's take a look at what you have:

This is a picture of the LM and Buzz just after he deployed the Solar Wind Collector. In the foreground we see the the cable to the live feed camera. In the center is Buzz and the Collector. Behind Buzz of course is the LM and behind that the horizon and then space above that. What you have marked as the boundary line where the set ends, is in actuality the horizon.

The horizon looks close because there is no discernable atmosphere to create any depth perception as we are used to seeing on Earth. Also, just before the horizon, there is an undulation in the surface which creates a darker area. If we were to look at some of the other pictures taken at the same time these undulations are quite noticeable and show the unevenness of the surface. This thumb is a panorama of the Apollo 11 landing site which gives a complete view of the surrounding area around the LM.


Interactive Apollo Panoramas Link

The following picture is from Apollo 17 showing the East Massif in the background which is several thousand meters in the distance. Notice how detail diminishes farther away from the camera. This occurs on Earth also, but is enhanced by Earth's atmosphere. Since the moon has no atmosphere, all we see is the loss of detail.


AS17-134-20513 full size picture

This is not a set, it is not a blue screen nor is it "photoshopped". If you would view some of the movie film that was taken on the EVA/'s, you can see the distance that is traveled on the rover. These EVAs could not have been filmed on a set of any kind because of the distance involved.



Lunar Rover Traverse video



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


How about a link to the pictures you talked about like I said a few members on here are into photography either amatuer,semi pro and even some pro photographers on here. It's been my hobby for 30+ years so come on put your money where your mouth is



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
In most of these you will find that in front of the set line it is very rocky. But behind the line it usually becomes perfectly smooth as a sharp contrast right at the point that would be conveniently perfect for the set to end.














posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   


This one does have rocks in the background. Can you see them? Can you see them a little too well and shouldn't the background me more out of focus? Maybe that's why most don't have rocks in the background, it's harder to tell if smooth sand is out of focus since it doesn't have a very distinct shape.




Do moon people stare up at the Earth? Or do they sit in front of a screen and watch the show like us?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


What mission was that, have you looked at the topography of those areas they will have been photographed by the LRO.

Also your comment re in focus rocks in the distance a photographer can control what's in focus or out of focus using depth of field look it up.

To many people on here make wrong assumptions re photographs that's why we got the classic no stars comment because people didn't understand about exposure.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


check this out ...




This is a picture on earth and this why charlatans go wrong and spout drivel my friend.
I will post what he said the guy who is a photographer and it will explain you questions buddy.
See no stage set from kubric here as well

Look at how the background of this grassy knoll suddenly changes. The surface is all rough and filled with leaves and pine cones, and then in a straight line it just becomes all smooth and no cones appear anymore. Does anyone think I took the picture and then superimposed another picture with a smoother background? Or is the foreground nothing more than grass and clover grown on the floor of a large sound studio? Anybody who has ever spent time around hills would recognize this effect for the simple and obvious illusion that it is: a distant background photographed from a high place. Yet some deniers still fall for it, a classic case of failing to see the mountain for the rocks.


The charlatans are lying to you and i have mountains of evidence and can debunk any one of them by my own mind and sources of thousands of people not just nasa but professional photographers amature ones etc.
Any questions i will answer as i have some free time and sober from the weekend lol.

I can debunk kaysling , percy, hoagland, regarding the moon hoaxes, easy..





Same effect for this pic..

I too fell for it as i never really understood about photography and how it works and still do not that much but now i know that the pics are real as there is people on this thread who know how it does work regarding pics etc.
These charlatans lied to me for years and made me look silly , so to hell with you , you money making witchdoctors.... Ask me anything about your concerns and others on here and we will all answer you questions
Hopefully we can help you shun the charlatans once and for all.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


What mission was that, have you looked at the topography of those areas they will have been photographed by the LRO.

Also your comment re in focus rocks in the distance a photographer can control what's in focus or out of focus using depth of field look it up.

To many people on here make wrong assumptions re photographs that's why we got the classic no stars comment because people didn't understand about exposure.


What do you mean by "re"? Does that stand for something? You mentioned it twice and I am lost at your meaning.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


Yes that effect could make the background seem much different than the foreground. But not every Apollo picture is taken from a higher ground. And yet almost every one of them has inconsistencies in the front and background. And if they can take a picture that has both the front and background in focus, why don't they do that all the time?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 



What do you mean by "re"? Does that stand for something? You mentioned it twice and I am lost at your meaning.


I assume English is not your first language. It comes from the expression "in re."


In re, Latin for "in the matter [of]", is a term with several different, but related meanings.
In correspondence, the phrase in re: refers to the subject of a letter, memorandum, or electronic mail message. It is used especially in e-mail to denote in regards to; confusingly, RE: is employed to mean in reply to:.
In jurisprudence, in re: is used to indicate that a judicial proceeding may not have formally designated adverse parties or is otherwise uncontested. The term is commonly used in case citations of probate proceedings, for example, In re Marriage Cases; it is also used in juvenile courts, as, for instance, In re Gault.


en.wikipedia.org...

In many e-mail programs, the line sometimes headed "Subject" is headed "Re:".



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
In most of these you will find that in front of the set line it is very rocky. But behind the line it usually becomes perfectly smooth as a sharp contrast right at the point that would be conveniently perfect for the set to end.

The "anomaly" you are focusing on in your pictures is a photographic term called "Depth of Field".

Depth of Field - Wiki
Depth of Field - Cambridge in Color
Depth of Field - YuMee

This is the area in the photograph that is in focus due to the differentials of the lens focal length, selected lens f-number, format size, and circle of confusion criterion. In other words, how your camera is set up.

The 70mm Hasselblad camera is primarily used for high resolution still photography and is hand-held or bracket mounted. Camera features include inter changeable lenses and film magazines. The standard lens is an 80 m f/2.8. The 250 mm f/4, and 500 mm f/8 telephoto lenses are provided for photography of distant objects. Two types of 70mm film magazines are provided, one for standard-base films, the other for thin-base films. Camera accessories include filters and a ring sight.

The pictures you show (and you need to cite their references please) were shot with a Hasselblad 70mm with the 80mm f/2.8 lens.

What you are calling a "set line" is in actuality the front slope of undulations in the Moon's surface (hills and valleys).

This picture, AS17-134-20513, is Apollo 17's LM. The foreground shows great detail which is lost the further from the camera the subject is. In this case, The Field of View is quite deep and detail diminishes only after a greater distance. The mounts in the background are approximately 8 miles from the LM. If you view the photo HERE in it's full scanned size, you can see more detail and realize the variations of the terrain.



Because the Moon has no atmosphere to interfere with distant vision, the mountains in the background appear clear except for the loss of detail. The undulations in the ground create a demarcation which only makes the photo look like it was done on a set. If you only look at this photo, it could appear that there is an anomaly at that point. However, when you take into account the movie documentation that was taken, like the below EVA, it confirms the distance, uneven ground (undulations/hills and valleys) and loss of detail. None of the pictures you posted show a "film set" but rather show just the opposite, that they were, in fact, taken on the Moon.




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


You assume that English isn't my first language because I don't know a phrase in Latin? Are you serious? My diction, spelling, and punctuation in all my previous posts have been excellent! I think that this is an attempt to say that I am not smart enough understand English, and therefore, not smart enough to understand the moon theories.

Is English your first language? Because your grammar seems to be lacking quite a bit. I would recommend using commas, semicolons, and even parenthesis to help emphasize your point more clearly. (Most of us aren't used to reading the archaic language used in courts and legal documents.)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


gibbo has more or less explained it , ill explain a bit more laters as i am tired pal



edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 



You assume that English isn't my first language because I don't know a phrase in Latin? Are you serious? My diction, spelling, and punctuation in all my previous posts have been excellent! I think that this is an attempt to say that I am not smart enough understand English, and therefore, not smart enough to understand the moon theories.

Is English your first language? Because your grammar seems to be lacking quite a bit. I would recommend using commas, semicolons, and even parenthesis to help emphasize your point more clearly. (Most of us aren't used to reading the archaic language used in courts and legal documents.)


I see. You don't understand the concept of graciousness. Duly noted.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

What you are calling a "set line" is in actuality the front slope of undulations in the Moon's surface (hills and valleys).


Thank you for contributing some facts to this, I learned a little about cameras. But I don't think that you can use this to explain all nine of the photos I posted, since they don't all have a slope and undulations to cause that effect.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 



You assume that English isn't my first language because I don't know a phrase in Latin? Are you serious? My diction, spelling, and punctuation in all my previous posts have been excellent! I think that this is an attempt to say that I am not smart enough understand English, and therefore, not smart enough to understand the moon theories.

Is English your first language? Because your grammar seems to be lacking quite a bit. I would recommend using commas, semicolons, and even parenthesis to help emphasize your point more clearly. (Most of us aren't used to reading the archaic language used in courts and legal documents.)


I see. You don't understand the concept of graciousness. Duly noted.



So you were being gracious when you called me ignorant? That's different from most, but duly noted.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
If you look at the backgrounds in the film 2001 with the gain turned up, you will see strange structural patterns that suggest it is not real.


Here are some comparisons of Apollo photos under the same high gain effect. Notice the how the background reveals the same strange geometry.








All the photos I list should be from the Apollo missions as that is all I am allowing my theory to encompass so far.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join