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: 25
67
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


Another example of not understanding the video "noise" in an image of a photo that has been electronically reproduced, copied, JPEG'd, and otherwise altered as it passed from computer to server to computer to recording format, to the Internet, etc, etc......

This is worthless as any sort of "investigation". I'll presume there are countless ATS members out there who are better suited than I to speak the technical "lingo", and properly explain it that way. But, even an amateur who is slightly savvy about how computers work, and how images from original photos are compressed, stored and transmitted can see the futility of this sort of "proof" effort.

Oh, and by the way......just rent the DVD of "2001: A Space Odyssey" someday, and note how, even without applying any image manipulation software as done in your post, the "exterior" scenes reek of having been shot in a studio. And the little-used technique of "front screen projection" is patently obvious too.....for the modern viewer. Likely in the late 1960s the audiences weren't as keen, as many, many other films of that era shot many "outdoor" scenes inside a studio.....people were accustomed to the "look".

Oh, and PS: One more hint about the film.....look closely at a few shots of the leopard, in the opening sequence "The Dawn of Man" (set on the African savannah, but shot in-studio front-screen projection) --- you can see the cat's eyes glowing, briefly as they move, and are aligned for s split second with the light of that projector....the eyes reflect back to the camera, just as Humans can see cat's eyes reflect artificial light sources...and, as Human eyes can also appear, in certain flash photography situations.

Movie Mistakes trivia


In the ape or Dawn of Man portion of the film, the scenes of the landscapes were created by still projectors near the film camera with a stage in the foreground. This was obvious, in one scene, where the eyes of the leopard were glowing.


And finally, here is a detailed article about the front-screen projection technique, and its application specifically on that film:

www.visual-memory.co.uk...

There simply is no comparison to the many hours of video footage......both on the 16mm Maurer Data Acquisition Cameras, and the live TV camera feeds that were recorded, and are available for viewing as well.

Also, to further add.....I suggest watching and especially listening to the narration that describes the video below. In the video there is a several-minutes-long sequence of film shot by the DAC mounted on the Lunar Rover.....they travel many hundreds of meters, perhaps a full kilometer over the Lunar surface. This is proof positive of the reality of the Apollo missions, and is not the only instance of such proof:



Just over nine minutes in length....certainly worth that minimal effort, in order to become better informed.......

(Edit): Well, I see that the above video has already been posted (twice) back on Page 24.....ah, well, worth repeating at any rate, just in case it was overlooked previously.....

edit on 29-5-2012 by PluPerfect because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
I'm not a big fan of Hoagland, but he has been the most popular critic in this regard. Here is a presentation where he points out the anomalies in the background of the Apollo pictures.








Hoagland has always been very interested in making money off this movement, his interviews always go astray before he can reveal anything of use, and one of his later announcements for full support for Obama in the light of all the questions that Hoagland himself raised, are all evidence suggesting that he is likely trying to skew the conclusions that could be made from this into something far too fantastic. His answer is "Crystal Towers" on the moon. But it is more likely that these shapes in the background are folds and imperfections in the scotchlite screen that was used to project this background on.

edit on 29-5-2012 by vv3vv3vv because: .



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Here is part of a picture in which the amount of anomalies in the background has made it quite popular, below is the same picture with Hoagland (or possibly his co-author's) comments.





posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Here are the prism effects that show up in the dark space background in some Apollo pictures. Likely these are a reflection from one of the tiny glass beads in the scotchlite screen Stanley Kubrick used. If one of these tiny glass pieces weren't lined up at the same angle as the rest, it would cause this prism effect to occur.






posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


www.braeunig.us...

Richie hoagland is a liar and when i see him i am gonna strap him to the confession chair of truth.
As you will see please read all the link carefully .. see the truth.................................................



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


Entirely incorrect!!


Likely these are a reflection from one of the tiny glass beads in the scotchlite screen Stanley Kubrick used.


Those are merely internal to the camera lens in the Hasselblad that snapped the photo. Any sufficiently experienced expert photographer with his or her salt can tell you this.

The claim is absurd on its face, since Kubrick had nothing at all to do with any "fakery" of any Apollo images....by the way, I find it particularly laughable, this continual reference to Kubrick, merely because of his "2001: A Space Odyssey" film fame. He is a director, not a cinematographer, nor a special visual effects expert!!

IF you wish to seek out the sort of talent that was responsible for the cinematic "look" of "2001", you have to turn your attention to the cinematographer, Geoffrey Unsworth.

And, the Wiki: en.wikipedia.org...

And, for the SFX, it was Douglas Trumbull.

(He's still alive today.....why not ASK him about this silly claim re: Kubrick, and the so-called Apollo "hoax"?)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


Richard "HOAX"land Hoagland?

He's about as credible as that bridge in Brooklyn that I have for sale on Craigslist!

(Price just reduced.....make a reasonable offer)......



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv

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.



Its short for regarding ie re out of focus instead of having to type regarding .



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


Hoagland hasn't a clue RE photography the guy is an IDIOT



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 

I appreciate the honesty in your posts and hope you understand I/we are not apposed to helping those who genuinely want to know.

First, it is very helpful, and required by the T&C that you reference your posts. This will help others to be able to either collaborate with you, or form their argument against you.

Second, as I have just read PluPerfect's post, he/she explains very well the reason for the background anomalies of the photos. It is due to the JPEG compresson when the original photos were copied for digital use. If you desire to see non-compressed photos, search for the TIFF format. Off the top of my head, I don't remember the URL for the sight, but the photos won't have the distortion in them that JPEG's do.

Now in answer to your reply to me:

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.

The topography of the Moon does not have to undulate too much in order for the light refraction from the surface to change intensity. Because of the make up of the lunar dust, Click Here, some of it is glass and spherical, the angle of the Sun and the direction of even the slightest slope can and will cause variations of light and dark in the surface. This is what you are seeing in the photos. If you look real close to the link I gave, you can follow the surface almost all the way to the mount in the background.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by bokonon2010
 



US tried to build supersonic passenger plane and failed miserably: en.wikipedia.org...
Hollywood and the media also were not able to deliver the hoax in time, as they were still tired with the Apollo program.


The US didn't fail miserably; it stopped because there was a very small market for a supersonic passenger jet, and Concorde filled it. The US usually makes its decisions based on money, remember? Are you implying that supersonic planes are a hoax, too?


Those sonic booms we used to hear when the Concorde flew overhead were an alien god of some type then?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by PluPerfect

Those are merely internal to the camera lens in the Hasselblad that snapped the photo. Any sufficiently experienced expert photographer with his or her salt can tell you this.

The claim is absurd on its face, since Kubrick had nothing at all to do with any "fakery" of any Apollo images....


Thanks! Now that I have your word on the matter, I can stop believing in moon hoaxes. You should have contributed sooner!

You don't have proof that this was caused by the internal lenses of the camera. You are just trying to suggest another explanation for it, but yours isn't the only explanation. And in light of the incredible number of strange phenomena and odd coincidences, these small pieces can't be overlooked or written off right away.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 



Oh, dear:


You don't have proof that this was caused by the internal lenses of the camera. You are just trying to suggest another explanation for it....


YOUR assertion that the "prismatic effects" were from the "front-screen" are utterly without merit.....on the other hand, I bring solid evidence to bear.

Not just "my own" opinions.....I provide REAL evidence.

Moon "hoax" believers are more akin to a "cult" mentality, in the main.......resistant to obvious proof that refutes their silly and closely-held "beliefs"......in THAT sense, the Apollo "hoax" believers are not unlike a sort of religious cult.

I sincerely hope that you, and others similarly afflicted, either seek help, through education, or intervention.....really, I MEAN this!!



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gibborium

First, it is very helpful, and required by the T&C that you reference your posts. This will help others to be able to either collaborate with you, or form their argument against you.

Second, as I have just read PluPerfect's post, he/she explains very well the reason for the background anomalies of the photos. It is due to the JPEG compresson when the original photos were copied for digital use. If you desire to see non-compressed photos, search for the TIFF format. Off the top of my head, I don't remember the URL for the sight, but the photos won't have the distortion in them that JPEG's do.

The topography of the Moon does not have to undulate too much in order for the light refraction from the surface to change intensity. Because of the make up of the lunar dust, some of it is glass and spherical, the angle of the Sun and the direction of even the slightest slope can and will cause variations of light and dark in the surface. This is what you are seeing in the photos.


First, I listed already that all photos were from the Apollo mission. If we ever choose to get into detail and break down one specific photo I will attempt to find the exact reference number. But I have SO much that it if I tried to reference it all we would never even get to discuss and debate the matter. Be assured that these are real pictures taken from the Apollo missions.

Second, you suggest that ALL of the moon pictures that display anomalies in the background are a result of improper conversion and compression? This is hard to believe just by the sheer number of people who have attempted to bring this to light in the modern media. If it was all due to a small clerical error, this would have been made more well known and discouraged more of them from pushing this topic. Nasa's own refusal to even attempt to disprove any of the conspiracies seems an admonition on their part.

Third, this lunar dust theory sounds a little too convenient and all encompassing. Any picture taken on the moon can defy science because of the lunar dust? And now the slope and undulation have nothing to do with it despite your previous statements for it being the causal factor here?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by PluPerfect
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 



Oh, dear:


You don't have proof that this was caused by the internal lenses of the camera. You are just trying to suggest another explanation for it....


YOUR assertion that the "prismatic effects" were from the "front-screen" are utterly without merit.....on the other hand, I bring solid evidence to bear.

Not just "my own" opinions.....I provide REAL evidence.

Moon "hoax" believers are more akin to a "cult" mentality, in the main.......resistant to obvious proof that refutes their silly and closely-held "beliefs"......in THAT sense, the Apollo "hoax" believers are not unlike a sort of religious cult.

I sincerely hope that you, and others similarly afflicted, either seek help, through education, or intervention.....really, I MEAN this!!


You can prove it is one explanation...You cannot prove that it is THE explanation. So get off your high horse and stop claiming that your detractors are mentally ill. Besides I don't think the prism effect was from the "front-screen" as you chose to assume.
edit on 29-5-2012 by vv3vv3vv because: &1



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
There are some proofs that the moon landing was real.

To begin with, a number of earth observatories and radio receivers were receiving the signals from the Apollo astronauts and from the equipment aboard the Apollo. Some of these receiving the signals were not at all connected with the US, many were located in foreign countries around the globe and had no reason to fib for the US govt. They were able to hear the Apollo transmissions because they were tuned to ULTRA high frequentcy; this is not convention shortwave/CB frequency that bounces off the ionosphere and skips around the earth - this is a frequency that passed through the ionosphere and can only be received in a straight line to something in outer space. So those signals were positively coming from the moon rocket, not from some earthbound radio station.

Second, the astronauts always put on a show for the cameras that includes something that simply could not be faked on earth, such as hitting a golf ball a mile. This is simply not possible (certainly not with 1969 movie technology) for a Hollywood studio to fake.

Third, on the first moon landing, the astronauts set up a retroflector. This is a very carefully made (and fragile) hyperbolic quartz mirror that, when aimed precisely at earth, will cause laser (and maser) beams coming from earth to be reflected back to the very spot from which they originated. It simply is not possible (certainly with 1969 technology) for that retroflector to be so precisely set up by anything but humans. Earth labs reported getting their lasers signals reflected by it within a couple of minutes of the astronauts setting it up on the moon.

I might add that the Apollo moon landings involved, literally, thousands of people around the globe, some of whom were not employed by the US govt or by anything in the US. Not one has come forward, even after 40 years, to say it was a hoax. Watergate, on the other hand, involved only about 20 people and half of them were singing like canaries within 6 months.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv

Originally posted by Gibborium.
Nasa's own refusal to even attempt to disprove any of the conspiracies seems an admonition on their part.


Are you serious did you not read my link , millions have debunked the hoaxers theres millions of sites with proof that we went.. www.braeunig.us...

Read the link ....
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


On February 15, 2001 the FOX television network aired a program titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon? This program showed alleged evidence that NASA faked the moon landings. This hoax theory has been around for several years, but this is the first time it has been presented to such a wide audience. Since this Website, Rocket and Space Technology, is dedicated to the men and women who brought the moon landings to fruition, I feel the time is right for me to speak out on this topic.

This TV program capitalizes on America's fixation with government conspiracies by sensationalizing the notion that NASA perpetrated a multi-billion dollar hoax on the world. In my opinion, the FOX network acted irresponsibly by airing this program. What they produced is a TV show filled with sloppy research, scientific inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. To support such an absurd theory and to cast doubt in the minds of the American public is an insult to the courage of the astronauts and the brilliance of the engineers who worked to achieve mankind's greatest technological feat. FOX is apparently only concerned with ratings while exhibiting total disregard for the integrity of America's true heroes.

Some of the most prominent advocates of the hoax theory are Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went To The Moon, Ralph Rene, author of NASA Mooned America, David Percy and Mary Bennett, co-authors of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers and, more recently, Bart Sibrel, producer of A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon. These people, and other hoax advocates, usually point to alleged anomalies in the Apollo photo and video record as evidence of their claims. The FOX program featured many of these claims while providing very little refuting evidence or testimony. Below are my comments refuting both the evidence presented in the TV program and many other common hoax allegations. I invite you to draw your own conclusions, but I suspect you will find the facts speak for themselves.



The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place.


Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017% (1 in 60,000). The source of this information appears to be a report prepared by the Rocketdyne company in the late 1950s. This assessment was, of course, based on understanding and technology existing at the time of the report. As tremendous resources were poured into the problem over the next decade, the reliability studies improved dramatically.

During the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.



Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.


This is the claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. Although I am unfamiliar with the source of this information, Mr. Rene's assertion is clear; the early missions had so many insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a "defect" and a "major technical problem". None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions with amazing success. Part 2 coming up..



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   


The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it.


Television pictures of the Apollo 11 landing were sent directly to Earth from the surface of the Moon using the Lunar Module's antenna and power supply. This placed a restriction on the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted. Apollo 11 was thereby limited to using a black-and-white, slow-scan TV camera with a scan rate of 10 frames-per-second at 320 lines-per-frame. In order to broadcast the images to the world, the pictures had to first be converted to the commercial TV standards. In the US, this was the EIA standard of 30 frames-per-second at 525 lines-per-frame. The pictures transmitted from the Moon were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a vidicon camera was pointed at the screen and the pictures were scanned at the EIA standard. A number of peculiar image artifacts were seen on the images. One set of artifacts was produced by sunlight reflecting off the astronauts and the LM onto the TV camera's lens. These reflections produced the ghostly effects perceived by the public. Other prominent artifacts were the result of spots burnt into the monitor screens from which the optical conversions were produced.

Apollo 11 was only a first step in what was to be increasingly ambitious missions, thus it was lacking in some capabilities. Among these was the ability to transmit high-quality TV pictures. Later missions, starting with Apollo 12, had enough time in the schedule to permit the astronauts to erect large freestanding dish antennas. This increased the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted, thus allowing complex color TV pictures to be sent directly to Earth.



There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures.


The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. The photosensitive emulsions layers where placed on an ESTAR polyester film base, which had previously been used primarily for motion picture film. The melting point of Estar is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at around 200° F. Fortunately the film was never exposed to this kind of temperature. The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts' clothing, were indeed white.



Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters.


The implication is that the astronauts could not have achieved this apparent level of perfection. The obvious answer is that they did not, as is evident by this badly underexposed example
. The photos to which the hoax advocates refer are publicity photos released by NASA. Surely, NASA isn't going to release the foul-ups and blunders. Also, what appears to be perfect composition is, in many cases, the result of cropping. If all the photographs were uncropped, the number, size and pattern of crosshairs would be identical in every photo, which clearly is not the case. I don't mean to take anything away from the astronauts because they performed a remarkable job, which can be explained in three words: practice, practice, and practice. Perhaps no humans have ever been better prepared for a job than the Apollo astronauts.



The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs
.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.

Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion a lie..
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   


The astronauts should have seen a beautiful star-filled sky above them, yet they never mention it.


Even though there was a black sky above them, the astronauts still had to contend with the glare of a brightly lit lunar surface. The bright landscape prevented the astronauts' eyes from becoming dark adapted, thus making it nearly impossible to see faint stars. It would be like trying to see stars at night on Earth while someone is shining a flashlight directly into your eyes. Some astronauts reported that, while inside the LM, they could see stars through the upper rendezvous window. Also, astronaut Gene Cernan said that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside.



There are several photographs of objects that are in shadows, yet they appear lighted and with surprising detail. Objects located in shadows should appear totally black.


The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight. At the Earth-Sun distance, maximum solar illumination is about 10,000 lumens per square foot; however, if the Sun is not directly overhead its rays will strike the surface obliquely. This decreases the intensity of sunlight per unit area. A typical Sun elevation during the Apollo landings was about 20 degrees, thus the illumination per square foot was about 3,400 lumens. Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photographs.



In many photographs the shadow side of the astronauts appear illuminated, while the shadow side of rocks appear totally black.


This Apollo 17 photograph
is a good example of the above hoax claim. The explanation is apparent from the photo itself. Look at the astronaut's feet and you will see that the shadow in this area is just as dark as that of the foreground rocks. The lunar surface acts as a reflector to illuminate the shadow side of the astronaut. At the elevation of the astronaut's feet, and the foreground rocks, this reflector surface is mostly covered by the adjacent shadows. However, at the elevation of the astronaut's head and torso, the shadows cover a much smaller percentage of the surface. For example, on a flat surface the angular distance from horizon to horizon is 180 degrees. At an elevation of five feet, a one-foot wide shadow subtends an angle of 11.4 degrees, or only 6% of the distance from horizon to horizon. At two inches above the ground, this shadow subtends an angle of 143 degrees, or nearly 80% of the surface. Furthermore, the rocks are darker and less reflective than the astronaut's white space suit.



Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source, thus the photos are fakes.


Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here.

This photograph
, taken on Earth, is an excellent example illustrating how perspective causes shadows to appear non-parallel when seen on film. In this example [see photo] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join