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.

 

Apollo 15 images on approach- giving the conspiracy theory a chance

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012


There is actually a period from the Apollo 15 landing footage where a rock that is seen from approx 200 feet up remains in view until the lunar module touches down and it doesn't change in size!


edit on 5-9-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)


Here is a still from the video at the 200ft mark care to point out this rock





NONE of that view is in the final shot

edit on 5-9-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


hummm..

yes.. I see..

ok.. but..

what about the original OP pics .. they LOOK the same reguardless of the distance ?? film is film..but distance will change .. unless camera have a magic trick .. which we all didn't know about ..



Hi Komodo

The lander constantly moves its look at his claim for a rock in view 200 ft up that he says is still in view when they touch down.

Here is the video at 2:03 they say 200ft look and if you watch you will see NONE of that area is in the final image the OP is a LIAR!!




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Surely the difference of 3,000ft above the moon's surface and on the actual surface should be easy to spot given it is the same camera and footage for each image?


After you've cropped the images and removed any reference to angles on a planet with no atmosphere ergo black shadows everywhere ... ? No not really. If it wasn't for the atmosphere on earth you could pull the same trick here.

Actually could pull the same trick using a 3D model with no atmopshere and taking a few happy snaps. It would have similar effect if set up right. Cropping odd looking things from any image messes with human eye sight.


so where do all these massive rocks and craters go- to me, the video footage lacks the 3D you would expect as the surface of the moon gets closer.


I dont' think landing next to massive objects was the objective.


Originally posted by Wonderer2012
In reality, as you get closer to the surface, the image should come into focus.


Lot of this depends on your camera setup plus 200ish lines of detail from a distance and 200ish lines of detail close up still isn't a whole lot of detail.


This however, does not happen, it all remains flat looking which is indicative of a model- as it doesn't grasp the true dimensions.


This this doesn't grasp the true dimensions either. Is really funny though.
It's a similar thing though. Moon looks like a physical model because one thing a model can't produce is atmosphere. Niether can the moon.

The camera was set up to follow the whole landing; not to cinematically distinguish things as you're used to seeing with cameras. Depending on your background you've built an understanding of 'cinematic language' which you're expecting to be met I suspect.

I'd suggest if you're really wanting to journey down this path and think you've really found something ... suggestions:

- Make a 3D model or find some data from the moon to turn into a 3D model (some data is availble publically). Recreate the video using the camera specs with a single source of lighting. Try your cropping experiment with that.

- On the more crazy path ... get a hold of the original model of camera.

I'd also suggest stop trying to trick people?

Wish you luck investigating.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Deny Ignorance ATS, keep up the good work




That is the video I used, it opens at 3,000ft from the surface.

- So from that height, the rocks/craters you can see would be very large given how big they look.

- As the lunar module descends, the rocks do not get bigger even though it is getting closer to the surface- surely these rocks should be coming into focus?

- When we get to 200ft from the surface, there is no difference whatsoever from the 2,800ft difference we would have expected!

- 150FT FROM THE SURFACE, YOU CAN TRACK ANY ROCK, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY 3D DEFINITION- AFTER THE DUST HAS SETTLED- THE CAMERA HAS LITERALLY JUST ZOOMED IN ONE A PART OF THE MODEL.

NOBODY WITH AN OPEN MIND CAN WATCH THE FINAL STAGES OF THIS VIDEO AND ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS IS REAL FOOTAGE- IT IS BEYOND LUDICROUS TO DO SO.

To defend this footage as legit is the definition of ignorance. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it is so blatantly not real- it is just NOT real footage end of story!



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
- So from that height, the rocks/craters you can see would be very large given how big they look.


There was no big craters or rocks in the other picture you used. In fact there is lots of photos that show just small details and moon soil mostly. Same with the rover videos at times. How much of that detail would you expect to see in a low resolution image from a distance?


- As the lunar module descends, the rocks do not get bigger even though it is getting closer to the surface- surely these rocks should be coming into focus?


I guess you mean visible with detail. I suspect you're just expecting far too much from a low resolution image but ultimately you're not going to take research into the belief further other than implying I'm a bit stupid for disagreeing?

You're welcome to your opinion.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Look at the height of the astronaut, along with the length and angle of the shadow he is casting.

Now look at the height of the flag pole. Where is the shadow it should be casting?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
my question....how many threads are you going to make on this topic? I mean, this is just silly, We get it, you believe it. We dont need a thread a week claiming as such.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


So were is the rock you could track from 200 ft to touch down please show everyone or is it another blatent lie from you



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 





Surely if it was real someone could point out the difference of 3,000ft?


Not when you aren't using the same landmark at the different heights...that was what I was getting at.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join