Moon dust confirmed to be Fly ash waste product from coal power stations (Earth bound!)

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by rolfharriss
 



Nasa didn't put stars in because that would have been impossible to fake, one mistake - photo overlap and it is blown. The distance of stars is hard to replicate on a backdrop. Also they would have have to have taken the star photos from the moon itself - because of the slight difference in perspective from the Earth.


Easily done by computer. You can do it yourself:

www.stellarium.org...

You need to find a better answer. Use your knowledge of photography.



They didn't have Stelarium in 1969 ! Are you suggesting they should have travelled to the future to use to use a computer program to take photos of the stars for use in the Apollo hoax photos.. Are you on Hallucinogens?




posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 



They didn't have Stelarium in 1969 ! Are you suggesting they should have travelled to the future to use to use a computer program to take photos of the stars for use in the Apollo hoax photos.. Are you on Hallucinogens?


But government tech is always 50 years ahead of public tech. Just ask anyone in the Aliens & UFO forum. Bye.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I don't believe in UFO's

The moon landing was a hoax against us the public, not for national pride but a great tax payer swindle. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan are wars to line the pockets of defense contractors which are in bed with the government. The Moon landing hoax and the cold war was the latter day war on terror.. a perpetual cash cow which transferred wealth from the general population to an an elite.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
*** ATTENTION ***

KEEP IT CIVIL..... You will be Post Banned.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


You have demonstrated a serious lack in understanding photography the last several post that you have made.

Which is okay, not everyone can know everything. However, when you start making claims about the photography, it would be wise on your part to either learn or understand it better:

Curve of the horizon of the moon: even though the moon is much smaller than the Earth, like the Earth, it is big enough so that the curve of the horizon can not be seen until you go up in altitude. On the moon, the amount of altitude is much less then you need here on Earth to see it, but the moon is big enough that you will not see it at ground level. The picture you are using has a lens that exceeds the FOV of the human eye and will produce that curve affect artificially.

Stars: stars on the moon will not be visible in photography unless the picture is exposed long enough while in the sun, due to the amount of light being reflected off the ground. Even in space or on the moon, star light is faint, and requires much longer exposure times to see the stars. There are other threads here on ATS that show over exposed pictures taken by Apollo that do indeed have stars in them, and the over exposure is very apparent.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
So the camera which recorded the decent of the lander has the exposure time set back on Earth?

With the thousands of images of the lunar surface did all of these use the same exposure time and aperture? Or was it adjusted to each shot along the way?

Through all this effort it was not considered prudent to get one shot of the stars?



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
So the camera which recorded the decent of the lander has the exposure time set back on Earth?

With the thousands of images of the lunar surface did all of these use the same exposure time and aperture? Or was it adjusted to each shot along the way?

Through all this effort it was not considered prudent to get one shot of the stars?



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss
So the camera which recorded the decent of the lander has the exposure time set back on Earth?

With the thousands of images of the lunar surface did all of these use the same exposure time and aperture? Or was it adjusted to each shot along the way?

Through all this effort it was not considered prudent to get one shot of the stars?


decent camera: yes it did. 10 frames per second.

There were several different types of cameras used. Here's a link that lists all of them. From there, you can then research each on your own:

Cameras Of Apollo



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 



Through all this effort it was not considered prudent to get one shot of the stars?




Happy?
edit on 6-11-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss
So the camera which recorded the decent of the lander has the exposure time set back on Earth?

With the thousands of images of the lunar surface did all of these use the same exposure time and aperture? Or was it adjusted to each shot along the way?

Through all this effort it was not considered prudent to get one shot of the stars?


Are you talking about the decent "movie" camera? Please show me a movie camera that can take images of stars that easily.

It's been my experience that you can't see stars in the sky in movies taken at night unless you are using special cameras or special settings. That's just the nature of moving photography, considering the number of frames per second that need to get exposed. Moving photography generally is not conducive to low-light conditions.


edit on 11/6/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Here is the problem when you say these are the cameras that were used.. That is a leap of faith that is not evidence. That is the same as me saying I was told by an astronaut they faked the landings.

People exposing the hoax have to stick to the truth, but people arguing against it can produce new 'evidence' from thin air.

This has been happening for years a steady assimilation of new information into the old account.

The whole nonsense of advanced alien technology is just to throw off the conspiracy theorists with something more interesting.

Threadkillers are here to keep the moon hoax off the top of recent posts, but it is a moral duty to keep debating it everyday until the truth is out.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Where is this from ? What mission?

Why is this one such poor quality but all the Apollo moon shots taken on Earth so good?



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss
This photo proves the moon dust in the apollo photos is fake as it has no resemblance to www.mentallandscape.com...


That will be because that's a real hi-res image



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss
So the camera which recorded the decent of the lander has the exposure time set back on Earth?

With the thousands of images of the lunar surface did all of these use the same exposure time and aperture? Or was it adjusted to each shot along the way?

Through all this effort it was not considered prudent to get one shot of the stars?


Well here you go straight from the Horses Mouth so to speak unless of course you want to claim they didn't use

Hasselblad Cameras in Space

Guess what since the Moon has one light source the Sun they could estimate exposure for various conditions !!!



Now I wont need to explain what that means you KNOW about photography




posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss
Here is the problem when you say these are the cameras that were used.. That is a leap of faith that is not evidence. That is the same as me saying I was told by an astronaut they faked the landings.

People exposing the hoax have to stick to the truth, but people arguing against it can produce new 'evidence' from thin air.

This has been happening for years a steady assimilation of new information into the old account.

The whole nonsense of advanced alien technology is just to throw off the conspiracy theorists with something more interesting.

Threadkillers are here to keep the moon hoax off the top of recent posts, but it is a moral duty to keep debating it everyday until the truth is out.



And that's your problem.

By your logic, any evidence YOU produce we have to take on faith too.

Can you prove that these cameras were NOT used? Can you show evidence that other cameras were used?

By the way - none of us that support the moon landings as historical fact are not "threadkillers". We are ATS members that are debating you in your thread.

If you don't want people to debate things you post or discuss it with you, then it would seem ATS is not the place for you. Some other forum, like GLP would be better suited to your needs.

No one has a gun to your head forcing you to be here and argue with any of us. If it bothers you that much then it would seem your choices are clear:

1) stop posting in or making Moon Hoax Landing threads.

or

2) Find another online site / medium that will not allow people to debate you.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   


www.aulis.com...

www.aulis.com...


Some good information here.

The cold war was a hoax used to consolidate power




posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss
"the LM did not land straight down it had some lateral movement," your mate wm


You can see here a few feet lateral movement after the engine was cut off!


Take a look at the -Y footpad in AS11-40-5850. You can see where the probe dragged along the ground (green arrows), as well as radial striations (red arrows) emanating from the direction of the engine bell (click on the image to see the whole thing, it's wide):




Now rolfharriss you are shooting yourself in the foot if it was lifted into position as you claimed why would that show



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by rolfharriss
Here is the problem when you say these are the cameras that were used.. That is a leap of faith that is not evidence. That is the same as me saying I was told by an astronaut they faked the landings.

People exposing the hoax have to stick to the truth, but people arguing against it can produce new 'evidence' from thin air.

This has been happening for years a steady assimilation of new information into the old account.

The whole nonsense of advanced alien technology is just to throw off the conspiracy theorists with something more interesting.

Threadkillers are here to keep the moon hoax off the top of recent posts, but it is a moral duty to keep debating it everyday until the truth is out.



And that's your problem.

By your logic, any evidence YOU produce we have to take on faith too.

Can you prove that these cameras were NOT used? Can you show evidence that other cameras were used?

By the way - none of us that support the moon landings as historical fact are not "threadkillers". We are ATS members that are debating you in your thread.

If you don't want people to debate things you post or discuss it with you, then it would seem ATS is not the place for you. Some other forum, like GLP would be better suited to your needs.

No one has a gun to your head forcing you to be here and argue with any of us. If it bothers you that much then it would seem your choices are clear:

1) stop posting in or making Moon Hoax Landing threads.

or

2) Find another online site / medium that will not allow people to debate you.



This is the biggest hoax site so it is a good platform to get access to more people, I just want people to start thinking about this more as it will help restrict what our government's can do to us in the future.

There is nothing malicious in my attempts to try and expose the hoax, people deserve better than what we have. If we go back and expose past events we will have a more secure future. Join the cause guys and search your conscience.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 



Now we used to have a guy called FoosM on here claimed the same BS as you, used some BS internet sites as you iirc he was an Australian and your using a famous Australian's name are we actually dealing with FoosM once more.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
"Notwithstanding that the psychological behaviours of the named astronauts in the intervening years since Apollo would be evidence enough for our claims; the numerous inconsistencies and anomalies visible in the Apollo photographic record are irrefutable. The lack of continuity between a number of still photographic images and the TV coverage is very apparent."

www.aulis.com...


If I commission an independent study into the behaviour of the astronauts in the Apollo press conference (you know the first and last one because they performed so badly and nearly blew it) would you look at that evidence and consider it no matter what the outcome?





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join