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.

 

New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

page: 14
73
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


hurr durr...
where did they get the multiple light-sources buddy.... ?
does our solar system have multiple suns now ?

also its clearly a set...with a raised front scene and a backdrop (the 'canvas')
also notice the lander is behind a little dirt hill to give a depth effect...
i wonder where that hill went when they took off...
they must have moved it...


please...




edit on 28-11-2012 by Fr3bzY because: ding




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I don't have an opinion on the moon hoax theories since I haven't studied them, but looking at this picture of the Apollo 15 Lunar Rover kind of made me scratch my head:



It looks like someone built that from scraps found in the back of their garage for a 6th grade science project that got started way too late. Like in the last couple of days before take-off, NASA said, "Oh yeah, that's right, we're gonna need a little buggy to cruise around in. You wanna give it a shot Jimmy? You got 48 hours!"

You would think that if they could build the rocket that carried it all the way to the moon, they could have done a better, more reliable design. That thing looks like parts of it have been taped together using regular box tape, and you could get your million dollar space suit snagged on it, tearing parts off of it getting in and out... Oh, and look at the wiring!


A regular bicycle was designed 10 times better back then.

soulwaxer
edit on 28-11-2012 by soulwaxer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Brown Bear
 


Look up photographic film exposure, or get someone you know who has studied photography to explain it to you.

There are no stars in this picture for the same reasons: ISS

Oh wait, somebody's gonna say this is fake too?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fr3bzY
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


hurr durr...
where did they get the multiple light-sources buddy.... ?
does our solar system have multiple suns now ?

please...





Go back to your post, and scroll up, a few posts previous to yours I show an example you need to look at.

Actually here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, you do understand that more than one light source will give an object more than one shadow don't you????


edit on 28-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fr3bzY

and showing some more nasa expert background removal skills (lol)




edit on 28-11-2012 by Fr3bzY because: edit


THAT isn't the NASA shot that's a HB altered one here is the original



Click on image for full size!!!

EVEN YOU should be able to spot the difference



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Brown Bear
 


Look up photographic film exposure, or get someone you know who has studied photography to explain it to you.

There are no stars in this picture for the same reasons: ISS

Oh wait, somebody's gonna say this is fake too?





One thing that's clear on this thread is that you've demonstrated yourself clearly as a disgusting piece of flotsam. Why not just answer the question? I was just asking.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I cant believe that folk think the moon landings were fake! No reason to fake them. Tech was 20 years ahead of the tech the public new they were using at the time. Just as it is now. The Chevron craft a current example!



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DEV1L79

I could use science to explain you don't really exist if I tried. I could use science and theory to make you believe almost anything It is just smoke and mirrors to stop you from getting to to the truth.
edit on 27-11-2012 by DEV1L79 because: ,.,


"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."
- Homer Simpson

I think I just found your mentor.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by Fr3bzY
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


hurr durr...
where did they get the multiple light-sources buddy.... ?
does our solar system have multiple suns now ?

please...





Go back to your post, and scroll up, a few posts previous to yours I show an example you need to look at.

Actually here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, you do understand that more than one light source will give an object more than one shadow don't you????


edit on 28-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)


duh 1 light source give shadow one way !
then why does 99% of nasa moonlandur pictures show light and shadow anomalies ?
showing multiple directions of the shadows ? the contrasts between shadows is also totally fubar
(but i bet you will give me 'the equipment' explanation)

oh yeah...seen this one ?




edit on 28-11-2012 by Fr3bzY because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Brown Bear
 


Hah! And I thought I was being nice to you.

The reasons there are no stars is due to film exposure, if you've ever used celluloid film in a camera you would understand this process. Where there is a strong light source, the exposure time for the film is limited, thus not allowing weaker light sources to appear on the film. Get it?

My disdain for HB's does not extend to everybody who asks a question, however, your question has been asked, and answered, on every moon hoax thread on ATS. Maybe you could hit the search button?


edit on 28-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


Show me one picture from the moon where an astronaut, a rock, or any object has more than one shadow?

(99% of moon photos do not show any anomalies to a rational person BTW)






edit on 28-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


Show me one picture from the moon where an astronaut, a rock, or any object has more than one shadow?

(99% of moon photos do not show any anomalies to a rational person BTW)






edit on 28-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)


there you go ?
i wonder what you will ask next



just one more


edit on 28-11-2012 by Fr3bzY because: added one



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
What’s more, NASA could not even keep astronauts safe on Earth. During a test simulation on the launch pad for Apollo One in 1967, three astronauts died during a fire that engulfed the capsule and somehow locked them inside, which was never explained and seemed to be the result of foul play.


It was explained. The atmosphere inside the capsule was pure oxygen at a level of 16.7 psi. The hatch on Apollo 1 was designed to open inward, so the pressure differential made it impossible to open the hatch. After the accident, the hatch was re-designed to open outward.

By the way, no one bought up the possibility of vibrations from the ground going up the flag pole as Buzz walked passed the flag causing the flag to wave.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


I asked you to show me a picture where an object has more than one shadow, like this:



The lander in the picture has ONE shadow.

If there is "light from the wrong direction" then there should be another shadow on the other side of the lander, but there isn't.

The dark side of the lander is illuminated by reflected light from the surface.

I'll ask you again: show me a picture where an object has two or more shadows.




edit on 28-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


Looks like it's been exposed incredibly well too. For a shot in direct sunlight.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


I asked you to show me a picture where an object has more than one shadow.

The lander in the picture has ONE shadow.

If there is "light from the wrong direction" then there should be another shadow on the other side of the lander, but there isn't.

The dark side of the lander is illuminated by reflected light from the surface.



LOL who are you trying to bull# mate
if the SUN/any lightsource is lighting the lander FROM BEHIND...you need one hell of a strong light to ALSO light the front of the lander

hahaha you must love your job man...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


I asked you to show me a picture where an object has more than one shadow, like this:



The lander in the picture has ONE shadow.

If there is "light from the wrong direction" then there should be another shadow on the other side of the lander, but there isn't.

The dark side of the lander is illuminated by reflected light from the surface.

I'll ask you again: show me a picture where an object has two or more shadows.




edit on 28-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)


i did...but you ignored it

but thats how you people roll



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


Wow, you really don't grasp this concept at all, I'm impressed.

Look at a football match played at night, see how the players have more than one shadow? Strength of the light source would be irrelevant, multiple light sources = multiple shadows.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


The picture you posted has how many shadows in it exactly?

You are the one who's doing the ignoring. I've addressed your picture, you obviously can't count.





edit on 28-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


The picture you posted has how many shadows in it exactly?


AH ok i see what your doing

yes there is ONE shadow per object
yet there are multiple light sources (unless the rules of perspective dont apply to moon?)

One light source means all shadows should be uniform (that means all shadows should face same direction) ...yet they are not...
or are you gonna blame lens distortion for that ?
lol



edit on 28-11-2012 by Fr3bzY because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join