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: 15
73
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


Have a look at this: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This debate we are having has been repeated many times on here. The conclusions are always the same.




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




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulwaxer

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)


if anyone here on ATS believes we went to the moon...they need to use the search button for a few days...there is so much eividence, in so many threads, completely trashing NASA and the entire moon program.
i'll pick at just the foto in this post:
1....where are the large battery packs needed to get this rover and the men around for hundreds of yards, and several excursions??
2....since they had to use batteries, did they have huge extra ones on the lander?...or did they have a charger?
and how would the charger work ? there are no elctrical plugins on the moon.
3....where are the tire tracks in back or in front of the tires?, you can clearly see the footprints, so you know it is a soft, dustlike portion of the ground.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


The other light source is from diffuse reflected light from the surface.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


there you go...

i rest my case




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by hidden0
Umm...I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble here, but if nobody ever has visited the moon, then who put these mirrors there?

Mirrors On Moon

These mirrors exist - and you can personally prove it.

This is a clip from Big Bang Theory (I occasionally watch the show), skip to 1 minute 50 seconds.


Given the correct equipment, you can provide yourself absolute proof that somebody put that mirror there....why not the people who claim they did it?


Could have been placed by an un-manned rover. Not saying that's how the mirror got there, just offering a way that it could have been placed there without a man haveing to go to the moon to place it there. *shrug*

Big Bang theory, good show btw, I used to hate it, but I never watched it. Then I watched an episode and it's actually not that bad of a show.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulwaxer

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)
It was built for functionality and practicality, not to look pretty for the camera. This would be like asking us why we designed a crappy square looking space ship instead of the Enterprise, it'd be because building a Enterprise for space travel would be impractical. It's not needed. We won't be flying around in space like we see in Star Wars or Star Trek like we're flying around on Earth. It'll be up down left and right due to being space. Our last gen of spacecraft only had the appearance they did because they needed to be able to fly somewhat to land back on Earth. In the future, if/when we build spacecraft in space, those craft will look nothing like we've seen before. Look at the space station. It's not pretty in the least but it gets the job done.

As a matter of fact, when/if we do get around to making our first Enterprise, you can expect it to look more like the space station than the fictional tv show ship. Sci fi has spoiled us in regards to space travel but it did get one thing right - we'll be using "shuttles" rather than planting our renta Enterprises on a planet.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


Rest your case if you like.

There is nothing unusual about that picture. I'll say it again, if two light sources were being used for that scene, both the flagpole and the astronauts each should have two shadows. Your picture demonstrates that there is one light source...the sun. Fail.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by soulwaxer

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)


if anyone here on ATS believes we went to the moon...they need to use the search button for a few days...there is so much eividence, in so many threads, completely trashing NASA and the entire moon program.
i'll pick at just the foto in this post:
1....where are the large battery packs needed to get this rover and the men around for hundreds of yards, and several excursions??
2....since they had to use batteries, did they have huge extra ones on the lander?...or did they have a charger?
and how would the charger work ? there are no elctrical plugins on the moon.
3....where are the tire tracks in back or in front of the tires?, you can clearly see the footprints, so you know it is a soft, dustlike portion of the ground.


Here you go. About the batteries and power for the LRV:

LRV Power and Control


Power was provided by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 A·h each (a total of 242 A·h), translating into a range of 57 miles (92 km).[15] These were used to power the drive and steering motors and also a 36-volt utility outlet mounted on front of the LRV to power the communications relay unit or the TV camera. LRV batteries and electronics were passively cooled, using change-of-phase wax thermal capacitor packages and reflective, upward-facing radiating surfaces. While driving, radiators were covered with mylar blankets to minimize dust accumulation. When stopped, the astronauts would open the blankets, and manually remove excess dust from the cooling surfaces with hand brushes.


Non rechargable, with a life of 121 amp hours each.

As for the wheels:


The wheels were manufactured by General Motors Defense Research Laboratories. Ferenc Pavlics was given special recognition by NASA for developing the "resilient wheel.[20] They consisted of a spun aluminum hub and a 32 inches (81 cm) diameter, 9 inches (23 cm) wide tire made of zinc-coated woven 0.033 inches (0.84 mm) diameter steel strands attached to the rim and discs of formed aluminum. Titanium chevrons covered 50 percent of the contact area to provide traction. Inside the tire was a 25.5 inches (65 cm) diameter bump stop frame to protect the hub. Dust guards were mounted above the wheels. Each wheel had its own electric drive made by Delco, DC series-wound motor capable of 0.25 horsepower (190 W) at 10,000 rpm, attached to the wheel via an 80:1 harmonic drive, and a mechanical brake unit.


They didn't have the same kind of tread that you'd find on normal wheels:




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


Actually:

You've put your red lines in the wrong places for the shadows.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
This has been done to death....I suggest you check out Fact or Faked...They did a show on the moon hoax, and proved that it could NOT have been faked. Why part one is not there I have no idea, but this show is also available on Netflix. www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



We went to the moon my friend...Sorry.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
#, what year is this? Does the 1969 moon landings, which did happen, really need to be revisited time and time again 43 years later? Dude, get a life and worry about the current state of the world, not some crap that is already well documented in the history books as fact.

You're not proving anything. You will have no worthwhile effect on the generally accepted fact that we landed on the moon in 1969... Grow up.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by kurthall
This has been done to death....I suggest you check out Fact or Faked...They did a show on the moon hoax, and proved that it could NOT have been faked. Why part one is not there I have no idea, but this show is also available on Netflix. www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



We went to the moon my friend...Sorry.


Nah. they didn't prove that it couldn't be faked. They did say they didn't think it was faked.

I mean, how hard would it of been to keep that covered up?

But yea, we went to the moon.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   


take a good look (ofcourse this is not accurate...but accurate enough to show the problem that is being ignored)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fr3bzY
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


Perspective. The only way you're going to get parallel shadows is if the photo was taken with a very long telephoto lens.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


Actually:

You've put your red lines in the wrong places for the shadows.


did i ?
correct me then...
because i used the shadows visible IN the picture...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 

Divergent shadows are due to perspective and show the unevenness of the terrain they fall on, nothing more.

Explain this photo, more than one light source?:




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



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


Rest your case if you like.

There is nothing unusual about that picture. I'll say it again, if two light sources were being used for that scene, both the flagpole and the astronauts each should have two shadows. Your picture demonstrates that there is one light source...the sun. Fail.


you obviously never worked in a studio...
floodlights created strong shadows
filler lights are used to soften the strong shadows (because of problems with contrast)

example ->



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DEV1L79
, they can take pictures of a single moon rock using telescopes.


Please stop lying, it destroys what little credibility you have left. Either admit that was a lie or provide proof of the existence of a telescope large enough to take pictures of moon rocks.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 


Shadows follow the terrain they land on here is a prime example of another Apollo HB picture like you he did not seem to understand how shadows work.



He put arrows on claiming light was coming from different directions


SHADOWS follow the terrain they land on that's why they can appear to change direction it happens here on Earth as well, have you never walk towards a wall with the sun behind you and part on your shadow is on the ground and part on the wall



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
There is actual satellite photographic proof of the lunar landing sites, and third party verification from foreign countries own satellites. I know for a fact that it did happen, because I was involved as a professional catographer using stereophotogrammetric techniques with lunar satellite images on a NASA contract to the agency that I worked for, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).

Also as far as the lunar simulator goes, it was used extensively as the primary tool for training the astronauts to properly land the lunar landing module. We made the 3-D model for that also, using the satellite photography of the primary landing site (each mission aslo had back up landing sites mapped in case they were needed).

Here is the satellite photographic proof of the landing sites:
www.nasa.gov...

Only a blind person cannot see these sites. There is third party verification from other nations satellite images, as undisputable proof. I can't believe this topic keeps coming up.



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join