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: 17
73
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Riposte
 


Front screen projection can't do black since black is the absence of light so a light based projector just can't produce a deep black colour like we see in almost every lunar shot. This is a very old, long debunked theory that just holds no water.




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Also another issue with the photographs of the sun: when you take a photograph of the sun, you get a ray effect like this (I just randomly chose images from a Google search for 'sun photo'):
4.bp.blogspot.com... blog.jalbum.net...
static.photo.net...
www.thesurfingblog.com...
ec.comps.canstockphoto.com...
www.jaiom18.com...
www.digitalpicturezone.com...

You don't get a perfect circular impression like this:
www.aulis.com...

So anyway, there are strange anomalies.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by Riposte
 


Front screen projection can't do black since black is the absence of light so a light based projector just can't produce a deep black colour like we see in almost every lunar shot. This is a very old, long debunked theory that just holds no water.


It can do black.
i.ytimg.com...

Also, if NASA or whoever is going to hoax moon photos, and I mean IF they are going to hoax moon photos (I can't tell you 100% if they did or not), they would highly likely just go a. and doctor the images to have a deep black color if the back screen did not come out dark enough. Just an assumption to consider.
edit on 28-11-2012 by Riposte because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Riposte
 


Everyone single one of those pictures shows sunlight diffusing through an atmosphere. You're comparing apples and oranges.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by trig_grl
What ive been asking for years and no one has given a solid answer is WHY? Why did they fake the moon landing? Ive seen enough evidence to believe it was a hoax but im still confused as to why?


If you've seen enough evidence to believe it was a hoax then you are a gullible person.


Again says the author of a recent Bigfoot sighting thread...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by Riposte
 


Everyone single one of those pictures shows sunlight diffusing through an atmosphere. You're comparing apples and oranges.


I just googled 'astronaut photos of the sun from space.'

img.gawkerassets.com...
static6.businessinsider.com... ace-walk-july-12.jpg
farm5.static.flickr.com...
www.adamk.org...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 


Yes indeed, did I say that the EAFB bigfoot sightings were real? No, it's just an interesting story take it as you will. What's that got to do with the moon hoax? I'll tell you what nothing. Evidence or lack thereof, is what it is, and while I've seen a lot of evidence to suggest that people are seeing some unusual bipedal creature in the wilderness of North America, I have seen no evidence of a moon hoax.

Try keep it on topic buddy.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Bigfoot is real.



vvvvvvvvvvv And the Native Americans. vvvvvvvvv
edit on 28-11-2012 by Riposte because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Riposte
 


According to the Russians.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
There are 3 sides to every story.

Why does no one consider that maybe we did go but the video was faked?

At that time the common household remote didn't even exist and newscasters today still can't get the A/V feed to work 2 blocks from the studio...so why would they risk it? Plus we all know there's stuff up there we're not supposed to see. So why not fake some footage first, just in case? Makes sense to me...

Can you imagine if they went to set foot and give little their speeches and soundbites,then ZAP- signal lost.
Or CHOMP - eaten by a moon worm or disintegrated by Marvin the Martian's death ray...
No, the US gov't is smarter than that. No way they'd take those chances.

Don't listen to me tho, just keep arguing that we did or didn't go, and just ignore what's behind door #3 like they want you to.
There's tons of evidence we went right? And there's tons of evidence the video and pics are staged right?
So that means...come on people use those brains of yours.

It's the ONLY logical explanation, IMO.
edit on 28-11-2012 by KAOStheory because: sp



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 




Edit: comment removed due to lack of decorum. But I still don't care what you think.


PM me the original.

edit on 28-11-2012 by Wide-Eyes because: To add quote.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by MysterX
A simply explanation for no tracks could just be due to the track being obscured behind a small lip or ridge a couple of inches high in the surface...that would effectively hide a track.


Also I'm sure things would look different as to how fast they traveled....traveling very slow might leave tracks and a few miles per hour might be enough for the dust to fill back in. Kind of hard for ANYONE to say with the tires being totally different to what we would see as tires.


Yes, speed could alter the dust distribution and where it was deposited...but these rovers only had a top speed of 8mph, so they weren't rocketing around the place (no pun intended).

Thing is, the images that don't have apparent rover tracks were taken while the rover was stationary, meaning even if the rover was travelling at it's top speed of 8-10mph, it would have had to slow down before stopping, it wouldn't have been doing 8mph, then nothing...see what i mean?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 




Edit: comment removed due to lack of decorum. But I still don't care what you think.


PM me the original.

edit on 28-11-2012 by Wide-Eyes because: To add quote.


Not a good idea. I can type before I think at times, as I'm sure you'll agree.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte
Also another issue with the photographs of the sun: when you take a photograph of the sun, you get a ray effect like this (I just randomly chose images from a Google search for 'sun photo'):

You don't get a perfect circular impression like this:
www.aulis.com...

So anyway, there are strange anomalies.


You can still see rays in that picture



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
i always like the "debunkers" who say, that due to the rocket blasts on decent, it blew away all the dust from the landing leg pods, and that is why there is no dust on the feet of the landing legs....but....looking at nasa photos...there are boots prints (in this supposedly blown away dust) around the landing leg pods. big fail



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
i always like the "debunkers" who say, that due to the rocket blasts on decent, it blew away all the dust from the landing leg pods, and that is why there is no dust on the feet of the landing legs....but....looking at nasa photos...there are boots prints (in this supposedly blown away dust) around the landing leg pods. big fail


As requested dust on pad



Next!



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Riposte
Also another issue with the photographs of the sun: when you take a photograph of the sun, you get a ray effect like this (I just randomly chose images from a Google search for 'sun photo'):

You don't get a perfect circular impression like this:
www.aulis.com...

So anyway, there are strange anomalies.


You can still see rays in that picture


You can't actually. And there are many other Apollo photos of the sun with no rays.

These are what the rays should look like:
images.nationalgeographic.com...
edit on 28-11-2012 by Riposte because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
To me, aspects of the moon landings were clearly faked. I'm not saying we didn't go to the moon, but the US wanted everything to be iconic and historic, and what better way than recreating the events in a studio?

Can that at least be agreed upon to some degree?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Riposte
Also another issue with the photographs of the sun: when you take a photograph of the sun, you get a ray effect like this (I just randomly chose images from a Google search for 'sun photo'):

You don't get a perfect circular impression like this:
www.aulis.com...

So anyway, there are strange anomalies.


You can still see rays in that picture


You can't actually. And there are many other Apollo photos of the sun with no rays.

These are what the rays should look like:
images.nationalgeographic.com...
edit on 28-11-2012 by Riposte because: (no reason given)


Oh yes there is look along the red strokes increased size for your poor eyesight hope that helps they are faint but they are there!!!





new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join