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: 29
73
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nOraKat
 


Do you think this is a backdrop



Texture of grass in foreground is different from the background or is it the fact it's at the edge of a hill and the background is FURTHER away so you can't see the detail of the grass, that sounds familiar what if you had dust and small rocks in front of you at the edge of a small hill and the mountains in the background are some distance away




posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Thank you. I'm gonna have to bookmark this post. I have an eerie feeling that I will need to reference it in the future



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by froglette
 


Take your time, the code is still very ugly so I want to clean it up a bit before I even think of releasing it, so just let me know when you want to look at anything more in depth.

If anyone else would like any different renderings depicting shadow behaviour they find unusual I'll be happy to give that a go too.


Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by exponent
 

Thank you. I'm gonna have to bookmark this post. I have an eerie feeling that I will need to reference it in the future

You're welcome, let me know if you want any different renders doing, I doubt it will convince anyone but I could make a flyaround gif in future, I'll look into that.
edit on 30/11/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Do you think this is a backdrop


Well, some people includding the OP will, they have no idea about photography, including depth of field, perspective and how the ground affects shadows.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Which was claimed to show NO footprints or tracks around the rover, the picture has obviously been altered to hide the prints because this is the REAL image below.


When the image loads click on it for full size.




The original problem still remains : there are no tyre tracks and given that quite clealry there are footprints then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why there should not be any tyre tracks. Whatever reason can be invented to excuse the lack of visibility of tyre tracks would be applicable to the footprints.


Ahhh, so you can see the dirt behind the two rear tyres then, even when the rover is in a slightly elevated position? How did you do that?

For what it's worth. I know that the US landed on the moon (cant say why and I haven't mentioned Apollo) but many of the photos are fake for publicity/cover-up reasons. So ironically enough both sides are correct !!!!!

Correct, that statements not worth anything.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I'll take that bet!

Let me know if you find that snicker wrapper?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I still find it entirely implausible that there was an incredibly sophisticated 40 year conspiracy to fake the moon landings but that conversely NASA has been stupid enough to release myriads of photos so allegedly phony that uneducated amateurs on the internet can figure it out.

Once again a discussion of this devolves into debates about minor aspects of specific photos with very little attempt to explain the overview of how such a hoax could have been done.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
the first thing i see when looking at those pics is that the suits are different , why would there be different suits , and a allot is different not just that a button fell off lol



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tommo2522
 


Could you elaborate on what you mean by the suits being different? I'm not quite sure what you mean, exactly.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Exponent. Your second attempt was much better. I superimposed yours onto the photo and it doesn't match. The first and last pole shadows almost match my correction exactly.





And I didn't line ours up exactly because when I do my last pole shadow aligns up so closely it is hidden. This is the lined up version.


edit on 30-11-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by nOraKat
 


Do you think this is a backdrop



Texture of grass in foreground is different from the background or is it the fact it's at the edge of a hill and the background is FURTHER away so you can't see the detail of the grass, that sounds familiar what if you had dust and small rocks in front of you at the edge of a small hill and the mountains in the background are some distance away


Ah yes, that would explain it. Thanks for posting.

What appears to the OP as a fabric backdrop, especially under the left side of the spacecraft, is simply the curvature of the hill (which dips downward behind the spacecraft).

I saw the entire documentary, with all the people who were involved and they showed all the years of tedious preparations they had to go through. With so much footage of the prep, take off, and in-flight footage, it would probably be much easier to just go to the moon then to hoax it.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MortPenguin
 


So what are your conclusions MP?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Exponent. Your second attempt was much better. I superimposed yours onto the photo and it doesn't match. The first and last pole shadows almost match my correction exactly.


Considering that I made the example in only a couple of minutes under ideal situations I consider the correlation close enough to prove the concept.

The real picture of course has terrain and unknown lens attributes that will affect the image. I have totally lost understanding of what argument you have for it being fake. The shadow angles are slightly different yes, but that just requires fine tuning of the sun + camera location to match. The vanishing point being above the horizon just means that the land behind the poles is slightly tilted up which we can even see.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
The photograph was tilted which you can see by lining up the vertical structures in the background (see green lines). The we see the road is two straight lines (see red lines). Then we can find the eyeline by the poles and the building in back (blue and black lines). Now we see the cameraman's eyes would be level at this area of the photograph (turquoise line). Then see the little black and pink men I drew we would just about be looking directly in their eyes.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Resized the pic
edit on 1-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by tigercat1971
The original problem still remains : there are no tyre tracks and given that quite clealry there are footprints then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why there should not be any tyre tracks. Whatever reason can be invented to excuse the lack of visibility of tyre tracks would be applicable to the footprints.

no tyre tracks

Photo no. 1: AS17-137-20979HR
Photo no. 2: AS15-85-11470HR
Photo no. 3: AS15-88-11901HR
Photo no. 4: AS17-143-21932HR
Photo no. 5: AS15-88-11902HR

The only stupid explanation given, is that the rovers were not so heavy on the moon, so that the astronauts could carry them around, which would explain why there are bootprints, but no tyre tracks. LOL



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin



What is the point of showing that shadows can turn out like this ?


When Apollo shadows are like this.


AS17-136-20744



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
When Apollo shadows are like this.


AS17-136-20744


Sorry, what do you see as the problem here? A curve in the terrain will cause a curve in shadows and by taking the scene I used before from the opposite side you can see converging and parallel shadows in the same image:


Despite appearances, all shadows in this image are parallel, they appear curved due to terrain. I didn't bother emulating the Heiligenschein effect as that requires a bunch of screwing around with materials. The sort of shadows you're pointing out are completely normal on curved or inclined terrain.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


They aren't.

The picture of the posts has the same concept as the picture of the astronaut's shadow (I don't know where you're getting what your first little box of arrows is depicting).

The shadows in both pictures point to a vanishing point on the horizon.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Sorry, what do you see as the problem here? A curve in the terrain will cause a curve in shadows and by taking the scene I used before from the opposite side you can see converging and parallel shadows in the same image:


Show me this ! How do you get shadows like that with only one light source ???

www.hq.nasa.gov...


edit on 1-12-2012 by Ove38 because: new link



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


You don't, the shadows aren't like that in your image. Even with multiple lights you would get multiple shadows.

The shadows in your image slightly converge, exactly like the bottom shadows in my image do. The top shadows are to show you that as the terrain flattens, the shadows become parallel.

I'm afraid you just might not understand the subject. How can I show you converging shadows from this layout:


The answer is that the curve you can see with the grid causes them to converge. This is exactly what is happening in the Apollo pictures.



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join