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: 33
73
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
A satellite photo tells me nothing of the local terrain. The video is awful and I couldn't tell a lot from that. I experimented with your idea. And the angles are significant. The shadows do converge at a point in the photo aswell. So it is consistent across the image except the LEM.

This below looks OK (I underestimated the angles) but looking at the photo in reverse I just posted shows this is not correct. The ground between the LEM and the cameraman is completely flat.



edit on 2-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
A satellite photo tells me nothing of the local terrain.

In fact what I linked you is the result of extensive analysis of the satellite photos and the available photos on the ground produced in 1978. It's about the highest quality map you will get of the area, even the LRO satellite has lower resolution:


The map was designed to give a good overview of the landing site and I think it does well to illustrate the many curves involved. Maps like these were also produced:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Unfortunately the Apollo 11 landing was just off the bottom of the map, but you can see that it is situated on terrain with gradient and that the moon has significant topological features.


The video is awful and I couldn't tell a lot from that. I experimented with your idea. And the angles are significant. The shadows do converge at a point in the photo aswell. So it is consistent across the image except the LEM.

On the contrary, the shadows converge consistently on each part of the consistent terrain. This shot was taken from the rim of Little West Crater looking down, the LEM itself however sits on a slightly elevated, flatter section. In fact even the Surface Journal comments on this:

This frame gives us a feeling for elevation of the rim. When he took this picture, Neil was clearly standing above the level of the LM footpads.

www.hq.nasa.gov...


This below looks OK (I underestimated the angles) but looking at the photo in reverse I just posted shows this is not correct. The ground between the LEM and the cameraman is completely flat.

This is not the case, for example here is a photo of the PSEP
www.hq.nasa.gov...

It's clear that the LEM is quite tilted and that terrain is visible.

Here's a photo taken roughly half way between the LEM and the photo you illustrated:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here you can see the terrain slopes down to the left by the variation in shadows in the lower right corner.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that the moon is flat from, it really isn't.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by nOraKat
I guess nobody has an explanation for the absence of the TIRE tracks.

Yep you win, I guess not seeing tracks in a few selected photos means the WHOLE THING was faked.

No one says "the WHOLE THING was faked" it was partly faked, we are only discussing which parts were faked. I believe a part of the rockets went to the moon, I believe the landers lander on the moon, I believe equipment were deployed on the Moon's surface, but I don't believe any of the twelve (69-72) astronauts walked on the Moon's surface, that part was faked on earth. The Apollo missions were only robotic missions to the moon.


An interesting perspective, but there's a key problem with this idea which is the SEQ bay pendulum (and the videos of all the 1/6g activities):

This, the dust behaviour and similar events like the hammer/feather experiment are simply not reproducible on Earth....


You know they all are reproducible




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


HAHAHAHA, there is no way that is a real feather being used in the HB "re-enactment" of the hammer and feather experiment. Go out side find a feather and see if it drops like that! If feathers were that heavy birds would never get off the ground!

This is another example of outright lies by hoax proponents. Shame on them. If anything a video like this is damning evidence of how these deceptive charlatans are fooling people.

If the feather and hammer hit the ground at the same time why do teachers and students all over the world repeat classroom experiments like the one shown in this video?:








edit on 2-12-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

edit on 2-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

fisheye lens image AS17-136-20744HR

In the image below, we have the opposite shadow effect



This time, the lamp is very near the photographer, 5 meters above the floor and 15 meters away

Both of these photos, were taken in a very small room

source:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...




edit on 2-12-2012 by Ove38 because: link fix



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
You know they all are reproducible


The reproduction cannot just be of a couple of seconds, the whole video needs to be reproducible. Notice the movements of the astronauts elsewhere. This video demonstrates it from 6:50 in:


Besides, this is the easiest to reproduce. The SEQ bay pendulum also needs speeding up to a silly degree in order to make the timings realistic and I doubt anyone would consider it to look remotely plausible.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
This time, the lamp is very near the photographer, 5 meters above the floor and 15 meters away

Both of these photos, were taken in a very small room


I'm convinced that you really don't understand how perspective works at all. Have you never taken your own photographs of shadows or even bothered to look on google?

www.featurepics.com...

For example. Notice how all the shadows diverge?

edit:


Posts in perspective, parallel light rays, diverging shadows, flat plane. What is so weird about this to you?
edit on 2/12/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
I didn't say the moon is flat Exponent. I said this photo below shows the ground between the cameraman I drew and the LEM is completely flat. It is problematic with your theory that the shadows on the other photo are the result of uneven ground and that photo is obviously uneven (unbeknownst to me). Which I went to great lengths to attempt to understand.

I'm not sure why you are showing me the satellite photo. It is not even the same site? What is that black stuff underneath?

But the only evidence you have for it being flat is that it looks flat on that single photo. On the rest of the photos there's obvious terrain visible, even just looking at the LM from the other side you can see it is at an angle.

The satellite photo is of the same site, the 'black stuff' is the LEM shadow (the sun has to be very low in the sky to highlight topography)


You seem to be showing me everything in detour of the issue I am presenting. So here is where the cameraman taking the photo of the LEM is standing. Does this not look completely flat to you?

It does look pretty flat yes, but I wouldn't be bold enough to say that 'looks pretty flat' is the same as 'is flat'.

Like I said, in the original picture we know that Neil was standing on the rim of a crater, elevated from the rest of the scene. You've not shown me any convincing evidence that there are any anomalies here.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I wasn't attempting to show any anomalies. But we are having a discussion and as it is a complex topic it would help that we at least agree on the basic facts. So this is flat appearing ground where there are no hills or inclines all the way back to the horizon. At first I thought the photo he took of the LEM was ontop of a ridge but after studying it further I felt it was flat and only appears uneven. But you still feel that the cameraman is standing on a level higher than this flat ground level?

I realised the landing module is raise at the rear already. I like dealing with one bit of info at a time lol.

So do you know of any photo pointed in the direction of the cameraman that might help validate whether the ground is indeed flat for you?

Opps I deleted my last post.. accidently
edit on 2-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
I don't believe any of the twelve (69-72) astronauts walked on the Moon's surface, that part was faked on earth.


Now tell me kid, what did you pick up in school today dear little boy of mine? What did the bastards pushed you with dear little Cowboy of mine? Then you 'Ove38' are supposed to say >>I learned we were the first to put a man on the Moon, and i'm sure we will have a McDonal up there soon, the next step will be a military base, but of course just to protect the human race out from space just in case, that's what we learn in school today that's what we learn in school



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
This is the landing module in question next to the landing module photo taken at a closer distance. See the black lines at the bottom. The foot pads line up. In perspective this tells us these photos were taken at the same elevation. See how much the horizon has changed too.




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
This photo has the same problem with shadows going in a completely different direction to the lunar module. This is on the same flat ground we were discussing. The arrows are pointing to rocks without black shadows. This is where these two photos were stitched together.

Sorry but the walk back from the crater did not happen like this. Sorry to be the barer of bad news.




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Ove38
This time, the lamp is very near the photographer, 5 meters above the floor and 15 meters away

Both of these photos, were taken in a very small room


I'm convinced that you really don't understand how perspective works at all. Have you never taken your own photographs of shadows or even bothered to look on google?

www.featurepics.com...

For example. Notice how all the shadows diverge?

Everyone knows the shadows diverge, depending on where the lamp is.



The shadows diverge as much as they do in this Apollo image, because the lamp hangs right above the lunar rover, like in the drawing above.



source:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
edit on 2-12-2012 by Ove38 because: link fix



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
Everyone knows the shadows diverge, depending on where the lamp is.

There is no lamp. You're still trying to discredit the Apollo missions to the Moon
, but i'm afraid to inform you that you will never be able to disprove it no matter how hard you try



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
This time, the lamp is very near the photographer, 5 meters above the floor and 15 meters away

Both of these photos, were taken in a very small room

source:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

If you really wish to be taken seriously then you are doing an awful bad job, and guess what, you are NOT taken seriously
There is no lamp, get over it...
edit on 2-12-2012 by Anunaki10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


You do realise that if the light source was close as you claim the shadows wouldn't be paraller anymore? I mean seriously?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

No one says "the WHOLE THING was faked" it was partly faked, we are only discussing which parts were faked. I believe a part of the rockets went to the moon, I believe the landers lander on the moon, I believe equipment were deployed on the Moon's surface, but I don't believe any of the twelve (69-72) astronauts walked on the Moon's surface, that part was faked on earth. The Apollo missions were only robotic missions to the moon.


Okay, thanks for clarifying.
Then how did they fake the shots of the earth on a live telelvision feed that showed the cloud patterns at the time on earth?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   



Does this really appear flat to you???
Sorry, but couldn't help to have a good laugh. My "Falcon"-eyes tells me it does not appear flat at all...



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I may be a bit blind but, I don't see it.

I have watched the Kubrick documentaries in which, Stanley Kubrick supposedly was recruited to film a false moon landing.

While there was compelling evidence that this may be true, that doesn't necessarily mean that there was no moon landing whatsoever.



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join