Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 35
73
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by elitelogic
The complexity of this moon hoax is greater than actually landing a man on the moon.


Repeaters, robot drones to deploy equipment...any country that could pull that off could EASILY land a man on the moon.

Yes, but not returning him safely to the earth, that's why they skipped that part in 1969

JFK 1961 "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth"




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The lamp has to be very close right above the ground.



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



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



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

There is no boot prints on the moon, laser reflector's were deployed by USA and USSR using by robotic sondes.


Well that's a flat out lie.
Why do you lie?
Please stop lying.





And what about the solar wind experiment, which had to have been placed and picked up again before returning to earth.

Robots?

No.
edit on 2-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by Ove38

There is no boot prints on the moon, laser reflector's were deployed by USA and USSR using by robotic sondes.


Well that's a flat out lie.
Why do you lie?
Please stop lying.

lying ???

Why do you believe these images were taken on the moon ? Why do you believe these reflector's are the ones on the moon ?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 



Okay.

Good luck.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

The astronauts remained in earth orbit, the LM (inside a part of the rocket) went to the moon, it was just a trick.]


And I'm assuming you have proof of this magical, secret NASA cloaking device that kept the astronauts hidden while they orbited earth?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
If we make 2 distinct horizons this photo starts to make sense. This frame is definitely composed of 2 different photos.And no this is not possible.

edit on 3-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)


For those who cling to this photo being genuine for this to be possible the scene would have to be something like this.



Yet looking back from the lunar module the ground is completely flat.



So we have proof at least this photo is not real. Regardless of whether anybody went to the moon or not.
edit on 3-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
The fisheye lens explanation is better, the image was taken with a fisheye lens, that's way the shadows appear like they do in the Apollo "moon surface" image.

The question is, what happens to "the moon" if we make a fisheye correction ? will we find ourselves in a studio on earth ?

edit on 1-12-2012 by Ove38 because: text fix



TOTAL AND UTTER BULL COOKIES and you know it or do you really think that a fisheye lens will only distort shadows and the building in your picture was built that way



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by Ove38

The astronauts remained in earth orbit, the LM (inside a part of the rocket) went to the moon, it was just a trick.]

And I'm assuming you have proof of this magical, secret NASA cloaking device that kept the astronauts hidden while they orbited earth?


Everyone thought they were in the LM part of the rocket, the one that went to the moon, and not in the part left behind. The whole rocket did not go to the moon, the part that didn't go, wasn't invisible.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Ove38
The fisheye lens explanation is better, the image was taken with a fisheye lens, that's way the shadows appear like they do in the Apollo "moon surface" image.

The question is, what happens to "the moon" if we make a fisheye correction ? will we find ourselves in a studio on earth ?

edit on 1-12-2012 by Ove38 because: text fix



TOTAL AND UTTER BULL COOKIES and you know it or do you really think that a fisheye lens will only distort shadows and the building in your picture was built that way

The fisheye lens explanation is good, the converging shadows are identical, to the ones in this Apollo 17 image

edit on 3-12-2012 by Ove38 because: link fix



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
The fisheye lens explanation is good, the converging shadows are identical, to the ones in this Apollo 17 image


I give up. I've never seen someone act so ignorantly that they can't even understand how sun and the light works.

You're wrong in every sense Ove38. I've explained it to you many times and shown you 3d renders that match everything you've complained about.

Deny Ignorance. Realise you do not understand what you are talking about and cannot understand perspective. I certainly am not going to waste any more of my time on you.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
Everyone thought they were in the LM part of the rocket, the one that went to the moon, and not in the part left behind. The whole rocket did not go to the moon, the part that didn't go, wasn't invisible.


If it was in orbit around the earth it would have been visible with the naked eye, not to mention that amateurs were monitoring radio transmissions.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
So we have proof at least this photo is not real. Regardless of whether anybody went to the moon or not.

There are some that believe they really walked on the moon in 1969 - 72, but made these images in a studio on earth for PR reasons.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by Ove38
Everyone thought they were in the LM part of the rocket, the one that went to the moon, and not in the part left behind. The whole rocket did not go to the moon, the part that didn't go, wasn't invisible.


If it was in orbit around the earth it would have been visible with the naked eye, not to mention that amateurs were monitoring radio transmissions.


the amateurs were listening to a repeater, that was on board the LM part of the rocket

en.wikipedia.org...

not everything in earth's orbit is visible to the naked eye, do you see the space shuttle with your naked eye ?
edit on 3-12-2012 by Ove38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Ove38
The fisheye lens explanation is good, the converging shadows are identical, to the ones in this Apollo 17 image

I give up. I've never seen someone act so ignorantly that they can't even understand how sun and the light works.

We know what the Sun looks like when We're in Space, it certainly doesn't look like the Apollo sun

it's you that dont understand how lamp light creates shadows



source:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
edit on 3-12-2012 by Ove38 because: link fix



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
not everything in earth's orbit is visible to the naked eye, do you see the space shuttle with your naked eye ?
edit on 3-12-2012 by Ove38 because: (no reason given)


Yes, and the ISS. Your ignorance knows no bounds I guess.


it's you that dont understand how lamp light creates shadows

Then explain how i was able to simulate exactly the same effect using parallel light rays. Explain how this picture is possible:


According to your reasoning that's not really the sun, it's a spotlight hidden right behind those trees! All you've done to disprove my points is google until you find something you think agrees with you and then post it. You haven't bothered to do the tiniest bit of actual research, just assumed that you are right.

You are wrong. The exact same effect is achievable with parallel light rays:


How much more will it take before you deny ignorance and actually go and learn something?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

How much more will it take before you deny ignorance and actually go and learn something?




I commend you on your efforts exponent, you have created valuable posts that I and others can reference in future debates.

Wanton ignorance will not be satisfied, and that's what you are dealing with here, in droves.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
I commend you on your efforts exponent, you have created valuable posts that I and others can reference in future debates.

Wanton ignorance will not be satisfied, and that's what you are dealing with here, in droves.

Thank you very much for your kind words. I think my first mistake was to assume that posters understand perspective. It quite shocked me when I realised it wasn't the effect of terrain that was confusing some posters, just the nature of perspective distortion itself!

Is there anything else you'd like me to render or explain or go into more detail about? I'm happy to spend a bit of time if it will be used to educate.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Prove it Exponent. If you want to call me ignorant. Recreate the scene in the photo with posts. Looking at the LM from the side it appears to be on an incline of about 3 degrees (to be generous). Show me how you can get shadows almost perpendicular to one another. Or just show me on the photo how they are not perpendicular.

I've been asking for someone to do this for like 3 days.
edit on 3-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Here is my recreation. Impossible. Defies the laws of physics. Just describe in words if you want how exactly these shadows don't converge at a right angle. Other than it is some vague angle of the ground.










 
73
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join