Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 39
73
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Preposterous. When you stand on a slope do you stand on an angle? Or do you automatically adjust to the centre of gravity? That "Man on the moon" Aldrin photo is off by 7.5 degrees for God's sake..Buzz is standing upright. Armstrong, who is facing Buzz, would have to be leaning over that much when he took that photo. Why?
edit on 4-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkkkay
good day all.
i did not read 38 pages of this long... thread, so pardon me if some one else said this but.

look at this picture...what should reflect in the visor..

my guess is i should see the astronot holding the camera that took the shot.


but when i zoom in and look at the picture in the visor....wtf..


what do you say

grin.hq.nasa.gov...


So you expect to see great detail in a 576x576 pixel image may be you should learn a little about resolution first!

Its clear on this image
when loaded click on it for full size!!!!


edit on 4-12-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by MortPenguin
 


We are discussing this picture aren't we?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for the "man on the moon" shot you can clearly see in the reflection that Aldrin was leaning to one side while the picture was taken.

edit on 4-12-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Preposterous. When you stand on a slope do you stand on an angle? Or do you automatically adjust to the centre of gravity? That "Man on the moon" Aldrin photo is off by 7.5 degrees for God's sake..Buzz is standing upright. Armstrong, who is facing Buzz, would have to be leaning over that much when he took that photo. Why?
edit on 4-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)

Are we now supposed to divine the intentions of Neil Armstrong 50 years ago to satisfy your curiosity? This is getting fairly ridiculous Mort. How many times have you stood on another celestial body and tried to take photographs of your friend with a camera strapped to your chest?

What's that? You've no idea how difficult it would be and you're being incredibly arrogant in complaining that they're leaning slightly on this uneven and pock marked terrain?

Seriously, you are just testing people's patience here, the more we show you're wrong, the sillier and more expansive your claims get. You haven't produced a single image with more than a few rocks correlated and when you've drawn lines next to a lot of rocks the lines never intersect the way you intend.

Your entire premise here has been proven faulty, so now you start attacking the astronauts and every photo because they're not perfectly horizontal. More than ever I need a facepalm emoticon.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Just because I haven't responded to the absurd doesn't mean I've conceded your vague sense of proof. This is the second time you've attempted to insult me and I have been courteous with you. So f.* * * of ass hole.


Another one bites the dust the mods wont like that one and an alert has been sent SEE YOU



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Wouldn't that be disappointing. I've seen people called freaks, ignorant, stupid, retarded and a whole host of other nastiness. All of which is coming from those who believe in this moon landing. You should take a good look at yourselves. When you resort to attacking people like this it suggests you are highly insecure.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MortPenguin
 


You are the one doing the insulting. I spent literally hours trying to show you why you were wrong but you refused to accept it and instead demanded that you were still right even though you couldn't even draw more than a few intersecting lines.

You demand I reproduce extremely annoying and complex scenes for you, I do, then you tell me to f off and have the tenacity to tell people they should look at their behaviour?

You're a child, and you're acting like one. Grow the hell up and learn what it is to be wrong.
edit on 4/12/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Wouldn't that be disappointing. I've seen people called freaks, ignorant, stupid, retarded and a whole host of other nastiness. All of which is coming from those who believe in this moon landing. You should take a good look at yourselves. When you resort to attacking people like this it suggests you are highly insecure.



Well I suggest looking at your reply's or LACK off sometimes shows your the insecure one!!!!



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I have to accept your point of view do I?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MortPenguin
 


So it is ok for you guys to insult whoever you please but if I get frustrated by this I get reprimanded. I see this site clearly holds biases. What a joke.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
I have to accept your point of view do I?


If you have been proven wrong this badly then it's only good manners to concede. Have you ever taken part in a formal debate?

Every single part of your argument was defeated, I showed that there was indeed terrain, that slight variations do change shadows more than enough to match the images and that the shadows themselves don't converge on a non flat plane.

Your entire response has been to repeat the same mantra, that you are right because the shadows 'tell you' that something is wrong. Despite this I thought I'd give it one last go and asked you to draw the shadow lines as accurately as you could per rock, which I would then automatically extend to show you how you were wrong there too.

So yes, when your point has been so utterly rejected and all your evidence shown to be misleading or inaccurate, you're obliged to concede the argument.

edit:

So it is ok for you guys to insult whoever you please but if I get frustrated by this I get reprimanded. I see this site clearly holds biases. What a joke.

I can say you're being arrogant because that is a description of your behaviour, you're convinced you are right despite all the evidence pointing against you. That's arrogance.

On the other hand you used a stream of invectives to describe me, not commenting on my behaviour or attitude, just flat out insulting. That's the difference.
edit on 4/12/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
I have to accept your point of view do I?


No, continue on believing what fantasy you want to. But you should at least acknowledge the courteous and patient efforts of exponent, from whom you demanded this and that, never to your satisfaction.

You've let your side down, and demonstrated yet again that rational discourse is irrelevant when dealing with a myopic belief system such as the one you are partial to.



edit on 4-12-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
I have to accept your point of view do I?


exponent and others have given plenty of EVIDENCE to prove the point, YOU even claimed the shadows of the lander were wrong, and if you look at the picture I posted it matched what was stated on the video NOT what you claimed.

ie draw a line from the object through its shadow and it will go back to the point were the camera's SHADOW is on the image.

You cant even see the uneven surface or the fact that the lander is on a slight slope and then you make up a story about the picture being made by stitching two images.

Then we have someone else on here that can't understand reflections it seems or that LOW res images are no good for detail.

I think most people on these threads are patient considering the effort to find/post or render items to prove a point.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
The major problem with the official photos of Apollo landing site is that the surface of the Moon is silver-gray. In reality it is far from gray, it is brown. Here is one of the first color photos, made by a soviet probe link.
Also here are many other photos, including Moon soil samples link (this is a German forum, but the photos are self-explanatory).
edit on 4-12-2012 by mrkeen because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-12-2012 by mrkeen because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-12-2012 by mrkeen because: fixed link
edit on 4-12-2012 by mrkeen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrkeen
The major problem with the official photos of Apollo landing site is that the surface of the Moon is silver-gray. In reality it is far from gray, it is brown.

That's a pretty big claim to be making, considering we can see the moon from the ground?

How does brown regolith suddenly turn to silver gray on all colour photos? Don't get me wrong, the moon is made of many colours, but the predominant colour is undoubtedly a silvery bluey grey as we can all see with our own eyes.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
It really is grey.




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
That's a pretty big claim to be making, considering we can see the moon from the ground?


When looking from the surface of the Earth, we look through the atmosphere, which can alter the colors.
Here is a photo of the Moon made by Hubble from orbit. Does this moon look gray to you?



Also in the links above there is moon soil brought to Earth so one doesn't need to go to the Moon to see how it looks up there. Imagine the same brownish stuff all around in great quantities. Maybe purple-brown, but definitely not gray.
edit on 4-12-2012 by mrkeen because: added more text



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mrkeen
 


Well care to prove how the shot was made because many of Hubble pictures are through filters so what are the details of the shot, if it was Hubble there will be a link!!



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrkeen

Originally posted by exponent
That's a pretty big claim to be making, considering we can see the moon from the ground?

When looking from the surface of the Earth, we look through the atmosphere, which can alter the colors.

This may be true, but we can see Mars for example as a distinctly red/brown planet. You'll have to show some actual evidence to convince anyone of this.


Here is a photo of the Moon made by Hubble from orbit. Does this moon look gray to you?

It does not, but this is not a photo taken from Hubble, this is a photo taken from Arizona: bf-astro.com...

This is a false colour image, made of a composite of images taken through different filters. It's called 'Hubble' because it uses the same filter set, the same site contains a tutorial explaining it: bf-astro.com...


Also in the links above there is moon soil brought to Earth so one doesn't need to go to the Moon to see how it looks up there. Imagine the same brownish stuff all around in great quantities. Maybe purple-brown, but definitely not gray.
edit on 4-12-2012 by mrkeen because: added more text

Many of these pictures appear to be developed black and white photographs. Brown tones are not exactly uncommon: en.wikipedia.org...

For example, this photo displays brown coloured regolith but also shows a significant brown tint throughout: upload.wikimedia.org...

Considering there are first hand accounts and colour photographs taken on the surface of the moon, there must be something else that's convinced you of this theory? Surely a few old photographs can't be it?





new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join