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

page: 6
73
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Not if they had moved closer. If those mountains are a ways back, then the perspective change wouldn't be that great, but the LEM would disappear in the second shot. Or even if they had moved to the side somewhat so the LEM couldn't be seen.




posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


just down right stupid...... wasted a few minutes of my life ill never get back....



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
you had me at... no stars. There are no stars in ANY of the moon shots. Not in any still pictures and not in any video (albiet, poor quality). I have been in dark light sanctuaries like the Appalachian mountains. You can see the Milky way and stars... quite obvious to the naked eye and easy to photograph them with common, inexpensive camera equipment. Problem is... people have gazed at the stars for years. So, to "fake" that, you would need a back drop that changes as the moon rotates and moves on its orbit. That "fakery" is way beyond what was possible or feasible. So, instead, we get these plain, black, opaque skies. Pretty obvious. And, I get the photo backdrops and inconsistent lighting and repeating landscapes in multiple moon video. But just walk outside and look up... and then figure with no atmosphere and no unnatural light, where are all the stars?? Hmmm?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by zman0418
 


Try taking a picture of the stars, with a reflective source under you, and a high shutter speed on the camera (film no less), and see how many stars you get. It won't be many if you get any at all.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by zman0418
 


I knew this was coming sooner or later. You don't get any stars in pictures taken at earth at daytime. Why would you get any on the moon, during daytime.... using daytime exposure.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by Kr0nZ
The rover tires were made out of a mesh so moon dust would fall back to where the tracks should be, ...


So how do you explain the pictures that actually have tracks left on the surface then?


Kr0nZ is dealing with static pictures as used by the OP, who also used pictures that clearly show that the rover will leave tracks, except that the OP also intended that those same pictures did not show tracks, (OP's last in the OP) while they did. The open mesh tyre system used by the rovers, will show that BOTH the front and rear wheels will overspill the dust. That is not ambiguity, it just shows that the rovers on the move will have tracks and disturb the ground, and other pictures will not have discernible tracks in some photographs. Ultimately, the rovers in the manned missions play no part in the validating of any Lunar landing, and certainly not Apollo 11. It was a transport device that worked.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by zman0418
you had me at... no stars. There are no stars in ANY of the moon shots.


how about you go outside in the sunlight and tell us how many stars you see.... then stop and think.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I admittedly didn't scan through every comment on this thread but its no secret they did several simulations for each mission right? So they spent millions building a studio to run through everything. That in itself answers any photo showing something strange doesn't it? What am i missing?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by zman0418
 


Unfortunately taking pictures on the moon is subject to extremely harsh lighting conditions. To get stars in the shots the camera would have to use a longer shutter speed which would have rendered the surface as an overblown, bleached out mess of white with absolutely zero detail. The only way to achieve a surface shot with star detail would have required the use of a black card over the lower portion of the lens thus blocking the surface light until the stars were rendered, then with proper calculations, at a certain moment in the long exposure, one could remove the card at the last moment of the exposure allowing just the right amount of light to render the surface detail. It's a technique we use here on Earth to render bright sunsets against the shadowed areas of the land.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyingFox
 


Once again, I will tell you the same thing I told Devil.

I have my sources and documentation and can describe the process of placing the mirror. I'm asking you to provide details on how they did this without human involvement on the surface of the moon. I'm just asking.

I am not saying that a unmanned mission is impossible - but since you are considering it, you must have a theory? I'm sure this angle of the hoax has been covered by now, hasn't it? If not, then I stand as correct until proven incorrect.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I don't know, dude... it's obviously daytime down below, and ee stars some in the background.

www.nasa.gov...

upload.wikimedia.org...

... my guess is there is significantly less ambient and reflected light on the moon than in near-earth orbit, so...



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by zman0418
 


What stars? I don't see anything but a black background.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0nZ

Originally posted by WWu777
9. Lunar rover with no tire tracks on either side

In possibly yet another slip up by NASA are images of the 65 million dollar lunar rovers seen with no tire tracks on either end of it! Was it lowered down from above? It would seem that whoever directed this must have been in a rush on a tight schedule.

Examples:
www.aulis.com...
www.buckledcranium.com...
davesweb.cnchost.com...
davesweb.cnchost.com...


The rover tires were made out of a mesh so moon dust would fall back to where the tracks should be, also the rover was light so the astronauts would pick it up and reposition it in another direction.

edit on 27/11/12 by Kr0nZ because: (no reason given)


So are you debunking smurfy's comment and picture then? As he is trying to point out that there are tracks and you are saying the tracks were covered up by the rovers special wheels... Also in the picture smurfy provided you can see there are quite deep tracks between the rovers wheels... I would assume that the astronaut is traveling in the direction he is facing right? Well you can clearly see the dust falling in front of the wheels and not behind! Which is also evidenced by the tracks left between the wheels...

So which one of you is right? Were there tracks or no tracks? Did the dust fall in front or behind the wheels? I'm confused...



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by trig_grl
 

NASA has Satanic connections from the beginning. Just Google Satan,NASA. I think it is akin to Dr.Evil gets a government contract. He has to have a plan that the public will back,but what he really wants is friggen sharks with laser beams,but he can't let the people know that.There was the cold war sold to the Soviets and Americans.To seem like we were winning some race was a powerful force in shaping how those tax dollars were approved when we were in an already unpopular war.The reason they faked it was they could never get past the Van Allen belt,just like we can't now. With today's advanced technology I am hard pressed to believe anything I see on T.V. or photo taken. Back then they just hid behind grainy production and counted on simple minded patriotic audiences.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mee30
 


They're both right. The rover was stored in the LEM, so it had to be brought out and readied. They could very easily carry it out of storage, and set it down. No tracks.

Then they drive around doing their thing. Tracks.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JulianAlien
 


You sir, are hilarious!

You aren't being serious are you?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by JulianAlien
The reason they faked it was they could never get past the Van Allen belt,just like we can't now.


And yet the ISS spends time in the Van Allen Belt daily, and they haven't had problems. Gemini repeatedly spent time in the worst part of the Van Allen belt, and they didn't have problems. The shuttle flew in the Van Allen Belt during parts of its orbits, and they didn't have problems. Have you actually read about the radiation in the Van Allen Belts or are you just going by what hoax sites claim?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by zman0418
 


Again there are extremely bright objects as subjects in these shots. To expose these objects properly on would need a very fast shutter speed, too fast to expose the star light. If the object of the shot were the stars themselves, first off, you wouldn't place these objects in the shot but if you did, the objects themselves would be waaay overexposed...You would however have a shot of stars.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hidden0
 


Where is your proof of the mirror being there at all? Because they have taken measurements with it using lasers? Well apparently that can and has been done WITHOUT a mirror... Please go to 35:30 of this video where they speak about the laser issue. What do you make of that?




posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You answer part one of my question, thank you... Now how about you answer part 2? One of them is claiming that the rover has special wheels which deposits the dust picked up BEHIND the direction of travel... Look at the picture and read at the bottom where it says the motion of travel is to the right... Okay? So this is saying that the dust is deposited BEHIND the wheels whereas in smurfys picture it is clearly being deposited IN FRONT of the wheels...

I mean the whole point of Kronz comment and picture was to prove that the tracks were covered up by the special wheels right? Not just that it was light and therefore could be carried... But smurfys comment and picture shows the opposite... They can not both be right...

Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough? Can someone else better explain what I mean?

Simply put, kronz claims deposits behind the wheel (hence no tracks), smurfy shows deposits in front of the wheels and claims/shows tracks...

How can they BOTH be right? Still confused...





new topics
top topics
 
73
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join