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.
Stackpot
reply to post by webstra
Neither do those fake pictures. And how is it that we can take pics of the farthest reaches of the universe and we can't get a decent image of the "landing sites"? Why not put a rover on the moon with a good camera and roll up on the sights to shut everyone up? I know taxpayers and priorities. We know thats the govt's main concern don't we.
Stackpot
reply to post by webstra
I'm just speaking my mind, I wish some of these folks would give their opinion without throwing in words like "stupid". I may not know everything about everything like some people pretend, but one thing I'm not is, stupid.
onebigmonkey
zatara
Not to forget there is also the connection NASA and Kubrick. His movie Barry Lyndon needed a special lens which only NASA could provide.
Not true. Kubrick bought the lens from Zeiss, the same as NASA did. NASA used that lens to take photographs of the moon, which is how Kubrick got to hear about it.
Then there is of course the question about the many many pictures taken on the moon. IMHO too many questions about the pictures and the rocket-hardware to say.... it can all be explained away with reason....and there are people who say ...yes it can.
All fo the hoax allegations can be explained away with reason and an understanding of science and engineering. None of the hoax claims stand up to rational scrutiny. None. Not one.
An other thing to take in consideration is Nixon. He was corrupt and paranoia as a president of the USA can be.
Yep, but he was not in charge when the moon landing was conceived. He was not in charge of Mercury or Gemini, the two programmes that led to Apollo. He was not in charge at the start of Apollo. Apollo 8 had already been around the moon when he was elected, but he was not yet inaugurated. All he did was get the glory. His inept and corrupt nature does not invalidate science and engineering.
I have the gut feel that a lot of money already was invested and many contracts closed. There was no way for the US government to say to the world..or the companies involved....sorry but, we do not have the technology at this moment to go to the Moon. Nixon and his pals decided to fake it instead of losing face and credibillity to the world. Maybe there was some money to be made for the insiders too...Anyways, that is where Kubrick comes in..
A lot of money was invested. The invested it in equipment to get to the moon.
I find it amazing that people will still happily flap around in this swamp of denial but will completely ignore solid stone cold evidence that we went. See my previous post with the pretty pictures in.
Stackpot
reply to post by eNumbra
At least you have something to show me that I haven't seen before, it's hardly convincing however. I see some indication of a pattern, but I see similar patterns at right angles to your area of focus, and regardless of your explanation it is my understand that moon dust is quite fine, it doesn't pass the smell test.
Stackpot
The one thing this site doesn't lack is self absorbed know it all's. So your an expert on cameras and such, did you want to comment on the point I made about the there being no wash from the guidance rockets?
What about the radiation?
Why do you think we can't get a decent picture of those landing sites?
How come we never returned?
We explore, leaving a trail that turns to a road and return to exploit. We don't slap the dust off our hands and say "been there, done that".
And just because you think your (sic) Ansel Adams doesn't mean Armstrong was, how did he take one perfect picture after another with that camera strapped to his chest?
Have you seen the footage of Apollo 11 where they darken the cabin and claim to be half way to the moon, when it is revealed that they are in near Earth orbit?
Taking it all into consideration your arguments have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. And just because your willing and capable of making brave statements about others viewpoints doesn't make you right. Go pat yourself on the back, but your knowledge of cameras and because you think the film could survive the heat, cold and radiation, none of it gives me an inkling that your (sic) right.
But I won't belittle your vein (sic) attempts at convincing me or yourself.
Stackpot
...I have a problem with the photo "evidence" NASA provided on the landing sites. I have to believe we should be able to get higher resolution pics of those lunar landing sites.
Stackpot
The one thing this site doesn't lack is self absorbed know it all's. So your an expert on cameras and such, did you want to comment on the point I made about the there being no wash from the guidance rockets?
Go pat yourself on the back, but your knowledge of cameras and because you think the film could survive the heat, cold and radiation, none of it gives me an inkling that your (sic) right.
The photographic validation method presented here is based on the detection of two-dimensional objects among three-dimensional objects, and determining the mutual arrangement of these objects in space and the distance to them by applying a technique known as stereoscopic parallax.
GaryN
I believe they DID go to the Moon, but lighting conditions may hve been so difficult that they perhaps needed to do studio shots as well.
Stackpot
reply to post by wmd_2008
The one thing this site doesn't lack is self absorbed know it all's. So your an expert on cameras and such, did you want to comment on the point I made about the there being no wash from the guidance rockets? What about the radiation? Why do you think we can't get a decent picture of those landing sites? How come we never returned?
And just because you think your Ansel Adams doesn't mean Armstrong was, how did he take one perfect picture after another with that camera strapped to his chest?
Taking it all into consideration your arguments have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. And just because your willing and capable of making brave statements about others viewpoints doesn't make you right. Go pat yourself on the back, but your knowledge of cameras and because you think the film could survive the heat, cold and radiation, none of it gives me an inkling that your right.
But I won't belittle your vein attempts at convincing me or yourself.
wmd_2008
webstra
DJW001
cascade
Back in the 1970's a friend of mine said we didn't really go to the moon. I thought he was a bit off by thinking that we didn't go there. Now years later looking at it, I am not sure.
I remember those years. No hand held LCD calculators, cell phones, etc etc. Too much animation was used as well.
Myth Busters did a show about it and they proved ( to satisfy the government ? ) that we indeed did land on the moon.
I'm going to sit this one out on the fence. I really don't know.
I know! It's like those idiots who think that Christopher Columbus could cross the Atlantic without GPS or diesel engines! Morons.
It's looks like Apollogists getting desparate given examples like these.
YOU have not contributed one thing to this thread but asinine (look it up) comments not one piece of information or a useful link !!!!
Soylent Green Is People
Go pat yourself on the back, but your knowledge of cameras and because you think the film could survive the heat, cold and radiation, none of it gives me an inkling that your (sic) right.
The film magazine was reflective enough to reflect the heat of the sun away from it, so it stayed cool in the Sun.
You may have heard that it is "almost 250 degrees F in the Sunshine on the Moon", but that is not a completely accurate statement. The only things that are hot are things the sun shines on. There is no atmosphere on the moon, so there is really nothing in the virtual vacuum of the moon that the sun's radiation can heat up.
Granted, the film magazine is a "thing" and the Sun's radiation could certainly heat it up. However, it was painted a reflective color, so most of that solar radiation is reflected away, keeping the film magazine cool enough. When they say that it is 250 degrees F in the sunshine, they are talking about how hot a "black body" would get while exposed to the sun. A black body absorbs the sunlight, heating it up much more than something that is reflective -- such as the film magazines.
I believe they DID go to the Moon, but lighting conditions may hve been so difficult that they perhaps needed to do studio shots as well.