More Moon fakery

page: 14
16
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



In Hollywood, they call those "pick-up shots", it's a common practice in making movies.


Hm. Interesting. Do you understand the concept of continuity? Is there or is there not continuity across the Apollo photographs? If not, please provide examples.




posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   

webstra

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 !!!!


Like GaryN mentions The aulis.com site is a good one.

'An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White'

It's a site where you can learn a lot wmd_2008. Not only people who are new with the apollo fakery, also apollogists maybe finaly can come to grips with the apollo scam.


YOU are the one that needs to LEARN two words answers that BS

TYRES & CONTRAST

Apollo Lander Tyre

If you cant understand why just post many on here can explain it to YOU!!!!



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



In Hollywood, they call those "pick-up shots", it's a common practice in making movies.


Hm. Interesting. Do you understand the concept of continuity? Is there or is there not continuity across the Apollo photographs? If not, please provide examples.


There is a continuity problem with the Apollo Hasselblad 70mm catalogs from Apollo 12.


There were a total of 1725 exposures made with 3-4 images produced for each of the 142 exposures on the multispectral experiment. The number of images on 14 magazines of film was; 1438 images on black & white film, 571 on color film, and 104 on infrared film.




I consider this to be a continuity problem. Pete Conrad didn't snap a single image of his Apollo 12 crewmates during that mission. Not a single image. 3 days to the "moon" 3 days back from the "moon" not a single god damned image. Not one.

Apollo 11, the previous mission, has several examples of candid Hasselblad photos while Apollo 12 has none.

How do you explain the fact that Pete Conrad, Dick Gordon and Alan Bean took a lot of pictures but they didn't take any pictures of themselves during the mission. That's what I call a continuity problem.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Again you argue that they TOOK the cameras so THEY went then.
edit on 20-2-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   

dlbott
reply to post by angryhulk
 


Basically the videos discuss ed how the Russian Flag sprint a year out in space and there were only a couple strands left. But yet they want us to believe the American flags are still there after forty years. They are saying there would be nothing thing left of our flag.

I agree there should be nothing left at all. Just another of the many lies they have told us over the years

The Bot


yes.. that's exactly what the topic is and the evidence suggests !!!

thanks for re-posting to keep the thread on topic !


SO, as the OP of this thread, plz stay on the topic everyone, which is: either a flag can or can not endure the rigors of space.
edit on 20-2-2014 by Komodo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 03:14 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter
I consider this to be a continuity problem. Pete Conrad didn't snap a single image of his Apollo 12 crewmates during that mission. Not a single image. 3 days to the "moon" 3 days back from the "moon" not a single god damned image. Not one.

Apollo 11, the previous mission, has several examples of candid Hasselblad photos while Apollo 12 has none.

How do you explain the fact that Pete Conrad, Dick Gordon and Alan Bean took a lot of pictures but they didn't take any pictures of themselves during the mission. That's what I call a continuity problem.


1: Apollo 12 being the second mission that would land on the moon, it was a bit less historic than 11, so they would have likely been less concerned about it, and more on the actual mission and research.
2: I doubt they ever imagined they'd need to defend the fact that they went on the internet, so they didn't think, hey, lets take some images of ourselves en route.
(not that those couldn't just as easily be dismissed as fakes anyway, for any variety of wacky reasons someone might come up with)
edit on 2/20/2014 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   

eNumbra

SayonaraJupiter
I consider this to be a continuity problem. Pete Conrad didn't snap a single image of his Apollo 12 crewmates during that mission. Not a single image. 3 days to the "moon" 3 days back from the "moon" not a single god damned image. Not one.

Apollo 11, the previous mission, has several examples of candid Hasselblad photos while Apollo 12 has none.

How do you explain the fact that Pete Conrad, Dick Gordon and Alan Bean took a lot of pictures but they didn't take any pictures of themselves during the mission. That's what I call a continuity problem.


1: Apollo 12 being the second mission that would land on the moon, it was a bit less historic than 11, so they would have likely been less concerned about it, and more on the actual mission and research.
2: I doubt they ever imagined they'd need to defend the fact that they went on the internet, so they didn't think, hey, lets take some images of ourselves en route.
(not that those couldn't just as easily be dismissed as fakes anyway, for any variety of wacky reasons someone might come up with)


There are 0 pictures of Pete Conrad, Alan Bean or Dick Gordon in any of these Apollo 12 70mm images.
www.lpi.usra.edu...

This is a serious continuity problem for Apollo 12. It doesn't matter what you think, it only matters that there are no pictures of the crew, the facts take precedence over all your beliefs.

Pete Conrad was a goofball. If he was really in cis-lunar space he would have taken photos of the trip. The fact that he DID NOT TAKE PHOTOS is a red flag that you can't explain, because Apollo 11 took candid images while Apollo 12 did not.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   

wmd_2008
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Again you argue that they TOOK the cameras so THEY went then.


You are really wasting your time with that kind of argument. I have proved that Apollo Defenders dont' really know how many cameras were brought to the "moon" and Apollo Defenders dont' really know how many cameras were brought back from the "moon".

I will gladly destroy you in any formal debate on that subject. Please understand something. You don't know how many Hasselblads cameras went to/or came back from the moon. Therefore, you would be destroyed in a formal debate.

I will simply ask you "how many hasselblad cameras went to the moon and how many hasselblad cameras were brought back" and you will be totally destroyed because you don't know the correct answer.

Do you get the picture now?



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:04 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter

I will simply ask you "how many hasselblad cameras went to the moon and how many hasselblad cameras were brought back" and you will be totally destroyed because you don't know the correct answer.

Do you get the picture now?


oh i get it now..

since NASA took cameras to the moon and YOU dont know how many were taken and how many were taken back.. it proves with 100% certainty that they never went at all..

kinda like the titanic.. one ship left the port, there are pictures of the titanic and its survivors but since we dont know how many cameras were taken and how many were brought back.. it proves to you with 100% certainty that the titanic never sank..



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   

choos

SayonaraJupiter

I will simply ask you "how many hasselblad cameras went to the moon and how many hasselblad cameras were brought back" and you will be totally destroyed because you don't know the correct answer.

Do you get the picture now?


oh i get it now..

since NASA took cameras to the moon and YOU dont know how many were taken and how many were taken back.. it proves with 100% certainty that they never went at all..

kinda like the titanic.. one ship left the port, there are pictures of the titanic and its survivors but since we dont know how many cameras were taken and how many were brought back.. it proves to you with 100% certainty that the titanic never sank..



choos, I don't think that you are in a good position to argue when YOU do not KNOW how many hasselblads went to the "moon" or came back from the "moon". You did a TRANSFER/PROPAGANDA technique when you tried to transfer the discussion to the Titanic sinking. You are losing the argument, therefore, you must resort to propaganda.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter

choos, I don't think that you are in a good position to argue when YOU do not KNOW how many hasselblads went to the "moon" or came back from the "moon". You did a TRANSFER/PROPAGANDA technique when you tried to transfer the discussion to the Titanic sinking. You are losing the argument, therefore, you must resort to propaganda.



how many cameras were taken aboard the titanic???

im just using the same logic as you are..



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:10 AM
link   

choos

SayonaraJupiter

choos, I don't think that you are in a good position to argue when YOU do not KNOW how many hasselblads went to the "moon" or came back from the "moon". You did a TRANSFER/PROPAGANDA technique when you tried to transfer the discussion to the Titanic sinking. You are losing the argument, therefore, you must resort to propaganda.



how many cameras were taken aboard the titanic???

im just using the same logic as you are..


I don't care how many cameras were taken aboard the Titanic stop doing the transfer because it's quite obvious the technique you are using is not working.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:21 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter

I don't care how many cameras were taken aboard the Titanic stop doing the transfer because it's quite obvious the technique you are using is not working.



why dont you care??

it can help prove to you that the Titanic never set sail.. or never sank or whatever you want it to prove..

you can make money out of this discovery..

since you dont know how many cameras were on board the titanic and how many came off the titanic, then it can prove the titanic never left port, never sank etc.

the same way you can make money out of proving NASA never landed on the moon because you dont know how many cameras went to the moon and how many came back..

if a stupid argument is what you are offering than a stupid argument is what you will get..



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   
stay .. on topic ..

the flag can exist in space for 40+ years on the moon while the flag on the soviets can not..

YES OR NO.. that is the topic .. !!!! NOT cameras!



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:58 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter
There are 0 pictures of Pete Conrad, Alan Bean or Dick Gordon in any of these Apollo 12 70mm images.
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Are you referring specifically to cislunar and orbital pictures? Because there are photos astronauts took of each other on the surface, including ones taken by Pete Conrad.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Click

There's a photo of Gordon in the Command Module, but I'm not sure if it was taken on Earth or in space (in the official sense): www.space.com...

I'll go with the explanation that dring the flight, the crew concentrated on the mission at hand, and there were no calls for taking portraits of each other.

[Edit] There were only 3 indiviadual 70mm Hasselblads. The other 4 were in a block that made up the Lunar Multispectral Experiment. This article reveals that only one of the individual cameras was in the Command Module. The other 2 were mounted on the EVA suits, to be used on the lunar surface.
edit on 20-2-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 



why dont you care??

it can help prove to you that the Titanic never set sail..


If you are an Apollo Defender why are you reaching to the Titanic to solve your Apollo continuity problems? I know why.... you lost the plot!


edit on 2/20/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 



Are you referring specifically to cislunar and orbital pictures? Because there are photos astronauts took of each other on the surface, including ones taken by Pete Conrad.


Inconclusive. Neil & Buzz took snaps on the lunar surface as did Cernan & Schmidt. I am looking for faces, not space suits.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   
"Apollo Defenders"? Is that what we're called these days? lol.....

A label for everything and to everything must go at least one label. Sheesh...



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Komodo
stay .. on topic ..

the flag can exist in space for 40+ years on the moon while the flag on the soviets can not..

YES OR NO.. that is the topic .. !!!! NOT cameras!


Sorry. Apollo threads seem to have a life all their own.

I don't believe in the Apollo flags because we have seen a big BLACK BLOB in the LRO images, and that is all CGI as far as I am concerned.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


sounds like a fringe group


it almost is





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join