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.
Originally posted by darkbluesky
Same ladder.
View from left. Left side of ladder visible (barely)...
yellow lines = thin ladder rail
red lines = wider structure
green = my interpretation of astronauts left arm and hand on ladder
View from right. right side of ladder visible....
yellow lines = thin ladder rail
red lines = wider structure
I don't see the mystery in these photos.
Originally posted by benign.psychosis
How could you deny the risks that those astronaughts took? They risked their lives going on those missions. These brave individuals took a 222,000 mile journey across a vaccume of space, risking it all so that mankind could expand beyond the reaches of our globe, and all you have to say is that they are liars? They set a new paradigm, and all you can do is say it is a lie?
Originally posted by shadow_D
I've worked on many studio and location shots where we played with light and shadow. When you have a shot with that much of a casted shadow and that opaque, you need to either have a reflector to bounce the light back onto the subject so you can see it with some detail. You could also use a bank of low level light bank or even spot lights located behind a diffuser.
You can even see on the golden "tin foil" that there is obviously a light souce being bounced to it.
The film alone is very sensitive and needs to be taken care of during our shoots in the desert or mountain. So for it to survive the radiation belt and the extreme temperatures of the moon really surprises me.
As for faking the filming, I would almost assume so, since everything was riding on them being a success, that they would rather give a perfect feed of the expected outcome then to leave it up to chance. That to me is obvious too. In my opinion.
Originally posted by benign.psychosis
reply to post by thedigirati
Spare me with this revisionist garbage. I suggest you look at proper history and all of the evidence of the moon landing. It is simply anti-american to suggest that America lied about the moon landing.
They set a new paradigm, and all you can do is say it is a lie?
HOW DARE YOU. Tell me the basis on why you are being a moonlanding revisionist and slandering the name of history!
Originally posted by thedigirati
I have always believed we DID go to the moon, but this disturbs me greatly, the Lunar landing was what got me started in Astronomy in the first place
What do you think? Is this guy nuts or does he have a leg (or ladder) to stand on? Please debunk this, it shakes me to the core.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by shadow_D
I've worked on many studio and location shots where we played with light and shadow. When you have a shot with that much of a casted shadow and that opaque, you need to either have a reflector to bounce the light back onto the subject so you can see it with some detail. You could also use a bank of low level light bank or even spot lights located behind a diffuser.
Or you could also use the surrounding lunar surface to reflect all that light.
You can even see on the golden "tin foil" that there is obviously a light souce being bounced to it.
That being the brightly, sun lit, lunar surface.
The film alone is very sensitive and needs to be taken care of during our shoots in the desert or mountain. So for it to survive the radiation belt and the extreme temperatures of the moon really surprises me.
What extreme temperatures would the film be exposed to? It's in the camera. The only extreme temperatures on the Moon are its surface temperatures. The film itself was never exposed to any extreme temperatures. Also Hasselblad did add some extra protection to the film magazines, but the radiation levels were not so high as to damage the film.
As for faking the filming, I would almost assume so, since everything was riding on them being a success, that they would rather give a perfect feed of the expected outcome then to leave it up to chance. That to me is obvious too. In my opinion.
You assume it was all staged, then you leave a lot of questions unanswered. Do you realize the scale of the entire Apollo project? To fake it would have been harder than to actually go out and do it, in my opinion. For example, how do you film a 6 hour long EVA, and traverse several km worth of lunar surface all without stopping the camera? How do you explain those 360 degree pans of the lunar surface that show a continuous lunar landscape? How can you cover so much ground inside a studio? Or how do you make the desert sand grey and remove all the bits of vegitation for many km? How do you make the sky black, but have the surface lit by the Sun for as far as the eye can see? Etc, etc... And all this with '60 technology...
Also, the Apollo missions didn't go perfectly. None of them did.
Originally posted by tezzajw
To stall for 35 years after the event is highly suspicious to me and makes me cast some doubt as to what really happened back then.
Originally posted by thedigirati
reply to post by benign.psychosis
action is what action is, the past is not reality, what you think is real is the past
it is action that is reality
( boy did that feel REAL good )
Clarification for the confused
I'm literally amazed that you feel there is "too much proof" to suggest that we didn't land on the moon, but in your Holocaust thread, you feel there is insufficient proof to suggest that the Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust.