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.

 

Moon landing!?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Hi people.

There is probably a topic dedicated to this somewhere, and I am not even sure if this is ther right forum, but there are so many posts it is hard toi keep track of.

I am just wondering. Since the first moon landing with Buzz and Neil et al, have there been any other recorded video footage of man walking on the moon? If not have there been explinations as to why? If so whjere is this footage?

Apologies for seeming ignorant, but I am uninformed, and I think it is very suspicious.

Any info?
M@


E_T

posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disaster_Boy
..but there are so many posts it is hard toi keep track of.
That's why there's "Sam Earch".

You should have read some rows more. (Apollo 15 photos thread)


www.apolloarchive.com...



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
They are a bit pricey, but you can find complete sets
here

www.spacecraftfilms.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
They are a bit pricey, but you can find complete sets
here

www.spacecraftfilms.com...


so wait, let me guess, nasa is holding out on video footage of trips to the moon but these guys have a special ability or license or connection to get those missing feeds and nasa is not even getting anything out of it,
howard COME ON,, thats a rip off documentary showing mostly video footage and documented history, and most likely has no important never before aired footage of actual moonwalks, it most likely has content that u can probably find on the history channel, howard please tell me u dont believe that sending those guys money would get u videos of moonwalks we havent already seen



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Well, Genesiss, I don't know if those films have anything new in them, but I figure it makes more sense to send money to NASA and get something that's true -- than it does to send money to Sitchin or Velikovsky or von Daniken and get something that's a lie.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
woa woa woa why oh why are you lumping Velikovsky with Sitchen...

shame shame.


jra

posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disaster_Boy
I am just wondering. Since the first moon landing with Buzz and Neil et al, have there been any other recorded video footage of man walking on the moon? If not have there been explinations as to why? If so whjere is this footage?


There is recorded footage of all 6 Moon landings. Check out that site E_T posted. Tons of great photos as well as some video and audio clips from all the Apollo missions. Plus i'm sure there must be other sites out there, that have video clips.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Well, Genesiss, I don't know if those films have anything new in them, but I figure it makes more sense to send money to NASA and get something that's true -- than it does to send money to Sitchin or Velikovsky or von Daniken and get something that's a lie.


Myself I leave open the posibility that they indeed may be scratching at a truth, unless we look at their statements their idea's will be scoff at and pushed aside. As I recall didn't people believe the World was FLAT!

Books I've read show that a highly civilized people existed in the past or we were visited by another speicies.

Ufo's are attacked the same way you attack those you named, and by doing so create an atmosphere of distrust and a breeding ground for lie's.

Lets keep an open mind to what our ancestor wrote about,

Michael



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   
And there is still the open question of Alan Bean's 'camera malfunction' on Apollo 12. What were they doing that we weren't supposed to see?



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Here ya go. Alan Shepard playing golf on the moon. Its a huge file but its clear and in color.

www.open-video.org...



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by E_T

Originally posted by Disaster_Boy
..but there are so many posts it is hard toi keep track of.
That's why there's "Sam Earch".

You should have read some rows more. (Apollo 15 photos thread)


www.apolloarchive.com...


im not a real fan of personal web sites for nasa missions, it just kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth but i just found a picture on this site, it has a great shot of the moon,,, and stars,,, i thought that wasnt possible because of the light and film or some excuse like that its picture AS16-120-19295 can anyone please explain how there are stars in the background, and everyone that screams the moon landing is not a hoax says the popular pics with no stars is because of light or film or some nonsense?!?!?


[edit on 25-10-2004 by genesiss]

[edit on 25-10-2004 by genesiss]



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:21 AM
link   


im not a real fan of personal web sites for nasa missions, it just kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth but i just found a picture on this site, it has a great shot of the moon,,, and stars,,, i thought that wasnt possible because of the light and film or some excuse like that its picture AS16-120-19295 can anyone please explain how there are stars in the background, and everyone that screams the moon landing is not a hoax says the popular pics with no stars is because of light or film or some nonsense?!?!?


The reason there are no stars in the photos taken on the moon is that the contrast and exposure time would not allow for stars to register on an image. The reason on earth that you can see stars is because: it is dark - even if the earth had no atmosphere if you were looking at part of the landscape and the sky your eyes would adjust for the landscape and stars would not register. Its a contrast problem due to light.

The problem with cameras (especially film cameras - but even digital cameras) rather than eyes, is that they are not that adaptive in regards to light conditions. So you set your exposure and select your film type based on the events that you wish to register.

This is an inflight image rather than a surface image and due to the fact that the amout of light that is reflected from the moon (due to distance and the inverse square law) is not that high when you are as far away as this photo was taken. So you can use film and set the camera for a longer exposure thus catching the stars.

If you were to do this on the moons surface with some landscape present the landscape would be completely white and would blur into the sky, you would also be subject potential to some internal reflections in the lens. You wouldn't set it like this or use film like this if you wanted to take photos of the moon and/or your activities on the moon - which is what was of interest to NASA.

If you were to configure the camera similar to the inflight settings and pointed it at the sky away from the sun(with no landscape present for effect) you would see stars.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   
thanks, that makes a lot of sense, i wonder why no astronauts ever took even one photo like that when they were on the surface,, or mabey IM wrong and ill just have to keep looking for that elusive pic of stars on the moons horizon, it is odd though that the moon doesn't look all that bright in the distant background of the moon in the photo i found or on the PICS taken after landing, I mean for example u are standing on the moon and its only bright near where u are standing and its very dark in the distance, shouldnt the whole moon be bright as u approach it or stand on it all the way to the horizon?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   
As far as I can guess the reason that nobody took a photo pointed at the stars loaded with the right type of film and set to the right type of exposure is that it would not be as good as a telescope photo from earth. So no scientific value, no PR value and a reasonable amount of trouble to prepare.

In the photo that you found which is a little unusal, thanks for the link, looks like it was taken in the direction away from the sun perhaps at such an angle that there was not much light reflect (angle plays a part in how much light is reflected it) - looking at the shadows you do get an indication as to where the sun was.

Why it is darker in the distance.

Light doesn't reflect evenly of an unsmooth surface of the moon. The closer you are the more light you are likely to capture and the less of it will be reflected in directions that you cannot see. Hence it looks darker. Also the background (which would have to have height) is going to be at a different angle than the ground.

Here is how light behaves from a point source (like a light bulb or the sun)

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

The situation is a little diferent when you are looking at reflections from sources that are not points (like a hill or mountain) but the principle is the same.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:39 AM
link   
So were these further landings details available via the press? I mean, was there footage via media coverage? if not why not?

Just asking since I havent been able to recall anything being 'comercially' available to the general public in relation to these other 6 moon missions...



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:53 AM
link   
As far as I understand it:

A good google would bring up some articles on this.

Further video was made available to the media, but believe it or not public
interest was reputed in many accounts to be seriously dwindling and the main stream media (low levels cable TV usage - no discovery channel, national geo, nasa tv etc..) preferred to use more entertainment styled programming to sell their advertising space given viewer interest.

In 1962, almost 800 cable systems serving 850,000 subscribers were in business. Can't find numbers over the 69-72 period but in 1980 the number had moved to 15 million.


jra

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disaster_Boy
So were these further landings details available via the press? I mean, was there footage via media coverage? if not why not?

Just asking since I havent been able to recall anything being 'comercially' available to the general public in relation to these other 6 moon missions...


Go to the site that E_T posted in the 2nd post in this thread. There are tons of photos of all 6 moon lands. Very high quality photos at that too. Plus they have some vids too. A google search will surely turn up some pages that will tell you more about the missions themselves.


jra

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by genesiss
i just found a picture on this site, it has a great shot of the moon,,, and stars,,, i thought that wasnt possible because of the light and film or some excuse like that its picture AS16-120-19295 can anyone please explain how there are stars in the background, and everyone that screams the moon landing is not a hoax says the popular pics with no stars is because of light or film or some nonsense?!?!?


What stars? AS16-120-19295



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   
ive actually heard that the whole moon landing thing was just a big conspiracy. From what i hear there is some "evidence" showing the flag waving on the moon, and its not supposed to, because there is no air on the moon, also there is the camera angle when approaching the moon, its shown from outside the ship. Im not saying i believe this, its just what ive heard.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonsoul
ive actually heard that the whole moon landing thing was just a big conspiracy. From what i hear there is some "evidence" showing the flag waving on the moon, and its not supposed to, because there is no air on the moon, also there is the camera angle when approaching the moon, its shown from outside the ship. Im not saying i believe this, its just what ive heard.

Well this was the basis for my question in the beginning. I was unsure what had happened since the first one, and why there was no commercially available footage of any kind. I figured people woudl want to see it...

Anyway, rather than sifting through the tons of images/video from these sites, would anyone be able to tell if if there were many differences between the footage... to either proove or disrpoove the hoax theory? Would the flag still bplow, the lighting be the same...




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join