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 Tomblvd
Originally posted by FoosM
Within 12 years.
Another way you can look at it is that von Braun didnt get what he wanted, and tried to pitch for more money to realize his dream. But knowing how impossible a trip to the moon was, the powers that be simply kept using Apollo as a cover for militarizing space:
Corona
Mol
women astronauts
and who knows what else
www.geog.ucsb.edu...
Heh, and here you spent post after post earlier in the thread telling us that they brought von Braun into NASA explicitly for the purpose of "militarizing space", only to find out later he only wanted to go to Mars.
But then again, consistency was never one of your strong points....
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Yes, it is quite good quality
Originally posted by FoosM
Within 12 years.
Another way you can look at it is that von Braun didnt get what he wanted, and tried to pitch for more money to realize his dream. But knowing how impossible a trip to the moon was, the powers that be simply kept using Apollo as a cover for militarizing space:
Corona
Mol
women astronauts
and who knows what else
www.geog.ucsb.edu...
Originally posted by ppk55
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Yes, it is quite good quality
Quite good? Their video transmission quality was bloody amazing, and that's the problem. There are news crews around the world that can't pull this off even with today's tech.
Even with the live feed from the shuttle booster rockets the video signal breaks up like all hell a few miles above the earth.
There should have been far more drop outs, radiation related interference, general interference, etc. etc.
[edit on 19-5-2010 by ppk55]
Originally posted by ppk55
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Yes, it is quite good quality
Quite good? Their video transmission quality was bloody amazing, and that's the problem. There are news crews around the world that can't pull this off even with today's tech.
Even with the live feed from the shuttle booster rockets the video signal breaks up like all hell a few miles above the earth.
There should have been far more drop outs, radiation related interference, general interference, etc. etc.
[edit on 19-5-2010 by ppk55]
Originally posted by truthquest
Originally posted by Tomblvd
Great. Let's start then with one of these "independently verifiable" claims. If you would give us one, with the verification. We can see who is right and who is wrong.
The first claim I saw him make is that the following photo at: history.nasa.gov... could not have been made without multiple light sources.
Here is a condensed commented version with comments I added:
[edit on 18-5-2010 by truthquest]
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Until now, these film products have resided in cold storage or have been shelved and archived at NASA data repositories. Access to them required a trip to Houston, Washington DC, or other locations and for manual searches through binders, microfilm, or other catalogs, for which photographic reprints could be requested and produced. Indeed, the public, because of these limitations, has never had the opportunity to see most of the photos taken by the Apollo astronauts.
Ninety five percent of NASA's fake Moon pictures on their web sites, WERE NEVER SEEN PRIOR TO THE LAUNCH OF THE INTERNET. They had to produce a considerable number of fake Moon pictures, for all six missions, otherwise the public would want to know why there were so few. Not all of NASA's fake Apollo pictures have been altered with Photoshop. The main Apollo 11 picture of Buzz Aldrin, as well press released pictures from Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 showing astroNOTS holding the flag. All of these press release pictures were taken in the fake Moonscape at Langley Research Center, and did not require any alteration to pass off as a Moon photograph. NASA instructed Michael J Tuttle at the Smithsonian center, to conjure up some photographs that could be passed off as genuine pictures taken on Apollo Moon missions, and here's how he did it with Photoshop 3.
Come along Michael you know full well what appears here is the truth, and you can't deny it because the evidence is overwhelming. In case you have forgotten, I reproduce the pictures below to refresh your memory. These FAKE pictures, altered with Photoshop, and with your name at the bottom, were displayed on the Internet as genuine Moon photographs before 1998. However when you were exposed on this web site back in 1997, they quickly dissappeared from the Internet, only to re-appear later with, of course, your name removed from the picture. You also created the 360 degree landing site FAKE shots. Notice in the third picture, how the lunar rover tire tracks end abruptly, because more sand/ash was spread over the area, or Mr. Tuttle did a poor job of pasting additional Moon soil in that area.
you'll see that although there are tracks behind the rover, none of them line up with the rover's rear wheels.. NASA claims that the astronauts actually lifted the rover off of the curved tracks and transported it
Originally posted by debunky
Originally posted by FoosM
Within 12 years.
Another way you can look at it is that von Braun didnt get what he wanted, and tried to pitch for more money to realize his dream. But knowing how impossible a trip to the moon was, the powers that be simply kept using Apollo as a cover for militarizing space:
Corona
Mol
women astronauts
and who knows what else
www.geog.ucsb.edu...
Since you propably still dont get the inconsistencies here 2 questions:
a) What was this dream you mention he wanted to realize?
b) was von Braun in on it or not?
Oh so wait, you understand why its inconsistent so then explain the inconsistency.
And make it quick, cause Im running out of popcorn.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by truthquest
How's this?
Multiple light sources create multiple shadows from the same object. Where are the multiple shadows in the Apollo images?
[edit on 5/18/2010 by Phage]
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
Oh so wait, you understand why its inconsistent so then explain the inconsistency.
And make it quick, cause Im running out of popcorn.
What part of debunky's questions do you not understand? Put down the popcorn and think about what you're saying. What was von Braun's dream? The militarization of space, or going to Mars or the Moon? Did he know it was all a hoax? If it was all a hoax, how could space be militarized? Don't you need to be able to go into space to militarize it? If you can go into space, why fake it?
Originally posted by FoosM
Im sorry but J.Ws three indepth videos which includes a perspective expert trumps your example photo which is not doing what is going on with the Apollo photo.
Originally posted by FoosM
OMG! Read carefully TOMBVLDs post!
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by truthquest
You need to see how the terrain in that picture is because as Phage has shown what you claim cant happen can be shown to happen here on earth, YOUR challange is take a photograph with multiple light sources and each object and it doesn't matter how close to each other only have ONE shadow.
LETS see YOU do that!
Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by truthquest
I noticed "measurements" in your picture of 238.7 and 238.8 degrees, how are you able to get such a degree of accuracy in your measurements?
Originally posted by CHRLZ
truthquest, apart from the points being raised here by others, like:
- absolutely no trace of multiple shadows
- penumbral effects that match the sun's angular size correctly
..can I ask if you spent any time actually looking closely at that image?
If not, then I would suggest you need to be a little more rigorous in your truth-questing. If you did, may I ask a very simple question of you..
- do you agree with the directions he has 'determined'?
(If Jarrah has elaborated on how he determined those angles I suggest you post that information.)
I have a very good reason for asking that question... Actually *several* reasons. And I will elaborate, in a pictorial form, after you have answered.
Originally posted by truthquest
The second I see such a photo with a similar angle disparity over a small area like in the Apollo 17 photo I'll change my mind easily because I really do suspect it can be done. Until then though I'm just guessing and will say Jarrah White brings up a good question with the Apollo 17 photo in question (as shown at the top of previous page) because that angle disparity is an oddity.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by truthquest
Oh....[face/palm].
Where is the majority of the ambient light originating, in your 'room' demonstration?
(Got any perpetual motion "proofs" up you sleeve, as well?)
Look....be honest, we are speaking, here, of an over-analysis of ONE (or, at most, a handful) of Apollo STILL photos.
YET, in all of these discussions, the "Apollo Deniers" never find any way to reconile the FACT of the other images we have, from Apollo...the VIDEO!
Moon landing "hoax" believers all resort to the same hackneyed attempts at 'proof', and all fail miserably.
People here in the USA (and if the show is syndicated internationally, many others will know of) a woman named "Judge Judy".
She once authored a book titled: "Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining".
Perfectly apt, here.