Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by ppk55


regardless of where they move to, the only thing that matters is the suns location relative to the camera. if the sun remains in the same position relative to the camera the same lens flare will be shown.

ppk55
Here's an interesting one.

Pictures taken 27 frames apart, yet ... the exact same lens flare appears in both.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5eeeb742340.gif[/atsimg]

Now consider this...

The photos were taken 27 frames apart.
The photographer descended in elevation. (He supposedly walked down into a crater)
The sun moved at least 2 degrees between photos.
Each photo had to be repositioned vertically to align the images.
The photos were taken with no viewfinder of any kind.

The slightest 0.1 degree move in camera position / attitude would result in a completely different lens flare pattern, yet after all the points above, it still appears perfect, almost as if it was added in later.

Nasa source photos are AS12-46-6739 and 6766

edit on 3-10-2013 by ppk55 because: added the word 'supposedly'

In addition to choos' point above, the lens flare isn't identical - it appears in a different part of the image - it's almost as if the photographer was taking a photograph from a slightly different location. If you have to fiddle with the photographs to make it fit then your argument doesn't work.

The black lines mark the outer boundaries of the lens flare on the other image:



And how come you missed out the other photos in the sequence - shame that, because they make a nice panorama of a crater, and you can see how the lens flare moves across the photos as the camera pans around the lunar landscape.

Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1

 

So the 0.01% that it changes makes travel through it impossible? Amazing.

Why would you assume that it really is 0.01%, to begin with??.... ?

reply to post by turbonium1


Let me refresh your memory, so you remember what YOU said.

turbonium1
About 99.99% of the time, the VAB environment changes slowly. About 0.01% of the time, the VAB environment changes quickly.

They used to believe the VAB envronment changes slowly, but they now know it changes quickly.

reply to post by choos



Why would you expect it to be different? Lens flair is caused by light refracting inside the camera. All you showed is the same camera was used since another camera would have a different refraction. So congratulations you proved they used the same camera in two different locations.

SayonaraJupiter
I know there are literally millions of scientists who would like to study the telemetry on those tapes./quote]

So you know millions of scientists that would like to study them - so how about naming 1% of them?

Of course you are unable to do that, as it is just something else you just made up and posted here!

choos

i dont think you understand the concept of force related with gravity..

the only dust that would have gone higher than anything on earth would be the dust blown away during landing and you wouldnt have seen those..

if you are expecting the dust kicked up but the astronauts to go higher than anything on earth lets say a dust storm.. than i have news for you.. you have failed basic physics yet again.. seriously dont use your "logic" on how things should behave according to physics..

Any object will go higher on the moon than on Earth, under the same conditions......except for dust, then?

Dust will go no higher on the moon than it goes on Earth, yes?

But dust will settle faster on the moon than on Earth, right?


The atmosphere has no effect on dust being lower from the ground than it would without an atmosphere. But it does have an effect later on, when settling back to the surface!!

Amazing, for sure!

turbonium1

choos

i dont think you understand the concept of force related with gravity..

the only dust that would have gone higher than anything on earth would be the dust blown away during landing and you wouldnt have seen those..

if you are expecting the dust kicked up but the astronauts to go higher than anything on earth lets say a dust storm.. than i have news for you.. you have failed basic physics yet again.. seriously dont use your "logic" on how things should behave according to physics..

Any object will go higher on the moon than on Earth, under the same conditions......except for dust, then?

Dust will go no higher on the moon than it goes on Earth, yes?

But dust will settle faster on the moon than on Earth, right?


The atmosphere has no effect on dust being lower from the ground than it would without an atmosphere. But it does have an effect later on, when settling back to the surface!!

Amazing, for sure!

What is significant is not so much the height that is achieved, but how long it is aloft.

Whether dust goes higher on the moon than Earth is just as affected by atmosphere as it is settling - this is why you get billowing dust clouds on Earth, and why dust can remain suspended for years on Earth.

If you can find, in any of the hours (and I mean hours) of EVA footage of dust that remains suspended in air, or of billowing dust clouds, then go ahead and post it here and you get the prize.

I remind you of the launch footage taken inside the ascent module, which shows lunar dust and sand shooting directly sideways in response to the ascent module engine and creates no billowing dust cloud at all. The dust settles to the ground quickly not because it is in Earth's gravity, but because there is no atmosphere worth the name to keep it suspended.

turbonium1

choos

i dont think you understand the concept of force related with gravity..

the only dust that would have gone higher than anything on earth would be the dust blown away during landing and you wouldnt have seen those..

if you are expecting the dust kicked up but the astronauts to go higher than anything on earth lets say a dust storm.. than i have news for you.. you have failed basic physics yet again.. seriously dont use your "logic" on how things should behave according to physics..

Any object will go higher on the moon than on Earth, under the same conditions......except for dust, then?

Dust will go no higher on the moon than it goes on Earth, yes?

But dust will settle faster on the moon than on Earth, right?


The atmosphere has no effect on dust being lower from the ground than it would without an atmosphere. But it does have an effect later on, when settling back to the surface!!

Amazing, for sure!

What hes trying to explain and poorly i might add is on earth. We have an atmosphere and the air in motion around the rocket engine causes up drafts carrying the dust far higher into the air on earth. Same principle that causes hot air balloons to rise the hot gases warms up the air it rises. this in turn can carry the dust with it watch a launch of a rocket from florida youll see what i mean.

Havent read the whole thread, its too long now

However, I notice people are discussing the dust created by the rover?
Here is what I find odd.
It's got nothing to do with how high the dust goes, but everything to do with how far it goes HORIZONTALLY!
On earth when dust is spun out by a wheel it travels horizontally but it slows due to the air resistance and drops back to the ground.
We see the same happening on the moon, and thats the problem! Theres no air on the moon, therefore the dust should continue in its horizontal direction without slowing down until it eventually hits the ground again, but it doesnt, it slows down just like it does on earth! This can be observed on many of the moon vids.
I just find that odd.

reply to post by VoidHawk

Here is what I find odd.
It's got nothing to do with how high the dust goes, but everything to do with how far it goes HORIZONTALLY!
On earth when dust is spun out by a wheel it travels horizontally but it slows due to the air resistance and drops back to the ground.
We see the same happening on the moon, and thats the problem!

The Defenders will be along with all the whiz bang physics equations to prove that those NASA films are authentic. But the problem remains: the only films that show moon dust flying around were created by NASA employees.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Yes, because physics changes when NASA employees are involved.

Hiya VoidHawk,

VoidHawk
It's got nothing to do with how high the dust goes, but everything to do with how far it goes HORIZONTALLY!

The arc of the dust is parabolic, so I think that's why it's arcing so smoothly? Which is what you would expect without drag / air resistance. I'm not sure it requires equations to prove, since strong resistance would push the trajectory towards more of a verticalish descent, but I don't think that happens on the moon.

And lo SayonaraJ.

Edit: If it's faked, they would have done it in as close to a vacuum as possible I believe.

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Yes, because physics changes when NASA employees are involved.

YOU SAID IT. I didn't.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You just implied it. And expect people to believe that impossible things are possible.

SayonaraJupiter

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Yes, because physics changes when NASA employees are involved.

YOU SAID IT. I didn't.

Sarcasm doesn't always come across well in this medium. However in this case it's quite obvious that Zaphod was expressing sarcasm in saying that NASA manipulate natural laws.

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You just implied it. And expect people to believe that impossible things are possible.

And you made a straw man argument out of all this so you should take responsibility for that.

Zaphod58]/i] Yes, because physics changes when NASA employees are involved.

Did I ever say that? NO. Did you put those words in my mouth? YES.

the Remote Controlled Apollo theory

I have a newspaper account that supports my theory that Howard Hughes was building robots with TV cameras as early as in 1959.

If you would like to see the article give me a star.

Phage

SayonaraJupiter

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Yes, because physics changes when NASA employees are involved.

YOU SAID IT. I didn't.

Sarcasm doesn't always come across well in this medium. However in this case it's quite obvious that Zaphod was expressing sarcasm in saying that NASA manipulate natural laws.

edit on 10/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

That's not sarcasm in text. It's strawman in text. But you are correct, and I believe, that sarcasm is not a useful tool in textual arguments. There is no way for me to know if Zaphod was being sarcastic, or not.

I have to read his text literally. Every time. Unless, Zaphod, makes the extra effort to code his responses. He could say j/k, or he could add a wink

It is not obvious, Phage. It takes an extra effort to express sarcasm on the 'net.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Yeah, it's called the Mobot. And oh look, it has wheels. So when did Howard Hughes develop the man shaped robot that walks on legs, to leave tracks just like people do?