New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

How about the fact that lets say an astronaut weighed approx 185 pound give or take, and his suit and gear weighed 185 pound, so 370 pound in total. In the supposed 1/6 gravity of the moon that would make his total weight around 60 ish pounds right? So these guys were in athletic condition, strong and fit right? so they should have been able to jump around six feet straight up.but how high do we see them jump? No higher than we can on earth..............................................

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
This one really gets me. How do the guru's explain this one?

6. Identical backdrops with different foregrounds and vanishing LEM

Here are two images with the same identical backdrop with totally different foregrounds, as you can see. In one of them, you can see the LEM, but not in the other, which is an oddity since the LEM never moved after allegedly landing on the moon.

davesweb.cnchost.com...

davesweb.cnchost.com...

Well easy, go look at a mountain range a few miles away...walk 50 steps left or right...look at the mountain range again... how much could the scenery possibly change in the background?

reply to post by Elvis Hendrix


The problem becomes that their center of gravity is to their back, because of the PLSS they're wearing. If you jump really high, and tip backwards, and land on that, you can damage it. Or if you don't, you end up like a turtle and can't get up. Damage the PLSS, and you're really in trouble.

Originally posted by Riposte

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Oh yes there is look along the red strokes increased size for your poor eyesight hope that helps they are faint but they are there!!!

Wow, calm down. The "rays" you're talking about are not at all similar to every single other photograph of the sun ever taken. True photographs of the sun have rays physically connected to and extending out from the center source of sunlight. You are never able to make out a clear, spherical shape from them.

edit on 28-11-2012 by Riposte because: (no reason given)

Before you can compare the pictures you really need to consider this the position of the light source in the frame, the type of camera, the focal length of the lens and the aperture the lens is set at.

I can provide you links on why you get circles and rays around a light source.

The pictures you linked to are they all 100% identical to each other NO,

YOU said

Originally posted by Riposte
Also another issue with the photographs of the sun: when you take a photograph of the sun, you get a ray effect like this

As if there are no rays in the picture I pointed out there are.

The aperture and the number of blades used to form it has an effect on the number of rays and how they look.

You may not have seen or read my posts before so I will let you know photography has been a hobby of mine for 30+ years many other members who post on these BS Apollo hoax threads are semi-pro and even pro photographers WE know what to look for when someone claims something about an image.

How about you making a comment about this image in the OP.



Which was claimed to show NO footprints or tracks around the rover, the picture has obviously been altered to hide the prints because this is the REAL image below

When the image loads click on it for full size.



What can be CLEARLY seen around the rover FOOT PRINTS!!!!!!!!

If these Hoax Believers think they are right why do they need to resort to dirty tricks like that to try and prove their point!!!!!!

reply to post by jimmyx


For example
Apollo 11
Close up of pad

www.hq.nasa.gov...

A few things the lander did not land pefectly vertical at 90 degress to the surface it had lateral movement .

You can see were the probe on the lander pad has dragged along the surface and been bent up because the dust layer is not very thick.

The engines are cut off when the probe hits the solid surface and a light in the cabin tells the Astronauts.
So there are lots of reasons why the pads dont get some/any dust.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Which was claimed to show NO footprints or tracks around the rover, the picture has obviously been altered to hide the prints because this is the REAL image below

When the image loads click on it for full size.



What can be CLEARLY seen around the rover FOOT PRINTS!!!!!!!!

If these Hoax Believers think they are right why do they need to resort to dirty tricks like that to try and prove their point!!!!!!

Actually the OP stated quite clealry no tire tracks he did not mention footprints. You have added footprints in order to back up your argument. That is dishonest.

The original problem still remains : there are no tyre tracks and given that quite clealry there are footprints then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why there should not be any tyre tracks. Whatever reason can be invented to excuse the lack of visibility of tyre tracks would be applicable to the footprints.

For what it's worth. I know that the US landed on the moon (cant say why and I haven't mentioned Apollo) but many of the photos are fake for publicity/cover-up reasons. So ironically enough both sides are correct !!!!!

This close-up of the rover tire shows that tire-tracks on the moon will be substantially different from similar tire-tracks that we are used to seeing here on earth. This is an exceptionally non-traditional tire. Notice that there is no tread. This is actually a wire/mesh screen and the soil would fall through the mesh covering its tracks.

Footprints in the moon soil are a totally different matter and should not be compared in this instance.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

So they carried it 50 yards from the LEM?
Is that what you are suggesting because frankly that doesn't make much sense.
I'm not sure I can see astronauts carrying this thing either.
Anyone know what the weight of the LRV would be on the moon?

What originally got me to wondering if they faked the landings was when they showed the LEM landing and dust was flying everywhere from the retro rocket on the bottom yet when they landed there is no blast pattern showing anything of the kind. Surely such a rocket would disturb the lunar surface in some fashion, wouldn't it?

edit on 28-11-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comment

I linked you to the correct picture you could see foot prints around it but the real big give away the picture is the FINAL RESTING PLACE FOR THE ROVER that's were they left it!

As for the blast marks.
The engines are cut off when the probes under the pad touch the solid surface ( a light in the cabin shows this)
the thrust from the rocket is spread over a wide area due to the diameter of the nozzel.

Click on image (when loaded) for high res you will see what looks like fine scores across the surface

www.hq.nasa.gov...

All these point have been gone over on here hundreds of times

Originally posted by yorkshirelad





Actually the OP stated quite clealry no tire tracks he did not mention footprints. You have added footprints in order to back up your argument. That is dishonest.

The original problem still remains : there are no tyre tracks and given that quite clealry there are footprints then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why there should not be any tyre tracks. Whatever reason can be invented to excuse the lack of visibility of tyre tracks would be applicable to the footprints.

For what it's worth. I know that the US landed on the moon (cant say why and I haven't mentioned Apollo) but many of the photos are fake for publicity/cover-up reasons. So ironically enough both sides are correct !!!!!

First you will notice on the above picture EVEN the footprints are difficult to see!

Can dust fall through your boots then?

May be this will help you along



It's already been shown that the fourth picture on his list YOU can see tyre marks, it has also been shown that dust can fall back through the wheels and cover tracks and due to lighting and terrain you may have difficulty seeing tracks or even footprints

So why did the OP's link have to hide the footprints

reply to post by tigercat1971


I will take a bet with you that before the new rover landed on mars and began to send back pictures there were already debunkers on here posting threads that the mars mission were all faked too... Some people need to get out of their parents basements and use their brains and get some fresh air wouldn't you agree? I mean this thread in particular started off about a supposed canvas sheet on the moon and now I see a whole lot of broadsides been loosed by guys and gals here verbal abuse flying thick and fast where are the moderators?

reply to post by Elvis Hendrix

How about the fact that lets say an astronaut weighed approx 185 pound give or take, and his suit and gear weighed 185 pound, so 370 pound in total. In the supposed 1/6 gravity of the moon that would make his total weight around 60 ish pounds right? So these guys were in athletic condition, strong and fit right? so they should have been able to jump around six feet straight up.but how high do we see them jump? No higher than we can on earth..............................................

But their mass is still 370 lbs.
How high would they be able to jump on Earth if we strapped that extra 185 lbs to their back? A couple of inches?

Don't confuse weight with mass.

Also remember that they didn't want to fall over because it could have become fatal. Torn suit, split hose.
Lets say we strapped an extra 100lbs to your back and asked you to jump while you are 5 feet off the ground on a 2 foot diameter pedestal.

I don't know about this conspiracy… this one is tricky

did we not land?…

did we land and find bases?…

could it all be faked?…


That last one I can answer - whether NASA did or not - YES of course the photos and film COULD be a faked movie. Of course. Faked better now more than in 1969? Well, if you consider the budget for the trip vs. for a great movie? Movie did start to get better after 1969.

Seriously - is there anyone on ATS that thinks we could not have faked photos and film to look like that? Now that would surprise me about ATS. We may not have flying saucers yet but damn it humans can photoshop - my 6 year old can photoshop for crying out loud.


Did we? - that's another question.

Originally posted by digitalf

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Fr3bzY

 

Divergent shadows are due to perspective and show the unevenness of the terrain they fall on, nothing more.

Explain this photo, more than one light source?:

edit on 28-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

I kinda sit on the fence on this conspiracy which drives me mad, I see little evidence in the OP's presentation of the cloth canvas although the posts and counter posts regarding shadow does have me intrigued. The image you presented here, to me, seems odd, there may well be a perspective in play and that's something to be tested but I'm struggling to find any images to support this one (and I've been looking really hard). In addition, I found it extremely interesting that the author that took that photo presented it in a discussion on the very same subject we are debating here (cosmoquest.org...).

A couple of photos I found that don't support this shadow notion;
www.flickr.com...@N03/5965174702
www.flickr.com...

and a quick process of the image you posted run through an error level analyzer (ELA)

The odd thing about the process run is generally shadows are shown black (like the trees in the background and the person taking the photo), yet the shadows cast by the stumps are bright white. I tried this out on multiple images online with shadows included the two flickr images I linked above, all shadows came out black. Is the authenticity of the image you use to support your theory also a fake ?

I’m not attacking your argument seabhac-rua just the evidence you chose to present your point.

Hate to bump thread but ... >.<

It's not so much that shadows are shown in black always exactly ... ELA is basically just subtracting the image from itself. Solid colors / closeish pixel values will generally be more stable after the subtraction operation. More stable = black. So solid white will go towards black also ... you can see this in your example actually.

If you pick up the pixel values in the person shadow you can see its a fairly solid block of color in the center. There is varience but the shadows of the posts are incredibly noisey and varied by comparison. The person shadow does have a noisey edge which is also picked up by the ELA.

If the person performed any contrast adjustment on this image for example it will aggravate the noise and make your ELA worse, but the noise will show up more anyway even without too much adjustments. Trying out this (I assume automated) ELA process on other images is not really good comparison.

Apologies if you feel any of this is patronizing, I didn't have much time to write this!

Danke.

Originally posted by Xterrain

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by jrtallent
It just occurred to me why the moon photos are done in black & white -- it's much easier to hide the fakery when there's no color.

For those people who are serious about whether the moon hoax is real or not, go to this website: Project Apollo Image Gallery There are literally hundreds and hundreds of pictures from the surface of the moon here for you to examine.

I have about 1,000 pictures of Black Rock Desert in NV...in Black & White those pictures are indistinguishable from the surface pictures you mentioned. These days, evidence that CANNOT be faked is becoming harder and harder to come by as technology in imaging, editing, analyzing, and overall science/astronomy advances. How long do you really want to hold tight to your flat-lander folk lore? The 60's and 70's were a LONG time ago. If we actually went to the moon back then, and it was so 'easy', then why'd we stop? The He-3 industry on the Moon would be enough to mine it...if we could.

Have you taken the time to browse through the PAIG pictures?

I really don't care how many pictures you have of some desert.
The 60's and 70's weren't that long ago (maybe for you they were?), as far as tech goes we had plenty to get to the moon back then(next you'll be suggesting we didn't even get into space), but nobody said it was "easy".
You want to know why we didn't go back? Go read a book for chrissakes.

The real "folk lore" is the moon hoax theories. Created by attention seeking charlatans(know anything about them?????) and perpetuated by either liars or fools.

It's dumb to think the Moon landing was a hoax - firstly because your so called 'proof' of canvas and picture as a background is so weak, it's not even canvas, 2nd because of Operation 'Paperclip' and because the NAZI HAD ROCKETS and the path from rockets to making one into space with NAZI TECHNOLOGY for 20 years is enough time to do something like that. Moon hoax is foolishness.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Fr3bzY

 

Divergent shadows are due to perspective and show the unevenness of the terrain they fall on, nothing more.

Explain this photo, more than one light source?:

edit on 28-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

Yeah. The light appears to be coming from way left on the first pole and from way right with the last pole. Despite all the poles being level in height and seemingly on level ground. I say this photo was doctored too.

reply to post by MortPenguin

You are kidding right???

What's the story, do you come from a two dimensional universe?

The perspective in this picture is normal.

Nope.Not in the least. And I've done a million perspective drawings and this is anything but normal.

reply to post by MortPenguin


The horizon vanishing point is roughly above the middle post, even just by looking at the picture you can see how lines taken from all the shadows will converge in this area, so if one shadow was 'altered' they all had to be, and I don't know about you but there is nothing wrong with how the shadows are laying.

We are talking sun position not vanishing points. The sun is a long way from earth so shadows do not rely on the horizon's vanishing point. See the first pole the shadow almost meets the second pole. On the last pole the sun's position has moved.