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

Originally posted by captainpudding
All you need to do to counteract heat in a vacuum is to use reflective material (like the bright white of a space suit) You'd also have to stay in shadow for a very long time to radiate out enough heat to cause problems. Since the temperature in earth orbit is about identical in extremes do you then also believe that all EVA's ever performed are fakes as well?

The temperature control wasn't all passive, either.

The human body puts out a good bit of heat inside the suit, along with the suit electronics. Just standing there, no moving around at all, an astronaut will put out about 100W in basal metabolism. The suit power use contributes to the heat levels also, so even in the dark, with good insulation you're not going to have to worry about cold.

In the sun, the Apollo suits used active cooling. There's a sublimator in the backpack. Does a dandy job in vacuo.

Originally posted by hellobruce
The answer is obvious, all the scientists in all the countries that examined the rocks were all in on the hoax

Exactly! And don't you know that the (then) Soviet Union, would have loved to find a way to discredit the achievement, if they had any possible way.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
No nothing to do with perspective. On the first pole the sun is way left and on the last pic the sun is on the right. You can see that the angle of shadow has changed even in a 3d environment. On the first pole the shadow almost meets the second pole and on the last pole the angle has changed unnaturally.

It has everything to do with perspective. If you go the same scene and change your perspective so you are directly above the poles you will see that all the shadows go in the same direction. You can go to google and type "shadows" and hit picture search. You find tons of these.

Ok. We're not seeing what I am seeing. I've edited to photos to how I see the shadows falling intuitively as a perspective drawing. The far right and left are not pointing in the wrong direction. All poles look correctly spaced.

Am I not allowed to embed images?

reply to post by MortPenguin

you got to upload them to your account in the tools menu, then grab the code and copy it. Unless you're doing that already, maybe there's a restriction for new members?
Good luck, I'm keen to understand why you think that picture was faked.

Thanks. I'm guessing I don't have that option. I don't know. It really doesn't fit my perspective of how the shadows should fall.

The original in perspective

img.abovetopsecret.com...

I redrew the shadows how I would do them

img.abovetopsecret.com...

Bird's eye view. This will give you a better idea of what I am saying. The first and last shadows are facing different directions.

img.abovetopsecret.com...

The direction of the sun is correct

img.abovetopsecret.com...

Superimposed

img.abovetopsecret.com...

That's good you took the time to do that, really.
I'm not qualified though to tell why it is the way it is without the image having to be manipulated, so I'll let someone else handle all that.
It was surprising to see the picture questioned because it was assumed that a demonstration of the same phenomenon on earth would be a simple base proof that would't be in dispute, but the fact that it is means I guess a less ambiguous demonstration has to be found.
Maybe you could find a similar situation and take a picture yourself?


Edit.. maybe you're not taking into account slight dips in the ground at the base of the posts?


A question I can ask is - why don't your projected shadows reach a single vanishing point? If the ground were perfectly flat, and the poles were perfectly vertical, shouldn't the shadows converge into a single point?

I considered that but where the shadows end is in line after considering their slight differences in height. I tried looking for a photo but no luck. I'll see if I can take one.


And no they are not likely to converge perfectly. I did that to account for very slight differences.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

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?

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...

Thank you. I can see it very plainly in this picture.
But It doesn't explain all the other pictures where it is not visible.
I will go back and check the original hi res pictures of those however.
Cheers,

Ok, after looking over hi res pictures of Apollo 11 here www.apolloarchive.com...
I can plainly see where there was both blast patterns, cratering and deposition of dust.
I must retract my earlier statement as there certainly is evidence that for whatever reason I did not see earlier.

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by MortPenguin

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.

Holy crap! I'm speechless.

This is the effect of a wide angle lens.
Nothing more.
No photoshop required.

reply to post by MortPenguin


Do want to explain this picture



thanks to ATS member "Saint Exupery" for this example for another thread talking about the same issue!!!!!

The focal length of a lens has an effect on how the scene looks, is that enough evidence to satisfy you or do you want to go through a complete photography course we have many members with MANY years experience behind them.

The perspective looks fine in this photo. So we can rule out wide angle lens.

img.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by conar


What is this then



Texture of the grass in fore ground is different from the background so is this back screen projection.

Can't wait for your answer

Originally posted by MortPenguin
The perspective looks fine in this photo. So we can rule out wide angle lens.

img.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes because look at all the nice long dark shadows in that image

How would a wide angle lens distort the shadows but not the perspective? That's not logical.

So shadows, lighting, foot prints, tire tracks etc have once again (100 times over) been shown that the moon pictures are real and not from some studio.

So can we move on with your next list of "evidence" that the moon landings never happen?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by conar

 

What is this then



Texture of the grass in fore ground is different from the background so is this back screen projection.

Can't wait for your answer

edit on 30-11-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Completely different subject

reply to post by captainpudding


The astronauts weren't just taking pictures. They were up there collecting 800lbs of moon rock, setting up experiments, doing experiments, moving around and the lot.

AULIS

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures.

That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available.

Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!)

My thoughts on on the cameras.

They were big, bulky and very basic.
The cameras were mounted upon the chest of the astonauts.
For every single shot they needed to adjust the aperture.
There was no view finder on the camera.
They were not able to do rapid fire or automatic shots.


Personally, I would love to believe that we went to the moon. I would love to know that we have that ability. But, there is that annoying little voice inside me that says this isn't right.

Is it that we didn't go to the moon?
Is it that we went to the moon and the pictures didn't turn out so they recreated pictures?

There really is a reason that this subject hasn't gone away.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
double post

edit on 30-11-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by MortPenguin
How would a wide angle lens distort the shadows but not the perspective? That's not logical.

It's not just the lens is position relative to the light source and also the terrain around the object casting the shadow.

Have a look at this picture





That bridge is 30 ft long taken with a wide angle lens look at the shadows further into the scene compared with those closer now what do you think