Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Both right a possibility?
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, long thread.

After watching and reading some of the conspiracy information, I have to admit some of it is intriguing and worth taking a closer look. Most of the arguments I find unconvincing, but possible none the less.

I suggest we did land on the moon, but used studio footage to make it look better or more successful or dramatic than it actually was. Apollo 13 comes to mind as well. This was a MUST win for the U.S. at the time. By creating your own footage as a backup to failure, you can't lose. It could be as simple as using the best footage to feed the public. This could explain why the Russians have never outed us, among many others things.

reply to post by FoosM

The shadow is too short!

This is a reflection on a curved surface. Everything is distorted. The surface is also highly uneven and irregular to begin with... but I believe we've already covered "Shadows 101."

reply to post by FoosM


Are you truly so dense??

Do you not, really, understand slope, terrain, and shadows??

The problem with the photo is not only the missing backpack....

NO< actually...the POINT that has been made has always been...the bleedin' shadow SHOWS the PLSS!!!! No amount of saying it doesn't, will make it so....


But now, we come to the funniest (and most pathetic) argument yet....

The shadow is too short!

"Oh what tangled webs we weave, when we first practice to deceive..."

The 'deception" lies within yourself, young Padawan "SkyWalker", ....in this attempt, however futile, at "fooling" others....OTHERS who actually have life experience, with photographs (which adds up to EVERYBODY, apparently...except YOU) and the way shadows fall, when the terrain beneath the subject, in the photograph, is not perfecty FLAT!~!!

BUT, it gets even better (if that can be imagined....to wit):

That might as well be the shadow of a small boulder.

I have to ask....

WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON???

I mean...you sit there, typing this gruel....about a photo where there is OBVIOUSLY no 'boulder' that is casting a shadow....and expect people to take you seriously?

It is mind-boggling, it is......absolutely stunningly incredibly lacking in any sense, whatsoever.....

I would be embarrassed, if I were you....honestly....beet red in the face.

(Hope you aren't steering any of your "friends" to these latest missives of yours...unless you want to be seen as full of the bollocks ... but, we've already seen that here, most of us.....)


[edit on 16 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

This shocking "new" photo has been discussed to death here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Feel free to join that thread if you wish to keep this one focussed.

Edit to correct typo.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by FoosM

shadows are supposedly be pretty long:

Leaving aside the questions as to what missions the pictures were from, the reason the second picture has a very long shadow is because the subject is standing near the top of a slope. And anybody who knows anything about shadows knows that as the ground drops away from you, your shadow lenghtens.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6913c1b2298e.jpg[/atsimg]

From that picture it is painfully obvious the ground falls away from the astronaut in the direction of the shadow.

Law of posting number one. The weakness of a posters argument is directly proportional to the number of "lols" he posts.

Originally posted by DJW001
This shocking "new" photo has been discussed to death here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Feel free to join that thread if you wish to keep this one focussed.

Edit to correct typo.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by DJW001]

I agree, since there is an entire thread dedicated to this picture, there is no reason to clutter up this already cluttered thread.

But then again, I'm not a mod, so I defer to them.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

The shadow is too short!

This is a reflection on a curved surface. Everything is distorted. The surface is also highly uneven and irregular to begin with... but I believe we've already covered "Shadows 101."

Yeah whatever, prove it.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

shadows are supposedly be pretty long:

Leaving aside the questions as to what missions the pictures were from, the reason the second picture has a very long shadow is because the subject is standing near the top of a slope. And anybody who knows anything about shadows knows that as the ground drops away from you, your shadow lenghtens.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6913c1b2298e.jpg[/atsimg]

From that picture it is painfully obvious the ground falls away from the astronaut in the direction of the shadow.

.

Yeah whatever, the tripod like object is not and its casting a long shadow too. You people are just blind. What angle was the sun? How long should the shadows be? We will be patiently waiting for your answer

And it was the same mission

long shadows:












Busted!

reply to post by FoosM



Are you this dense?? (I asked before, but THIS time, I expect an answer...)

Yeah whatever, the tripod like object is not and its casting a long shadow too.

The tripod IS casting a long shadow!!! THAT IS THE POINT!!!



Where are you?

What planet??

Have you ever been to the beach??? With a camera??? Ever taken photographs, and looked at them later????

Ever taken photos during the morning?? Evening?? On uneven terrain????

MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY are you asking/stating such stupid things??? It is blazingly obvious to just about every Human adult on this planet....one that has at least three neurons to rub together....

Oh, oh, oh,,, the delicious irony.....

You people are just blind.

PRICELESS....so, so special.

BUT, here is the bestest of the bestest....WHY can't YOU do your OWN DARN research???

What angle was the sun?

It is EASILY obtainable, online....what's the matter? Afraid to actually learn something?? Something that will destroy your "Apollo Landing Hoax" fantasy world you've so "carefully" >cough, cough< constructed???

[edit on 16 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

shadows are supposedly be pretty long:

Leaving aside the questions as to what missions the pictures were from, the reason the second picture has a very long shadow is because the subject is standing near the top of a slope. And anybody who knows anything about shadows knows that as the ground drops away from you, your shadow lenghtens.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6913c1b2298e.jpg[/atsimg]

From that picture it is painfully obvious the ground falls away from the astronaut in the direction of the shadow.

.

Yeah whatever, the tripod like object is not and its casting a long shadow too. You people are just blind. What angle was the sun? How long should the shadows be? We will be patiently waiting for your answer

And it was the same mission

Do you deny that the ground is sloping down and away from the the feet of the astronaut toward the right of the picture?

Originally posted by FoosM
The shadow is too short! That might as well be the shadow of a small boulder

shadows are supposedly be pretty long

Wow... are we really debating this? A concept that even a 6 year old can grasp.

Shadow lengths change depending on the angle of the Sun and the angle of the surface it's being cast on.

Two photos from Apollo 16:
AS16-106-17409 (short shadow)

AS16-109-17797 (long shadow)

I'm really embarrassed for you Foos...

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by dragnet53

Here is a diagram of the flight trajectory of Apollo 11 superimposed over a map of the flux contours of the VA belts.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/182645f81663.gif[/atsimg]
As you can plainly see, the capsule missed the areas of highest particle density.
It's as simple as that.

Just like some teams on sports look good on paper, but when the season begins they just fall apart or don't do what is expected.

Wow, dragnet, you're *really* good at this!... that was a *devastating reply*. You worked your way through it superbly, showed all the maths, related the figures to actual radiation exposure taking into account the hull materials... Fantabulous. Nothin's gunna get past you.

But.. I hope you don't mind if I do all that TOO, just to verify it? As you may have noticed, the stuff I'm posting on the radiation issue is fairly comprehensive (yeah, just like your stuff!), and I'm getting close to the Apollo mission.

I'll also be doing an executive summary at the end (including a version using short words for those with reading/comprehension difficulties).

sure thing I "believe" you. but man that apollo 13 and the infamous quote, "Houston we have a problem." But they have taken that "path" many of times.

ahh so how you feeling now about the constellation program being shutdown? All that money wasted on junk and too many "delays".

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by WWu777

 

on the flag waving video you linked to, in his first experiment, he assumes that a statically charged balloon in normal atmosphere and gravity will have the exact same effect on a flag as a statically charged astronaut in a low gravity near vacuum.

the video footage he is discussing when he does this is really interesting but i'll need a really good reason to take him seriously after that.

Personally, I still don't know of any piece of moon hoax evidence that doesn't have a potential explanation. There are very few things about the apollo videos/photos that are inexplicable so it if they really were hoaxed it was done extremely well.

Even my great grandfather, at the age of 84, was still of the belief that all of the apollo missions were hoaxed out in the desert somewhere. He died back in 1995 but he became a very close friend of mine a few months before his death for which I am forever greatful.

Over the years I've heard alot of claims, alot of speculation and alot of baseless assumptions that are impossible to prove. And all of this the backbone on which alot of people place their belief of a moon hoax/conspiracy. However, there are alot of things about the videos and images that leave me grasping for some kind of earthly explanation other than simple coincidence.

The main thing that strikes me are these images.





Now, as for the first, darker image I cannot recall which mission it is from but I do know the two were photographed on completely separate apollo missions. I originally saw these images 5 years ago on a website describing how they were taken years apart on completely separate apollo missions but are photographs of the exact same terrain.

Someone on ATS once told me the brighter image was from Apollo 16 and that the first was from an earlier mission. That person was unsure which.

This third one I found in the NASA apollo image archive a year or two ago. Can't remember which mission it was from but at the time I did notice the similarities so I saved it for reference.



Someone else may be able to help shed some light on the images as I just can't remember which photo is from which mission.

Now, I might be crazy and this is some kind of astronomically improbable coincidence. OR something funny is going on here. It just seems completely remarkable to me that the very same terrain was photographed on 2, possibly even 3 different apollo missions yet they were supposedly taken months/years apart and at completely different geographic locations on the lunar surface.

Also, from what I recall about the mythbusters TV show, they concluded that if it were to really be hoaxed then thousands of people would've had to be involved and we would know about it by know. That is absolutely false. The only people that would need to know about it is the people fabricating it. If all the Apollo moon landings were faked (Save for maybe the Saturn V rocket launches) It's completely plausible that everyone involved down to the contractors and rocket scientists really thought they were involved with a manned moon mission when it simply wasn't. It would also imply that alot of emergencies and events during the apollo missions were fabricated to trick the American people into believing what they were seeing. Apollo 13 being a perfect example.

I'm still on the fence on this entire issue though since every piece of "irrefutable proof" I've seen has alternative explanations regardless of how unlikely they may be. But these particular images are what really struck me as odd about the entire scenario and it's over these very kinds of things that people base their belief of a hoax. And, IMO, understandably so.

-ChriS

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

shadows are supposedly be pretty long:

Leaving aside the questions as to what missions the pictures were from, the reason the second picture has a very long shadow is because the subject is standing near the top of a slope. And anybody who knows anything about shadows knows that as the ground drops away from you, your shadow lenghtens.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6913c1b2298e.jpg[/atsimg]

From that picture it is painfully obvious the ground falls away from the astronaut in the direction of the shadow.

.

Yeah whatever, the tripod like object is not and its casting a long shadow too. You people are just blind. What angle was the sun? How long should the shadows be? We will be patiently waiting for your answer

And it was the same mission

Sorry if YOU cant see that it also cast a shadow down a slope YOU are the one with the bad eyes .

[edit on 17-6-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by BlasteR

How do you know the images were from separate missions?

All of those images are from Apollo 17, looking at the "Family Mountains". The "gunsight" is quite distictive, if you had spent any time looking at the images from the various missions you would recognize it. The terrain at each of the landing sites is pretty distinctive.

Look around this site a bit:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here is the one you found:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

And here is one of the others:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Did you read your post back to yourself..?

Originally posted by BlasteR
The main thing that strikes me are these images...
I cannot recall which mission it is from but I do know the two were photographed on completely separate apollo missions...

And you now expect us to go and do your research for you...

I originally saw these images 5 years ago on a website describing how they were taken years apart on completely separate apollo missions but are photographs of the exact same terrain.

..and they were just sorta lying around so you thought you'd post them without actually doing any investigation whatsoever?

Someone on ATS once told me the brighter image was from Apollo 16 and that the first was from an earlier mission.

Good enough for anyone....

That person was unsure which.

It just gets better...

This third one I found in the NASA apollo image archive a year or two ago. Can't remember which mission it was from...

I mean seriously... Do you really think this is the way to go about this? Post a pile of images with apologies that you haven't a clue about their origin...?


Don't get me wrong, Chris, you sound like a decent enough sort of person, but isn't this just a little bit rude, expecting others to go look all this up and identify your images for you? As I'm a dam nice sort, I'm going to , but if the explanation comes out like I expect, I will THEN expect a comprehensive statement from you that you fully accept the result.

Fair enough?

reply to post by BlasteR




You got 2 images from an Apollo hoax site so they will tell the truth about the mission they were from

Well since

They lie about no stars
They lie about the flag waving
They lie about the shadows
They lie about the expected blast crater
etc etc etc

Do I need to go on I am sure you get what I am meaning

Beaten to it by Phage, I see - curse you, Red Baron!!

Anyway, here's a little addition to that identification:


That's a rather wonderful panorama taken during the Apollo 17 mission - check out the galloping astronaut..! (make sure you view it full size...)

Look carefully at the right hand edge and see if you can spot the distinctive hills.


Now, Chris, it is up to you to go and find ANY footage or images of those hills from any other mission. There isn't any.

And then ask yourself why a website that says otherwise, is LYING. Jack White (from Aulis) - as an example - is a PROVEN LIAR, quite apart from being an absolute incompetent at even the most basic photography concepts. He is just out to fleece gullible people.

Added:
I've gotta add this - I can just imagine FoosM and PPK55 looking at that panorama I have linked to above, and then their brains exploding as they look at the shadow directions in it...

(Just as an aside, I do a LOT of panorama work (stitched pano's, up to 40 Kpixels wide, and 360° views) - it's probably the most fun you can have with a camera, except maybe 3d stereograms...)




[edit on 17-6-2010 by CHRLZ]

PS...

Chris/Blaster, I see you have done this before...


Will you stop repeating this falsehood now?

[edit on 17-6-2010 by CHRLZ]