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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 112
377
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

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.



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?


Tom, weedwhacker,
You two dont have a leg to stand on.
That slope would not have such an effect on that particular shadow.
You guys are just making wild assumptions about the terrain and its effects on shadows without any evidence to back it up. Hand waving, calling people names, etc aren't going to help you here guys.


jra has just made it worse for you guys with his last post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He posts two photos where
1. The ground is level
2. Height of the astronauts are similar
3. Photos from the same mission, possibly even the same EVA, though that shouldnt matter with the length of the lunar day.

and clearly he shows us that we have two shadows of with extreme differences in length!
So what do we have two SUNS?
JRA, do we have two suns??
Whats going on there?
Whats that... what did you mumble?
Fake photos you say??
Thanks JRA, I should give you a STAR



Its over for you guys. Your defending the indefensible.
But I get your strategy, your stealthly switching sides


And I noticed you havent responded to my last post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Long shadows guys, same mission, level terrain, debunks your silly slope argument.




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR


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.






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


I would believe your grandfather.
Here's why, he lived in the time period, he knows
what was capable back in those days, how governments conspired,
how easy it was to fool people with 'live' TV.
In other words, he could Apollo in context.
Which alot of us cant do due to our ages.

At any rate, nice anamoly you found, I await the response from the defenders of Apollo.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Tom, weedwhacker,
You two dont have a leg to stand on.
That slope would not have such an effect on that particular shadow.



I'm gonna play by your rules now: prove it. Prove that slope would not have such an effect on that shadow.

I'm sick of you making unsubstantiated assertions, so lets see you back yourself here.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Hey Foos,

Have you ever seen the 3D computer models of the Apollo landing sites that were made back during the Apollo program?



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I found a photo of fake trees on a fake earth:

www.clavius.org...

The only explanation for those shadows is that this was done in a studio with multiple light sources.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I would believe your grandfather.
Here's why, he lived in the time period, he knows
what was capable back in those days


If he was an engineer or astronomer like some of the geezers here who are laughing at your ridiculous claims, he might be worth listening to. Don't you get it? You're actually ARGUING with people who lived in that time period and actually know what was possible, and impossible.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
-PLB-, I hope you don't mind, but I've lazily borrowed your image here, and played with it a little. (If anyone is uptight about that, I'm happy to go back and retrieve the originals and do the same thing all over again - and if I do, I'll guarante an even better match..).

Here it is:


Now, all I did was:
- turned it all into greyscale
- resized him - I believe my sizing is a closer match (- the large light blob near his right foot is a rock rather than a huge boot, imo...)
- used blur (Gaussian, 3.5) on the astronaut to get a close match to the fuzziness caused by interpolation and excessive enlargement (more about that later)
- flipped him horizontally to get a better match of the lighting
- adjust the black point and gamma to better match the greyscale levels in the main image.

Preliminary comments (more to come):
- note how detail is lost in the greys - it is hard to tell what is astronaut and what is ground/rocks*
- note that the clues to the angle of the 'real' astronaut's direction are limited to his seemingly angled boot (which I think is more rock than foot) and the lighting effects, which are very hard to identify without knowing where his arms and camera were.. Paredolia takes over - it *looks like* he is facing away, so you assume that is the case. First rule of proper research - don't assume.
- note how little of the PLSS shows from front on.

So there's a few things to think about, and don't forget to check out that video I posted - no-one seems to want to comment on it? Don't like youtube videos that contradict you?


* - and something else, which I'll come back to.. hint - is his visor a perfectly clean reflecting surface..?


PS:
PPK, I haven't seen you reply to the fact that your original 'scoop' image shows it was last edited in Photoshop CS3...did I miss it..?



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

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.

As you can plainly see, the capsule missed the areas of highest particle density.
It's as simple as that.



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".



You know, I was the reason behind the plotting of the Apollo craft through the belts, the 2 D diagrams and 3D videos you can find on youtube.
And I explained my issue with the plotting:

1. The Apollo craft's TLI began basically from the back of the planet (they were going in an orbit).
Which means they would expand out into VABs earlier than what was plotted and consequently, had a good chance of hitting a hotspot.

2. The Earth is too big if that diagram represents both the outer and inner belt. Or the belts are too small.

3. AP8 comes from NASA (fox guarding the hen house). And many have complained the models are incomplete, that they dont represent what is really going on in the VABs (satellite damage). They have been working on AP9 to correct the 25-30 year old models. AP9 should have come out by now, though I havent found it yet. Hmmm... whats the delay?




The radiation belts and plasma in the Earth’s magnetosphere pose hazards to satellite systems which restrict design and orbit options with a resultant impact on mission performance and cost. For decades the standard space environment specification used by the engineering community has been provided by the NASA AE-8 and AP-8 trapped radiation belt models. There are well-known limitations on their validity, however, and a consensus has been growing among satellite engineers that a new standard trapped radiation and plasma model is needed for modern spacecraft design and mission planning purposes. This document captures the requirements for an improved radiation and plasma model, denoted AE-9/AP-9, which have been established by extensive canvassing of the satellite design community by direct conversation, email solicitation, and talks and discussion forums at workshops and conferences and over a multi-year period. Requirements will be specified in terms of the ranges, resolutions and statistical measures needed for satisfactory spectral, temporal and spatial coverage to include estimations of uncertainty in specified quantities. Excluded from consideration will be solar energetic particles and cosmic rays. These populations certainly affect spacecraft however the effort to develop models acceptable to satellite engineers has kept better pace with requirements over the last several solar cycles



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by FoosM


Tom, weedwhacker,
You two dont have a leg to stand on.
That slope would not have such an effect on that particular shadow.



I'm gonna play by your rules now: prove it. Prove that slope would not have such an effect on that shadow.

I'm sick of you making unsubstantiated assertions, so lets see you back yourself here.


You can be sick all you want, the slope photo is irrelevant- moot, because I and JRA provided other photos that have no slope for people to use as an excuse. Go check them out and return with an explainatyion how you can have two different shadow lengths on flat terrains on the moon.




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM
 


Hey Foos,

Have you ever seen the 3D computer models of the Apollo landing sites that were made back during the Apollo program?






Cant say at this point I have...


I recall that strange flyby of SURVEYOR on the moon but that was a film.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosMYou know, I was the reason behind the plotting of the Apollo craft through the belts

??? That's odd, I thought this thread was all about Jarrah White videos, and the radiation issue was raised in that context..

But it 's actually you? I'm confused - what do you mean, precisely?


1. The Apollo craft's TLI began basically from the back of the planet (they were going in an orbit). Which means they would expand out into VABs earlier than what was plotted and consequently, had a good chance of hitting a hotspot.
2. The Earth is too big if that diagram represents both the outer and inner belt. Or the belts are too small.


So which is it? Please supply your 'correct' information, show us where the one given was wrong, and show us YOUR plot.

Otherwise, you are simply handwaving (not that you've ever done *that* before). Where's your proof? Where's your numbers? Who told you that Apollo TLI'd from the back of the planet - ummmmm ... was that ... NASA?

And you believed them???



AP8 comes from NASA (fox guarding the hen house).

So the only source for that data is NASA, Foosm? (No, it isn't). Why don't you provide references to the others who have measured this data, and show us how their models contradict the shown AP8 data..

What numbers would you like us to use, and WHY?


Go on, step up to the plate, FoosM, stop dancing around criticising and ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
1. Why the big deal about where it came from?
An examination of the image shows that it is only marginally bigger than the largest *easily* found image.


Hi, there's no real problem about where it came from, but If I reveal it, it's probably unlikely I'll be able to get any more images from that source.


Originally posted by CHRLZ
2. Can you or your 'source' explain why the EXIF data on the file states it was last edited in Photoshop CS3, a coupla days ago?


Not really. It's possible my source used CS3. I also use CS3, and when looking at the exif data from the original file, it also includes other info particular to me. Like hard drive location, computer name etc.

Without even opening the file, as I tested tonight by downloading the source file again and going to properties, it still includes local exif data, except the modified date changed to today. Maybe someone who knows a bit more about how windows 7 handles this data could explain.


Originally posted by CHRLZ
Note that I'm NOT suggesting you have changed the image in some way to further your cause, but I AM suggesting that something smells..


If I have to swear on everyone's lives that I love that this is an original image untouched by me, I will and I do.

edit: new rapidshare link in case the others stop working
rapidshare.com...

[edit on 17-6-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by CHRLZ
2. Can you or your 'source' explain why the EXIF data on the file states it was last edited in Photoshop CS3, a coupla days ago?


Not really. It's possible my source used CS3. I also use CS3, and when looking at the exif data from the original file, it also includes other info particular to me. Like hard drive location, computer name etc.

Without even opening the file, as I tested tonight by downloading the source file again and going to properties, it still includes local exif data, except the modified date changed to today. Maybe someone who knows a bit more about how windows 7 handles this data could explain.


Sigh... This is UNBELIEVABLY BASIC STUFF. The image has been RESAVED by *somebody* using Photoshop CS3. It is not an original scan. I don't know who did it or why, but it simply proves that you DO NOT HAVE THE FULL PROVENANCE OF THIS IMAGE.

Now if you wish to dodge and weave and say that you can't explain how it got the EXIF data attached to it that shows it has been in a image editor, and thereby remain ignorant and be potentially misled by others who may feed you falsified images in the future, feel free to do so. Like I said, I'm not suggesting it has been edited by you or anyone else to mislead, but it proves that it is not an original, and YOU SHOULD BE ASKING QUESTIONS.



Originally posted by CHRLZ
Note that I'm NOT suggesting you have changed the image in some way to further your cause, but I AM suggesting that something smells..


If I have to swear on everyone's lives that I love that this is an original image untouched by me, I will and I do.


I didn't ask you to do that, but if you love dramatics, go for it. SOMEBODY did it, YOU POSTED IT, but you don't care who or why.

Enough said.


Now, when are you going to comment on the issues I raised regarding that image, when will you be admitting that the first image you posted was interpolated (about which I will have more to say later..), and when will you be discussing the slow motion issues, that you now seem to have abandoned? Have you worked out that slowmo factor yet? Applied it to a good sampling of videos?

After criticising me (wrongly) for not doing what I say, I'd have to observe that there seems to be a little hypocrisy about...


And I see you still haven't had the intestinal fortitude to comment on anything I've posted to date about the radiation issue. Not your favorite any more?



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



2. The Earth is too big if that diagram represents both the outer and inner belt. Or the belts are too small.


Let's see... it's marked in "Earth Radii" and Earth is shown as being 2 units in diameter, so that checks. By your own citation, the radiation flux is greatest between 2 and 3 Earth radii, so that checks. What's fooling you is how close the insertion orbit seems to be to Earth. 200 miles is nothing.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted 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]


Well spotted


So he posted that 2 years ago so he should post that again sometime in mid 2012 will look out for it



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 




So you use CS3 how can someone who uses that KNOW so little about photography I take it its a PIRATE copy you have because if you paid for it you really wasted your money



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

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

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



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...




[edit on 17-6-2010 by CHRLZ]


You are so right! Exploding with laughter




So umm..... where is the SUN?






Thanks, further proof you guys want to expose the hoax as much as anybody else. I should give you a star for pointing that one out.



This is just too much



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by CHRLZ
1. Why the big deal about where it came from?
An examination of the image shows that it is only marginally bigger than the largest *easily* found image.


Hi, there's no real problem about where it came from, but If I reveal it, it's probably unlikely I'll be able to get any more images from that source.


Originally posted by CHRLZ
2. Can you or your 'source' explain why the EXIF data on the file states it was last edited in Photoshop CS3, a coupla days ago?


Not really. It's possible my source used CS3. I also use CS3, and when looking at the exif data from the original file, it also includes other info particular to me. Like hard drive location, computer name etc.

Without even opening the file, as I tested tonight by downloading the source file again and going to properties, it still includes local exif data, except the modified date changed to today. Maybe someone who knows a bit more about how windows 7 handles this data could explain.


Originally posted by CHRLZ
Note that I'm NOT suggesting you have changed the image in some way to further your cause, but I AM suggesting that something smells..


If I have to swear on everyone's lives that I love that this is an original image untouched by me, I will and I do.

edit: new rapidshare link in case the others stop working
rapidshare.com...

[edit on 17-6-2010 by ppk55]



Doesnt matter PPK55, even in the smaller images you can see a missing PLSS. And, as I pointed out, the shadow of that stand-in doll, or production crew member is all off. The hi-res image you provides simply confirms what is apparent for anyone without apollo blinders on. This chasing after the source for the higher rez picture is just a way distracting everyone.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You are being dense intentionally?

(Third time, we would all like to know...what IS your game?)


jra has just made it worse for you guys with his last post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


NO....jra tried to show YOU, but you continue to refuse to understand...why?


He posts two photos where
1. The ground is level


WHAT basis do you claim this? "level" ground?? The geometry of the shadows DISPLAY the fact that the ground has slope....maybe you confuse "flat" with "level"...is English your second language? Because, that could be the basic explanation for ALL of your puerile distracting "arguments"...



2. Height of the astronauts are similar
3. Photos from the same mission, possibly even the same EVA, though that shouldnt matter with the length of the lunar day.


2. YES...the heights of the Astronauts are similar. Little surprise there, it was an average adult male height...all of the Astronauts' heights were within a few inches of each other, but who cares? It isn't relevant, since NONE of the Astronauts were children, nor women, nor people of unusually small stature....


3. Photos from the same mission...YES, you can see the reference numbers in the link by jra!!

But then, rather than doing some research, you say "possibly" the smae EVA...couldn't be bothered to look it up, huh? Similar to the rest of your researching "skills"...

And, yes....due to the length of the Lunar 'day', the Sun's angle above the horizon changed only slightly during the entire mission's stay on the surface. We've covered that, thoroughly already.



...and clearly he shows us that we have two shadows of with extreme differences in length!


Yes...again, terrain slope. Did you just blow past the photo upthread, of the lines of trees, taken here on Earth, to show an example of what's being pointed out?

(Just in case you missed it first time, which seems rather likely):



***(Thanks to -PLB-'s billiant post here.)




So what do we have two SUNS?
JRA, do we have two suns??
Whats going on there?


Serious? No, it's facetious, I know ( ...at least, I hope(?) )

Certainly, anyone with even the barest level of awareness knows there is only ONE Sun in our Solar System....right??


And, if (someday) we are able to actually visit a planet that is in a binary star system, then objects on that planet will cast TWO shadows....THAT simple fact blows away EVERY "faked in a studio" claim ever put forth by the "hoax" ...errrmm... claimants....(I have another term for 'them', but it's not as nice as "claimants"...)






[edit on 17 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Tom, weedwhacker,
You two dont have a leg to stand on.
That slope would not have such an effect on that particular shadow.
You guys are just making wild assumptions about the terrain and its effects on shadows without any evidence to back it up. Hand waving, calling people names, etc aren't going to help you here guys.


jra has just made it worse for you guys with his last post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He posts two photos where
1. The ground is level
2. Height of the astronauts are similar
3. Photos from the same mission, possibly even the same EVA, though that shouldnt matter with the length of the lunar day.

and clearly he shows us that we have two shadows of with extreme differences in length!
So what do we have two SUNS?
JRA, do we have two suns??
Whats going on there?
Whats that... what did you mumble?
Fake photos you say??
Thanks JRA, I should give you a STAR



Its over for you guys. Your defending the indefensible.
But I get your strategy, your stealthly switching sides





I think we can undoubtedly rule out any and all photo interpretation done by Foos, either previously or in the future. Anyone so utterly, mind-numbingly dense as to not understand what a panorama is and how it is made is too stupid to determine anything of any worth from the Apollo pictures.

TWO SUNS?!? Do you realize how stupid that makes you appear?

Do you enjoy people laughing at you? Because that's what everyone except the true believers are doing right now.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join