It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 114
<< 111  112  113    115  116  117 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:51 AM
PS - regarding exuberant1, clearly I shouldn't skim over his posts... When he mentioned wireframe, I figured he was talking about papier-mache-on-wireframe models.

But he was talking about wireframe CGI??????? In 1969?

Is it *possible* to be that ignorant about what technologies wereN'T around in '69?

S'gotta be a troll..

[edit on 18-6-2010 by CHRLZ]

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
I think you would agree that small dips and rises are not going to shrink or elongate a shadow of two feet to six feet.

Of course, but I noticed that you ignored the rest of what I wrote. Showing that station 13 wasn't even close to being level ground. I can only assume you agree with that.

The astronaut was standing on level ground, thats what counts.

But you, tom, weed, etc have offered no proof that:

should not have a longer shadow.

The shadow in that image probably is longer than it appears, due to the fact that we're looking at a reflection on a convex surface.

If the shadow was going toward us- maybe, but its not, so actually it would stretch even more!

And look at the astronaut who is actually in the picture, his shadow is also rather short. And yes, his shadow is on a slight slope, so Ill attribute some of the length to that, but it does seem to flatten out again. But not only that its very skinny compared to this shadow of the reflected astronaut. And check out his right boot!
WTF ?!
His boot casts a shadow but his leg doesnt ???

that big thick leg?
It just doesnt add up. Not when you look at the direction, size and shape the shadows made by the surrounding rocks and boot prints...


The more I look at this photo, the more it doesnt make any sense.
There had to be multiple light sources used because you got shadows going in all kinds of directions

That shadow of the Hasselblad is indicating that light is hitting it directly from above the astronaut and to the right or his right shoulder. Which would mean there shouldnt be a shadow cast on that big boulder- Light should be coming in !

Shadows on and from the astronaut is going away from us, shadows of boulders are coming towards us.
And on the ground shadow the Astronaut has holes!

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by CHRLZ

Is it *possible* to be that ignorant about what technologies wereN'T around in '69?

It goes to show you how little people know about technology and the evolution of such technologies.

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:49 AM
reply to post by FoosM

Wow...and yikes. All I can say about that

Here, this picture doesn't "look right" either. I wonder why....? I mean, those pictures on the wall, to the left...are the edges really curved like that? Or, are they really straight? And, the ceiling tiles, and lighting that a painting by Dali, or an Escher drawing

And the woman...WHERE IS HER SHADOW!!?? Obviously, the entire photo is faked, there are multiple light sources...totally fake, there is NO BUILDING on Earth with that shape....curved ceiling panels? Bah, humbug!!

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:57 AM
Hey just to give a heads up I found Wu777 posting in the 911 forum!

How long has it been since he posted in this thread?

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

So sorry guys, the proof is right there for everyone to see. You cant explain it away. And the more you try to do it, the more you reveal yourselves as ignorant propagandists.

Sorry Foos. You don't know what a panoramic picture is or how it is made. Nothing you say about photography can be taken seriously.

Sorry Tom, that I have twisted your brain into a pretzel that you dont know how to read posts anymore.

That was especially for you

I saw what you wrote earlier about me and once again its baseless nonsense. Try all you want, your on record once again proving to these raders that you dont know what you are talking about. Im glad I only know you through the internet, because in real life, I wouldnt trust you as far as I could throw you.

Then here is your quote from earlier. Please explain it.

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??

We're waiting.

Only an idiot wouldnt recognize...

So maybe I need to include for you... or any others who were waiting:

Understanding the subtlety of this usage requires second-order interpretation of the speaker's intentions. This sophisticated understanding is lacking in some people with brain damage, dementia and autism,[6] and this perception has been located by MRI in the right parahippocampal gyrus.

can we move on putting the final nails into Apollo?
Like with JW next videos!

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:18 PM
reply to post by FoosM

Foosm I wish they had a troll Bin button, because that is exactly where I'd file you!


posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by FoosM

can we move on putting the final nails into Apollo?
Like with JW next videos!

You haven't put the first nail in yet. For one thing, you need to have a falsifiable hypothesis of your own. How exactly was it faked? Prove that. Get the original negatives and show how they were tampered with. Get the testimony of a whistle blower. Find the master tapes used to fake the transmissions. Indicate which satellites were tasked with broadcasting the fake transmissions. As it is, all you've done is demonstrate a lack of imagination and inability to interpret light, shadow, reflections and a lack of knowledge about simple physics.

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by FoosM

Regarding "JW"s latest....a lot less lame than the others, except for his puerile whining at the beginning..."Sob, sob, oh poor me!" AND, the apparent adoration of Ralph Rene'...let it be said, it is never polite to revel in the news of someone's demise, but poor, deluded Ralph was ... well, addled is the best description. Not his fault, surely; it is just a tragedy that so many people were taken in by his rantings....however, with the sorry state of public education nowadays**, worldwide it would seem....well...

**(I thought this was a school project, initially? Are his teachers absent? Or, incompetent??)

So, rather than continue with the nonsense, the video actually seemed to FAVOR the reality of Apollo, after all! Quite the surprise. Weak at the end, with the continued and irrelevant bashing of Armstrong...shows a complete inability to grasp the nature of the man, and his continued desire to shun the spotlight. Actually, shows him to be more of a gentleman, in many ways.

However, during his ravings, HE, ("JW"), has the temerity to accuse people who call him out on his rubbish, and consistently show him for the fraud that he is --- "trolls"?

Oh, the 'ironing'!.....

What the boy needs is nothing more than a proper sit down, and a serious education, face to face...argumentum ad youtubum (I like that one!) is fruitless...all he needs is to be shown, from a structured curriculum of good science, where he misunderstands things, so horribly.

It's like this; there are several common fantasies that MANY on this planet have shared when young and uneducated, at least in Western cultures. (And, in others, with subtle variations). Most children are led to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny, just to name three, beginning from an early age...but with an education, they eventually realize that those iconic figures are merely designed for the simplified comprehensive abilities of youth...harmless diversions, mere toys. It is later, in the fullness of a better education, that the illogic, and truth, of such childhood dreams are revealed. Through scientific learning, and knowledge.

Oh, and the Stork, too, can't forget that one! (Although that fable is a creation of the cultural discomfort with things sexual...but, that's another topic in another area of discussion...)

[edit on 18 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM

Well you should do some checking.

If you do, you might come across print-outs of the models that were being used at the time. The only ones available to the public are from a later mission(s).

These 3D models were done in wireframe and allowed the operator to see what things would look like from a particular vantage point on the landing site.

They would enter in the coordinates on the model and would be able to see what the astronauts would see when they were standing there. These models were quite accurate in that regard.

Supposedly, they were done to help simulate the missions, not fake them... You know the score there.

And as you also probably know; these accurate computer models would allow one create accurate Moon sets where all the set pieces and simulated terrain/topographical features are positioned in such a way that the view for cameraman on set would be remarkably similar to what one would see on the part of the moon upon which the simulation is based.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Exuberant1]

so in between:

State-of-the-art realtime graphics


This work was seminal in Human-Computer Interaction, Graphics and Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs), Computer Aided Design (CAD)

The new company initially focused on the development of graphics applications, such as scene generators for flight simulator systems. These systems could render scenes at roughly 20 frames per second in the early 1970s, about the minimum frame rate for effective flight training. General Electric Company constructed the first flight simulators with built-in, real-time computer image generation, first for the Apollo program in the 1960s, then for the U.S. Navy in 1972. By the mid-1970s, these systems were capable of generating simple 3-D models with a few hundred polygon faces; they utilized raster graphics (collections of dots) and could model solid objects with textures to enhance the sense of realism (&see; computer graphics).

So watching this video...
how was it possible to generate that lunar landscape ?
Look how they managed to simulate the horizon and the distance so well!
It looks exactly like those videos they made. So tell me, whats the difference:


General Motors and IBM start developing the "DAC-1" system (Design Augmented by Computers). This system was presented in the Computer Detroit conference of 1964, and allowed a user to input a 3D description of an automobile, and then rotate it and view the image from different angles (first industrial CAD system used)

Fetter of Boeing creates the "First Man" digital human for cockpit studies (1960 or 1963?)

Wireframe in the '60's?
Yeah, why not:

Evans & Sutherland was doing in the 60s and 70s what SGI was doing in the 80s and 90s.

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by FoosM

Well...nice job, there.

You've actually done a nice one, and shown how Exuberant1's ideas are all wet...expecially the "wireframe" suggestion. Exub tried to implant the notion that the tech was so good, that all of the Lunar landing images were computer generated 3-D CGI, back in 1969 and continuing through 1972.

BUT, we see now what was actually cutting edge, then...cartoonish wireframe depictions.

The earlier video showed very well the bit about one of the Lunar surface scale models that was used...a terrain model built in real life, from countless photos, and even observations via telescope, from Earth.

The quality of the visuals in full-motion full-flight airplane simulators has improved tremendously since I first started in the early 1980s. Basically, they mounted a TV screen up front, and its screen was pointed downward, through a special lens so from the pilot's eye viewpoint, when seated properly, it was a (less than realistic) simulation of a nighttime scene...Today, much, much better, very realistic (but, obviously would never be mistaken for the real thing) with full wrap-around tech (in the Wiki link), etc.

They even...
... have programs the instructor/sim operator uses to re-created an entire airline flight scenario...visually. An airport terminal, a jetway, and a marshaller out there on the ramp, waving the red flashlight wands....taxiways, with simulated 'bumps' fed in to the motion control...all sorts of things. Conflicting traffic on the runway, for you to react in a runway incursion scenario, the list goes on and on...

The Apollo sim training was brutal, and extremely in depth...lots more to go wrong, for them, in a complex environment. The SimSup (Sim Supervisors) would come up with all sorts of failure scenarios, to test the skill and knowledge of the Astronaut pilots. In fact, each Sim session included the ENTIRE TEAM, everyone in Mission Control too....they had to, to be ready for the real deal.

Former MCC Gene Krantz wrote a book, Failure Is Not An Option, that recounts a lot of anecdotal recollections, fills in the details that most Internet Searches just don't provide.

If you want to know about modern flight simulators, I found this site for a company that sells them:

Of course, no prices listed...but, IF you have a spare $10 Million, (or more?) for the Sim, a proper building, the hydraulic machinery to operate it, sufficient electrical power circuits to run it, and the personnel to maintain it...well, have at it!

Oh, and here's a video...this is a pretty newer Sim...since it's a B-737-800.

Note the nighttime simulation....not the best quality video, but night is much easier to "fake" than daylight.

(Interesting they have recorded ATC stuff going on in the increase realism, I suppose. Never did that at my airline....we complied with the recent airline training circles, make it more like a "real" flight scenario, compared to the days of old...)

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 06:31 PM

Originally posted by CHRLZ
There seem to be a few (or is it just one?) persons having difficulty understanding the concept of a 'panorama'.

In this case, I mean a panorama in the sense of an image that shows a very wide angle of view.

Understanding of a panorama also involves *perspective*. Another concept that seems foreign to at least one person here. So, in the interest of education...

Here's a somewhat simplified diagram of me taking a panorama.

Can you see where the Sun is, and which way the shadows go?? (It's not to scale, but it will do...

To capture the final wide view I want, I will be taking several photographs, starting with pic 1. You'll notice that the shadow of the tree (yes, it's a tree, can't you tell?
) in pic 1 goes towards the RIGHT. Obviously. With me so far?

After I have taken pic 1, I turn a little to my left, and take pic 2. Then pic 3, and so on, until I have turned around completely, to take pic 6.

Now here's the tricky bit. As I am now facing towards the tree that was, originally, behind me, you will notice that to me (and the camera) the tree's shadow now falls to the ....


Really. Think about it. Look at the diagram and think about it. Why not go outside and try it yourself..?

So, BECAUSE OF MY ANGLE OF VIEW, I can magically make the shadows turn around!! Indeed, with a wide angle lens, you can get a similar effect in a single picture. That's what PERSPECTIVE does. (It actually does a lot more, but this is for Foosmanyone who doesn't understand, so I need to keep it simple.)

So, finally, to make my final panorama image I stitch all the images together. In my final image I end up with shadows going opposite ways, all in one wide view image. Sorta like this (pics 2,3,4,5 were a bit boring so I've left them out):

And, yes, when you are looking at a wide view...


[edit on 18-6-2010 by CHRLZ]

And all this proves what exactly? Why are you talking about shadows?
I asked you where the SUN is in that moonpan you provided CHRLZ.

Are you saying the pan was not complete? Is that it? And if so, how is it incomplete?

I see the sun here:

and here:

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 08:36 PM

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM

Foosm I wish they had a troll Bin button, because that is exactly where I'd file you!


No we would miss him after all he makes the hoax believers look like a bunch of Richard Heads

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by FoosM

Here are the images from which the panorama was constructed. The Sun flare was edited out for aesthetic purposes.

[edit on 6/18/2010 by Phage]

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:19 PM
reply to post by FoosM

At least show the full picture is this it

Red to link object and shadow
Blue to show direction of slope.

What you claim as no shadow for leg can't be seen because of slope.

Multiple light sources GIVE multiple shadows to EACH OBJECT were you asleep
a few pages back.

When someone tried to proves this and being a believer like you at that point
shot himself in the foot! See link.

The part of the boulder nearest the Astronaut is further out so cast a shadow
that you claim shold not be there YOU ARE BLIND!

The shadows of the boulders are not coming towards us.

The hole you claim is the gap between arm and body and if you zoom in on that
area you can see the ground slopes back towards the boulder in that area!!!

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:33 AM
FoosM, you'll be pleased to know that I will be refraining from replying to your ignorant postings beyond this one. If anyone else picks up the 'points' you raise and runs with them, fair enough.. but it is clear that either you really are incurably ignorant, or trolling. Either way, the uneducated drivel isn't worth the lengthy responses pointing out the flaming obvious...

But let's comprehensively prove that you have posted ignorantly, point by point:

Originally posted by FoosM
And all this proves what exactly?

It simply proves you do not understand perspective.

Why are you talking about shadows?

Why do you ask such silly questions??? Here are YOUR words from a few posts back:

if the shadow was going toward us- maybe, but its not...
his shadow is also rather short...
his shadow is on a slight slope...
its very skinny compared to this shadow...
His boot casts a shadow but ...
when you look at the direction, size and shape the shadows made...
you got shadows going in all kinds of directions...
there shouldnt be a shadow...
shadows on and from the astronaut is [sic] going away from us...
shadows of boulders are coming towards us...

That's ALL from just ONE post.... Why are YOU talking about shadows, FoosM?

I asked you where the SUN is in that moonpan you provided CHRLZ.

And that was another silly question. But before I address it, can I point out that you can't even repeat a link without screwing up. Your link doesn't work. Here's the CORRECT link:

That's 'antwrp', not 'antwp'.

So shall we analyse that image, FoosM? ... Too bad, I'm going to.

First up, the panorama was NOT put together by NASA. Frankly, NASA aren't very good at panoramas! It was done by a professional organisation ('Moonpans') that does 'artistic' panoramas. The images have been carefully stitched to together and edited to remove glare and lens flares. YOU WOULD KNOW THAT IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO CHECK THE ORIGINAL SOURCE IMAGES. No surprises there...

You'll also note that they have not only blackened the sky, they have added to it to give the image more 'headroom', again for artistic license... So to do any REAL analysing - the source images need to be referenced. They were from a sequence taken by Gene Cernan, starting AS17-145-22159 through to AS17-145-22183.

Getting back to the pano - it almost spans a full 360, but not quite. If you examine the source images (FoosM hasn't), and if you know your Apollo missions (FoosM doesn't), you'll see (and know) that the Sun is just out of the original shots, and it was above and a little left of the Lunar Rover. At the time of the images, the Sun was 28° above the lunar horizon. Given the focal length of the Zeiss lens in use, and the fact that the camera was clearly angled slightly downwards to get more lunar terrain than sky in the panorama, that would put it about 8-15° out of shot. Right where it should have been. If you examine the *source* images taken when the camera was pointing sunwards, you can see a lot of flare and glare - this has been taken out of the final panorama - in other words, the sky is somewhat faked! But remember, it's not NASA's doing - you can see exactly where the Sun would be in the NASA originals. The dark sky in the panorama is for artistic effect - Moonpans have done a superb job of editing the images to get the clean effect they ended up with. It's a very fine piece of panorama work - I doubt if I could have done better..

But let's answer your question anyway, FoosM. The sun would have been about HERE:

..near where the fake sky ends...
Note that I haven't positioned it exactly, but if anyone (other than FoosM!) gives a good reason for a proper photogrammetric analysis, I'd be willing to do so.

So, FoosM, happy? That's where the Sun *would* have been. You can even go back to the full size pano and look at the shadows to verify that (don't forget you can't just draw a straight line - PERSPECTIVE, remember?) and see how it all ties in. And the ONLY thing that could give that effect is a single, small, VERY distant, VERY bright light source.

Are you saying the pan was not complete?

I've already answered that - it covers approximately 358° horizontally, and about 55° vertically (the additional sky complicates it a little).

And it's another rather silly question - are panoramas only 'complete' if they show a full 360° - both horizontally and vertically? Most of my panos (land- and city-scapes) cover about 150-300°, and my clients seem happy... See how many panoramas you can find that are 'complete' - 360° in all directions... And then see if you can work out *why* such panoramas are extremely rare. *I* know why - do you? (It's quite relevant to the topic at hand..)

I see the sun here:

Wow, a link that works! Bravo.
Now, you acknowledge that is the Sun? That doesn't exactly tie in with your claims, FoosM.. Forgot which side you are on?

and here:

Wow, two in a row. Yep. If the panorama has not been edited in composition, and the Sun was low enough to be in shot, guess what. It appeared in the shot.

Maybe you ARE getting the hang of this, FoosM... But, let's not stop there.

Seeing YOU raised those two images, why don't you go and find out what the sun angle was, at the time they were taken (it's actually VERY easy to do), and then show us the mathematics.

I DARE you.

PS - By the way, FoosM, there's another trap set, in amongst the above (it's not the dare..). I reserve the right to (gleefully) respond if you fall headfirst...

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 03:28 AM
In Jarrah's brand new videos ... there is a really interesting one on why we haven't taken just one photo of any of the 6 lunar landers still on the moon from a ground based telescope.

This is part 7 of 7.

There is reference in this video to the article below. So what happened since this was published in the UK telegraph in 2002 ? nearly 10 years later ... and .. nothing ? still no pictures ?

They sounded so excited 8 years ago about being able to do it. What happened?


World's biggest telescope to prove Americans really walked on Moon

By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
Published: 12:01AM GMT 24 Nov 2002

Conspiracy theorists, you have a problem. In an effort to silence claims that the Apollo Moon landings were faked, European scientists are to use the world's newest and largest telescope to see whether remains of the spacecraft are still on the lunar surface.

Operated by European astronomers in the Chilean Andes, the VLT consists of four mirrors 27ft across linked by optical fibres. It can see a single human hair at a distance of 10 miles.

Trained on the Moon, such astonishing resolution should enable it to see the base of one or more of the six lunar modules which Nasa insists landed on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. Any images of the modules would be the first not to have been taken from space by Nasa.

Dr Richard West, an astronomer at the VLT, confirmed that his team was aiming to achieve "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites".

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 03:44 AM
reply to post by ppk55

Nowhere in that article does it say that the descent stages of the landers would be able to be discerned with the VLT.

This was covered a while ago here:

I have worked with Richard for some times (he was my thesis supervisor almost 20yrs ago) - the least I can say is that he was a very very careful gentleman, and that he very seldom issue anything like a bold statement. I can of course not claim he did not actually say that, but I have a suspicion that the journalists might have ... extrapolated a little what he said. This particular journalist does not strike me as very accurate (cf the notes in the above texts about the factual errors).

In any case, I am really sorry, but the observations would not work, if they were ever attempted. It is one of the most frustrating issue with interferometry: it works well only for small things on a dark background. Anything extended adds noise, but no details can be seen on it.

But, as with the images from LROC, on astronomer was dead on the money with this statement.

Dr Robert Massey, an astronomer at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, said that the conspiracy theorists are unlikely to be deterred by photographic evidence.

[edit on 6/19/2010 by Phage]

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 04:01 AM
PPK55 - this is simply disgraceful behavior. Apart from the continuous spamming of Jarrah's videos (has he popped over to your place to say thanks?- after all you both come from Sydney............), you are now VERY CLEARLY refusing to debate the issues you 'raise'. For example (and I'll be providing more) you have refused to discuss the slow motion issue.

And as for this latest piece of gutter slime youtube manure, this subject has been debunked completely every time it has been raised. You are either fully aware of that and are PURELY spamming, or are completely ill-informed and should go pick a topic that you can actually handle.

As far as I am concerned, this is very poor behavior and against the spirit of this forum.

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 04:33 AM
Some specifics about PPK's behavior - these are from just the FIRST PAGE of all his posts here:

4/5/10 1:56am
PPK claimed that Jarrah interviewed "respected professionals". Yet the only such interview PPK/JW has shown to date was of an arts teacher doing it for his school project! That same arts teacher has since not only agreed that she was unqualified to comment, she even pointed out that pretenses such as this showed how easy it was to dupe people. PPK has been notably quiet on this deliberate deception.

11/5/10 2:03am
PPK claimed that "There is no way in hell they would have traversed 7kms, say 5 miles, from the 'lander'. but they apparently did." When the correct figures and the safety margins were posted, PPK refused to comment or admit his/JW's error.

11/5/10 2:34am
PPK claimed that "how did they keep that high gain antenna .. on the rover pointed in the right direction all the time". When it was pointed out that they simply had to resight it (after each traverse) towards the completely unmoving earth (you know, that very bright blue thing up in the sky) - a process that takes less than a minute - he did not admit his error.

18/5/10 3:07am
PPK posted JW videos with absolutely no supporting comments - PURE SPAM.

That was just the first page. It gets worse...

new topics

top topics

<< 111  112  113    115  116  117 >>

log in