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: 115
377
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
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...



Why dont you just admit you are a sore loser CHRLZ.
You are not doing your side any favors.




Originally posted by CHRLZ
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.


Gotcha.

You just providing that PAN to that poster- BlasteR- daring him to match or find mountains etc from the photos he had questions about.

Well if the PAN you provided was incomplete, altered, edited you basically set him up for failure didnt you? Instead you should have provided an unedited PAN and warned him the pan was not fully 360 degrees.

So now when I questioned you about where the SUN was, in that PAN it, took you how many posts to come up with some convoluted answer about the image being edited? You had to first go through a whole stupid post about shadows and perspective when in fact the image was edited! CHRLZ you look like a fool. And thats why you and so many others like you make me
so much. You think I dont know those NASA photos have been altered and edited?




[edit on 19-6-2010 by FoosM]




posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Wireframe in the '60's?



Yup.

Good WireFrame Too.

Good enough to help fake the EVA portion of mission and ensure you get your shots lined up right.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Gotcha.

You just providing that PAN to that poster- BlasteR- daring him to match or find mountains etc from the photos he had questions about.

Well if the PAN you provided was incomplete, altered, edited you basically set him up for failure didnt you? Instead you should have provided an unedited PAN and warned him the pan was not fully 360 degrees.

So now when I questioned you about where the SUN was, in that PAN it, took you how many posts to come up with some convoluted answer about the image being edited? You had to first go through a whole stupid post about shadows and perspective when in fact the image was edited! CHRLZ you look like a fool. And thats why you and so many others like you make me
so much. You think I dont know those NASA photos have been altered and edited?



Only someone very ignorant about photography would not know that those panorama images are edited images by definition (unless you use a 360 camera).



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



So now when I questioned you about where the SUN was, in that PAN it, took you how many posts to come up with some convoluted answer about the image being edited? You had to first go through a whole stupid post about shadows and perspective when in fact the image was edited! CHRLZ you look like a fool. And thats why you and so many others like you make me
so much. You think I dont know those NASA photos have been altered and edited?



If anybody still reading this thread needs any more proof that Foos knows NOTHING about photography or Apollo, the highlighted sentence proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Foos doesn't know what a panoramic photo is. And that he is STILL pointing his blatant ignorance out to everyone without a hint of embarrassment tell us how clueless he really is.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


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!!!


Here is my take on it:


Hey, I can draw on photos too!


Blue arrows show the general direction of the shadows.
You, (well maybe you wont) will notice that shadows of the Astronaut and his tripod thingy are going from bottom left to upper right (especially clear from the right foot/leg shadow crossing over to the left foot). While shadows of the surrounding are generally going from upper left to bottom right. A complete contradiction. Near the foot of the astronaut I have a black arrow pointing to what direction his shadow should be going based on his surroundings.

Just look at the astronaut, take him out of the picture, see how he is lit, and you can imagine what direction the shadow should be going and how thick it would be.

Yellow arrows, matching shadow to astronaut and his tripod thingy. Red question mark, where is the shadow of the camera, which is clearly lit and should cast a shadow on the ground like the object jutting from the astronaut's leg?

Other red question marks:
three pointing open spots in what should be a solid shadow. Its not the space between the arms and the body because the left arm is in complete shadow witht the body. And from the right arm? Naahh. That would make the astronaut's body pencil thin. Even the shadow of the tripod thingy casts a shadow as thick as the astronaut's !

One pointing towards a boot print to show how deep of a footprint the astro can make. Meaning, the ground is very soft and full of powdery "regolith".
But then the other two arrows are showing that the Astronaut is barely if at all sinking into the regolith. How heavy is the astronaut? Didnt he just walk there, isnt he leaning? We should see at least a depression, or displaced dirt around his foot? Yes we should, but no we dont (just like the LM).

Red circle: what is that? footprint broken like its been hard baked with what looks like drawn indentation lines. Is that clay? it didnt brake along the boot print lines, the weakest points.

Conclusion, clearly a staged shot.
It appears to me like the Astronaut and his equipment were composited onto this image. And their shadows drawn or inked in. Therefore they dont match. Thats how you get shadows going into different directions like there are multiple light sources, but not double shadows due to multiple light sources. Its that simple.

But we will leave it for the audience to decide what is going on



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Hey, I can draw on photos too!



And that is where it ends.

Answer one question. If you thought a panoramic picture from the Apollo mission had not been "edited", how are we supposed to believe ANYTHING you say about Apollo or photography?

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with Apollo photography knows the format and capabilities of the cameras used, and they would automatically know the pan was not an original Apollo picture.

You, obviously, are not one of those people.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Originally posted by FoosM
But we will leave it up to the audience what is going on


Oh, I am quite certain the 'audience' already knows...yes, quite.

And, with those puerile photo dissection skills, I predict you can go places...far, far places. ( Watch out, 'JW"!! There's a new can o'whoop-azz headed your way!!!
)


Now, with your new-found "skills", and ability to completely make stuff up, whilst using cute, nicely done graphic arrows and question marks...here are a few more for you to show the "audience" how they have been faked/composited/shot-in-studio/ or whatever latest delusions are being spun, today....



Shame, I couldn't get that 'obvious' picture of hikers standing in regolith...instead, on hard rocks. BUT, as you can see, the shadows are so 'fake'...please show the "audience" what is "going on".

(I even heard a rumour that there were only TWO people on that fake "planet"!! Which brings up the obvious question...who snapped the pic??)

Here's one in sand...man, those stagehands worked real, real hard on ths one, eh???




Well, that one has a lot "going on" in it...this one is simpler. Sorry, the "regolith" is very flat to start, so it won't be as variated as the Lunar surface photo, but I'm sure you will do your usual 'superb' job of analyzing...


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, adding this...no need to analyize, it speaks for itself....









[edit on 20 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Why do you have the illusion you are able to make any analysis of an image like this at all while you have clearly shown you miss even the basic understanding of photography? Why would your analysis have any merit at all? You are simply seeing what you want to see. The arrows you draw make no sense at all. The shadows just don't go in the direction you draw the arrows. Anyone with any expertise or insight in the subject will tell you that. It is not even a matter of opinion, it is a matter of pure ignorance.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by FoosM
Gotcha.

You just providing that PAN to that poster- BlasteR- daring him to match or find mountains etc from the photos he had questions about.

Well if the PAN you provided was incomplete, altered, edited you basically set him up for failure didnt you? Instead you should have provided an unedited PAN and warned him the pan was not fully 360 degrees.

So now when I questioned you about where the SUN was, in that PAN it, took you how many posts to come up with some convoluted answer about the image being edited? You had to first go through a whole stupid post about shadows and perspective when in fact the image was edited! CHRLZ you look like a fool. And thats why you and so many others like you make me
so much. You think I dont know those NASA photos have been altered and edited?



Only someone very ignorant about photography would not know that those panorama images are edited images by definition (unless you use a 360 camera).


No its not, putting photos next to each other is not editing them!
All your doing is creating a representation of a physical space
Man why come with such a weak sauce response -PLB-, why did even bother?
You got Jarrah's videos being posted waiting for your debunking, and all you can come up is panorama images are by definiton edited images??? You feel like you won a point, that it proves Apollo was real?



And what does TOMBLVD have to say? Does he offer something indepth?


Foos doesn't know what a panoramic photo is. And that he is STILL pointing his blatant ignorance out to everyone without a hint of embarrassment tell us how clueless he really is



The same song and dance.
You guys are running out of steam!
Your grasping for anything to keep your precious Apollo dream a reality.
You guys having claiming that we are spamming, when we are delivering new content. All you guys do is sit back and play armchair quarterback looking for anything small to derail the discussion. Provide evidence that Apollo is real, thats what you should be doing! But you cant, because JW and the rest have answers for anything you can throw out there.
And NASA isnt helping your cause with all their "lost" evidence and contradictory statements


Body language of Lies:

Just look at Obama: 5:54


He knows Apollo is not real.
Thats why he gargles: 6:30 (about the space program)
Toungue in cheek: 7:00 (about being around for a crewed mars mission)


With mouth closed and tongue inside the mouth, you can still sometimes see what it is doing. Pressed against the cheek it can indicate thinking and uncertainty


When something is described as “tongue in cheek,” it means that it should not be taken seriously... This term appears to have originated in the 1800s, and it is a reference to the idea that one is pushing the tongue against the cheek to maintain a straight facial expression, or to prevent laughter which might give the joke away. Pressing your tongue against the side of your cheek can help to suppress a smile, and it's also hard to talk with your tongue in your cheek.

Stutters and stammers: 7:20 (about returning to the moon)


And in this video: 3:44


Tongue in cheek: 4:04 (about admiring certain Apollo/NASA people)

How rude



Yeah thats right Obama, lets just skip the moon because we have been there done that, thats like skipping the continents of the America because Christopher Columbus landed on the Dominican Republic. "Yeah Queenie, we've seen enough, nothing else for us over there..."



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

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

Dr West did say this of the VLT (very large telescope) array in Chile ... "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites"

So where are the photos of that 'something' at the landing sites 8 years later?

What I have discovered is a pattern over the years of the media unjustifiably promising new technology that will once and for all prove we went to the moon. I believe this only appeals to the average reader. They might say 'There you go, I told you we went.' after reading the articles below.

What doesn't happen with the main stream media is follow up.

For all the claims made that we'll be able to take photos of the 6 Apollo landers from telescopes on earth, none have eventuated.

What I am suggesting is this. The media issues a quote such as this

"The space telescope photographed the landing sites of Apollo 15 and 17." AAP Oct 19, 2005.
ottawa.ctv.ca...

Whilst the article doesn't purport that the Apollo vehicles will be shown in the photos, it would be reasonable to conclude that the average reader would infer that the new Hubble space telescope is indeed going to take photos that show the Apollo landing sites and what's there.

However as time has proven, we have no pictures of the landers or even their elongated shadows from these Hubble pictures.

To further prove this point;

2002: World's biggest telescope to prove Americans really walked on Moon
www.telegraph.co.uk...

"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."


2010: No conclusive photos


2005: Spacecraft to check out Apollo Moon sites
www.usatoday.com...

2010: No conclusive photos

2009: Proof! Probe photos of Apollo landing sites reveal to doubters that man DID walk on the Moon
www.dailymail.co.uk...

2010: No conclusive photos

So, in conclusion, the press says 'we're going to prove it.' People believe it. They never follow up. And here we are in 2010 none the wiser.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

No its not, putting photos next to each other is not editing them!
All your doing is creating a representation of a physical space


What does that even mean. A panoramic photo was posted and you thought is was a legitmate Apollo picture. End of story.

You thought a obvious edited photo was legit. That means you do not know what you are talking about.

Here is your entire post:


Originally posted by FoosM

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




Note that someone posted a link to a pan, and you went nuts asking "where is the sun?!" You didn't know that it wasn't a real Apollo picture.





But you cant, because JW and the rest have answers for anything you can throw out there.

Body language of Lies:


You mean lies like when Jarrah presented his TEACHER as an expert in perspective, and never bothered to correct the record?



(all attempts at changing the subject edited out)



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55


So, in conclusion, the press says 'we're going to prove it.' People believe it. They never follow up. And here we are in 2010 none the wiser.


The "press" says alot of things that never happen. Telescope time costs lots of money. Imaging the landing sites would be a waste.

Anyway, LRO said they would image the landing sites, they have done so well enough to prove conclusively Apollo happened as reported, and yet you ignore all their evidence.

Why in the name of God should we expect you to believe what comes from that telescope over all the other evidence?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

No its not, putting photos next to each other is not editing them!
All your doing is creating a representation of a physical space
Man why come with such a weak sauce response -PLB-, why did even bother?
You got Jarrah's videos being posted waiting for your debunking, and all you can come up is panorama images are by definiton edited images??? You feel like you won a point, that it proves Apollo was real?




This shows how little you really know. No, making a panorama from several images is not just putting them next to each other. All while you could have just taken a look at Wikipedia.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Here is my take on it:


Foos, you have created your masterpiece. One glance at that confusing mass of arrows provides a wealth of insight into the workings of your mind. Wmd drew five, simple straight lines that clearly indicate the direction of the light source, where the shadows fall and the (conjectured) slope of the terrain. You drew a jumble of random lines. You do realize that the shadow of the camera is behind the flat rock? You know, the one that is so evenly lit that it looks like flat ground? It would be impossible to light a scene to look the way you describe it with your arrows. There's a challenge for JW. He's a "film-maker." Why doesn't he actually set up a diorama and light it to match one of the "anomalous" photos? Because it can't be done. Anyone who knows the first thing about light and shadow can see that.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
There's a challenge for JW. He's a "film-maker." Why doesn't he actually set up a diorama and light it to match one of the "anomalous" photos? Because it can't be done. Anyone who knows the first thing about light and shadow can see that.


Oooooh! A diorama! Teachers love dioramas.

Maybe JW can get extra credit from his teacher/"perspective expert stand-in" for it.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 



Originally posted by FoosM
But we will leave it up to the audience what is going on


Oh, I am quite certain the 'audience' already knows...yes, quite.

And, with those puerile photo dissection skills, I predict you can go places...far, far places. ( Watch out, 'JW"!! There's a new can o'whoop-azz headed your way!!!
)


Now, with your new-found "skills", and ability to completely make stuff up, whilst using cute, nicely done graphic arrows and question marks...here are a few more for you to show the "audience" how they have been faked/composited/shot-in-studio/ or whatever latest delusions are being spun, today....


Shame, I couldn't get that 'obvious' picture of hikers standing in regolith...instead, on hard rocks. BUT, as you can see, the shadows are so 'fake'...please show the "audience" what is "going on".

(I even heard a rumour that there were only TWO people on that fake "planet"!! Which brings up the obvious question...who snapped the pic??)

Here's one in sand...man, those stagehands worked real, real hard on ths one, eh???

Well, that one has a lot "going on" in it...this one is simpler. Sorry, the "regolith" is very flat to start, so it won't be as variated as the Lunar surface photo, but I'm sure you will do your usual 'superb' job of analyzing...

And, adding this...no need to analyize, it speaks for itself....

[edit on 20 June 2010 by weedwhacker]






So... I suppose in the end you dont deny that the Apollo photo is a fake. Because... you haven't proven me wrong. Or do you think by posting all kinds of unrelated photos your chipping away at my analysis?

Like I said, you guys are running out steam... and ideas.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by FoosM

No its not, putting photos next to each other is not editing them!
All your doing is creating a representation of a physical space
Man why come with such a weak sauce response -PLB-, why did even bother?
You got Jarrah's videos being posted waiting for your debunking, and all you can come up is panorama images are by definiton edited images??? You feel like you won a point, that it proves Apollo was real?




This shows how little you really know. No, making a panorama from several images is not just putting them next to each other. All while you could have just taken a look at Wikipedia.


Yes or no, do you need to do image stitching to make a panorama?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So... I suppose in the end you dont deny that the Apollo photo is a fake. Because... you haven't proven me wrong. Or do you think by posting all kinds of unrelated photos your chipping away at my analysis?

Like I said, you guys are running out steam... and ideas


wmd's post proves you definitively wrong with five simple arrows. No words are necessary. Perform the diorama experiment if you can't see how woefully wrong you've been. We have been consistently affirming that the photo is real, so your perceptions of human behavior are as off kilter as your perception of light, shadow and space.

Edit to correct attribution.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Here is my take on it:


Foos, you have created your masterpiece. One glance at that confusing mass of arrows provides a wealth of insight into the workings of your mind. Wmd drew five, simple straight lines that clearly indicate the direction of the light source, where the shadows fall and the (conjectured) slope of the terrain. You drew a jumble of random lines. You do realize that the shadow of the camera is behind the flat rock? You know, the one that is so evenly lit that it looks like flat ground? It would be impossible to light a scene to look the way you describe it with your arrows. There's a challenge for JW. He's a "film-maker." Why doesn't he actually set up a diorama and light it to match one of the "anomalous" photos? Because it can't be done. Anyone who knows the first thing about light and shadow can see that.


Too many lines?
WMD drew five simple lines... I see, but he only focused on two objects in the picture (which were still contrary to each other). He didnt draw the lines showing how the other objects cast shadow. Well maybe he thought that if he would draw more lines you would just get confused.

Camera shadow is behind flat rock... what flat rock?
It looks like flat ground... Maybe because it is just flat ground.
And even if it was a rock, how high up off the ground would it have to
be to hide the shadow of the astronaut that is hovering over it?

Well going by what you are saying, I can see why its so easy to fool you and so many people with 1960's photography tricks.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


No you would not. But you would immediately notice it because the edges would not fit. The top or bottom would not be aligned (if you align top, the bottom would be wrong an vice versa, thats why you need to scale and deform the images). Some part of area would be shown twice (thats why you need to crop and deform the image). The colors would be different intensity (thats why you need to do brightness and contrast corrections.

This is like telling someone that 1+1=2 or the earth is a sphere. Can't you really think of all this yourself?

[edit on 20-6-2010 by -PLB-]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join