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: 125
377
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by theclutch
I'll tell you why we have never landed a person on the moon! Ask yourself Why have we never been back?


You're not the first one to state the "Why haven't we been back?" question. The primary reason is funding or lack there of. I suggest you have a read through the thread.


Since 1969 we havn't had anyone walking around on the moon.


I'm confused. First you said we never landed anyone on the Moon. Now you're saying there hasn't been anyone on the Moon since 1969? Which is it? Also, there were six Apollo missions that landed on the Moon from '69 to '72.


By now we should have a base up their mining for gold/water/copper/oil/ect/ect/ect. Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to mine for minerals on the moon and then launch sattelites from there?


Had NASA's funding continued to remain high, then yes, there probably would be a Lunar base by now. But unfortunately things didn't work out that way. NASA's funding was cut and NASA's goals were redirected to something more affordable, like operating a reusable Shuttle in LEO.

Mining on the Moon would not be cheaper. Where do you get the impression that it would be? The same goes for launching satellites. You'd first have to transport the satellite or satellite parts to the Moon, but if you're doing that, you might as well just launch it from Earth and be done with it.


Also, did we land a flag on the moon and claim it as the sole property of the un-united states of america?


No. Planting a flag is not an official claim of ownership.


NO Other country in the world has landed and walked around the moon.......


Maybe it's because no other Country can afford to get there?


Hmmmmmm maybe it's because they Can't even get out of the megnetosphere without frying up and dying. PERIOD The solar radiation would kill them


Could you supply your evidence that the various kinds of radiation would fry and kill you? What kind of radiation would do that specifically and how much of that radiation would it take?

You should read through this thread, however. Everything you've brought up has been covered and discussed already.




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Brilliant. Are we supposed to start posting Youtube videos of Jarrah White with "thought bubbles" over his head saying witty things like "I hope nobody notices I've wet my trousers" in order to sink to your level? Perhaps claim that when you play the tape of him saying "It's an obvious fraud" backwards it actually says "I'm a girly man?" Please think about how low you've sunk. If you had a snowball's chance on Mercury of convincing anyone, you've thrown it away in your desperation.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
That said, there is evidence of wires being used in some NASA footage. The strange movement of the astronauts falling and getting up


I don't see any evidence of wires being used in those videos at all. However it does indeed look strange when the fall and get back up. But then I would expect it to look strange, with them working in stiff spacesuits in a 1/6th G environment on the Moon.


Context.
See your mind is trying to rationalize it.
You dont know know how somebody should move on the moon in a pressurized suit.
Your guessing based on the only claim of people being on the moon from NASA.
Supposedly its difficult to move and hold objects, yet we have seen as astronaut grab hold of a feather and drop it in unison with a hammer.
Strange enough the feather didnt stick to his glove.
How much pressure would he have to exert to keep the feather in place, how tiring to do so?
And what about golfing on the moon?



Also, it's not just the astronauts that would need to be on wires, if you were to fake it. Everything the astronauts drop or toss away would also need to be on wires. That's going to make for one tangled mess. And lets not forget about the dust that gets kicked around. How does one fake the dust so that it appears that it's in a vacuum at 1/6th G?

----
Context.
Your assumption that those objects are in the same space.
Your assumption that those objects are what they say they are.
The dust that kicks around, what proof do you have that it lands anywhere?
Your assumption that special effects weren't so special in the 1960's when they
were pretty good since the 1930's to pull off all those effects.
Is it even possible for you to play Devil's advocate?




If they had a little bit more money, time and resources, they could easily recreate the images that NASA had made. But because you know its fake, you see it as fake.
In other words, the context the information is provided will determine how you scrutinize it.


The problem I have with comparing that Rammstein video to actual Apollo footage is that firstly, they barely did anything. All the shots are no longer than a second or two, they barely move around. There is no jumping around or bunny/kangaroo hopping, so that saves them from having to attempt any wire work, as it generally looks bad. They just stand there in the spacesuits, playing there instruments, attempt to assemble a flag, play a Star Trek pinball machine, etc.

Big. Freaking. Deal... What I'd like to see some one do is attempt to recreate all the things they did on Apollo. Uncut shots that go on long periods at a time. 360 degree pans. Everything (and I mean EVERYTHING, not just the astronauts) acting and reacting like it's in a vacuum and at 1/6th G.

I have yet to see anyone attempt that. The Rammstein video doesn't even come close. They didn't even do a fraction of the things you see the Apollo videos. While context might play a roll in how we scrutinize something, it barely does in this case. They simply did not do most of the stuff done on Apollo, even with access to current special effects. They're not comparable at all.

----
My point is made. If Rammstein had a better budget and more time.
And why hasnt anybody else made a move about Apollo? Because the landings weren't special enough to make a movie from. Only Apollo 13 had the drama worthy of a big budget film. And I doubt anybody would say they couldn't recreate all the effects in being in space. But most of the special effects used in Apollo have in one way been done in various movies and programs.

Another thing, your making it sound like there were many special things going on on the moon. There wasn't. Most shots were static, most activities were mundane. You say Rammstein didnt do much but put a flag up, well thats basically what they did on Apollo.

360 pans could easily be done on a set. What you are saying is not so special at all. In other words Big Freaking Deal.




For example, take these images, I bet nobody can see how these are any different than other NASA photos. Can you see what makes them fake?


No, could you just state what you think makes them fake and why?

Here are links to the originals for anyone who wants them.

AS11-40-5928
AS11-40-5930

-----
I asked first.
And I want to see if anybody else can see it.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
double post

[edit on 28-6-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   


Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by theclutch
I'll tell you why we have never landed a person on the moon! Ask yourself Why have we never been back?


You're not the first one to state the "Why haven't we been back?" question. The primary reason is funding or lack there of. I suggest you have a read through the thread.


Thats right read through it, watch JW's videos and you will see, the reason why they wont go back because they will have a problem proving they can. The US simply cant be the sole supplier of info like they did with Apollo, many countries can now independently verify launches and transmissions from the moon. Its just too difficult to fake, thats why the push has been to go to Mars or Asteroids, such endeavors where NASA can claim the excuse, 'we cant go until we solve the radiation problem. '








By now we should have a base up their mining for gold/water/copper/oil/ect/ect/ect. Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to mine for minerals on the moon and then launch sattelites from there?


Had NASA's funding continued to remain high, then yes, there probably would be a Lunar base by now. But unfortunately things didn't work out that way. NASA's funding was cut and NASA's goals were redirected to something more affordable, like operating a reusable Shuttle in LEO.

Mining on the Moon would not be cheaper. Where do you get the impression that it would be? The same goes for launching satellites. You'd first have to transport the satellite or satellite parts to the Moon, but if you're doing that, you might as well just launch it from Earth and be done with it.


----

NASA's funding was always high.
But they squandered it on LEO missions.
NASA could have, and can still, join up with other countries on shared a mission to the moon.
Wiki the countries who plan to visit the moon by 2020-30.
And regarding mining on the moon, well the movie MOON showed us how it could be done. But more than that, eventually costs would go down, and space exploration would be opened up, because we have more resources to mine. Right?


But the whole budget thing brings me to this declaration:

The trip to the moon was impossible because it was financially unfeasible.


Yeah thats right. I recall watching that movie 'Sunshine' where those guys tried to jump-start the SUN. And in the movie they said, they basically used up all of Earth's resources to make a craft capable of going to the Sun. So what if the same was for the moon since everybody keeps bringing up the whole money problem about going to the moon. Maybe that was the real problem. The US couldn't afford it. It makes sense right? The US just had gone through WW2, Korea, and Vietnam was a growing issue. It was just too expensive. Just like now. They didnt have the budget for it.

I want to seriously know:
1. Who here is willing to pay extra taxes to go to the moon, and how much?
2. How much do you realistically think a mission to the moon will cost?
3. What programs would you recommend cutting, if necessary, to pay for the trip?
4. What countries or space agencies would you recommend working with to accomplish the mission?
5. Where do you think the public stands on a return trip to the moon? In favor? Against?
6. If in favor, why not dont you think there is a grass roots push for it to happen? Or which candidate would you need to support to make it happen?
7. Will going back to the moon generate jobs? Generate income for the country? For the world? In other words, what could the positive effects be for sending men to the moon?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Question -

Why is every picture of the moon I've ever seen in black and white?

The only color to be found is from the astronauts and their equipment.

My common sense tells me there should be at least some native colour there.

Am I being dense and/or just missing something?

Can someone please straighten me out if I'm looking at this wrong?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skylonda
Question -

Why is every picture of the moon I've ever seen in black and white?

The only color to be found is from the astronauts and their equipment.

My common sense tells me there should be at least some native colour there.

Am I being dense and/or just missing something?

Can someone please straighten me out if I'm looking at this wrong?


Alot of photography was black and white.
On could say the bright sun washed out many of the colors
But there were descriptions of say orange soil



145:28:25 Cernan: How can there be orange soil on the Moon?! (Pause) Jack, that is really orange. It's been oxidized. Tell Ron (Evans) to get the lunar sounder over here.



This false-color photograph is a composite of 15 images of the Moon taken through three color filters by Galileo's solid- state imaging system during the spacecraft's passage through the Earth- Moon system on December 8, 1992.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skylonda
Question -

Why is every picture of the moon I've ever seen in black and white?

The only color to be found is from the astronauts and their equipment.

My common sense tells me there should be at least some native colour there.

Am I being dense and/or just missing something?

Can someone please straighten me out if I'm looking at this wrong?


Wait until it is night
Go outside
Look at the moon
What color is it?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by theclutch
By now we should have a base up their mining for oil


Oil?
On the Moon?
Good Idea, but how to get all those dead dinosaurs up there?

[edit on 28-6-2010 by debunky]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


For the benefit of people who have skipped ahead on the thread to this page, I am going to deal with this one separately:


I asked first.
And I want to see if anybody else can see it.


Yes, you did ask first. And you could neither understand nor admit the possibility that you were simply wrong, so you asked again... and again... and again. Here, pretty much at random, is a relatively recent exchange about these photos. Please, just because Jarrah White hasn't learned the basics of light, shadow and perspective doesn't mean you can't, FoosM:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Ladies and gentlemen...



We're going to try this one more time...

Post to the topic, not each other.

...and that topic would be

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

The personal commentary/shots stops.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I think you're looking at these images at a very different depth to me. No offense, but most of the links you've provided are straight from a google search, so its difficult to explain through lots of copy and pasted information from other sources.


Originally posted by FoosM
"The modern technique"


This is picking words a bit from google. What you have to understand is that previously the wires were all visible and they just tried to minimize how much you could see.



Most of the footage for Apollo was shot on Video as far as I can tell.
Look at the movie Capricorn One for the slo-mo technique used for via video.
Truthfully, Im not sure if it was even possible (ramping speed) on video at the time, but I dont see why not.


Apollo wasn't shot on video. I know video when I see it. It was shot on Kodak 16mm film.

Capricorn One was DEFINITELY not shot on video. It was shot on 35mm film - I can tell you this without looking it up. There are a plethora of reasons why slow motion was not possible on video. Identifying the differences between types of video and film is a basic skill in this industry.



Again, for the 16mm footage, where do you
see the need for wires or other special effects?
How many reels of film did the astronauts take with them?
This would limit the amount of footage they would have to fake.


The average film can take several thousand meters of film - Apollo missions allegedly had many times this. Slow motion would cause problems with this. Allegedly they took 33 reels. The need for wires is fairly simple ... Time isn't just slowed down in these shots - there are moments where objects move at different speeds than would be expected in a standard 2x slow down or similar. Therefore some mix of wire and slow motion effects would have to be present along with various mattes and comps of multiple footages. Jump around in a circle and film it and see what it looks like ... Your knees will bend due to your own weight without wires. It won't look like the moon landing. You could slow it down, but that's not going to work either. Try it.



Another thing they could have ramped the speed up or down at will when shooting on film. They didnt need to film all the sequences slo-mo ...


This is a complex topic and isn't as simple as you think. Movement has to be recorded in a certain way to look natural. There are formulas for this. Speeding up and slowing down when you feel like it will look like a Charlie Chaplin film. Even in digital film there are strict rules on how to produce these effects to have something that doesn't look awkward an un-natural since the end product has to fall into a set number of frames. So yes, they would have had to plan their slow motion shots - no doubt about it.


Also, can you find me full quality NASA 16mm videos?


It concerns me that you're debating this subject without viewing a full resolution copy of the subject matter. There are many places you can purchase or acquire non-youtube footage and unedited versions of these films.


... if you know its a fake, then you see the mistakes, if you think its real your mind rationalizes what you see.


Again ... you're looking at a completely different perspective from myself. From a consumer perspective, yes you're right. From a professional perspective you're wrong. VFX artists are not trained to make things look 'real' they're taught to make them look pleasing. I would be alarmed if people landing on the moon looked pleasing. You've been brought up on pleasing imagery and in this case it makes you feel like something is 'wrong'. VFX artists are trained to avoid this.

Therefore in the first place VFX artists aren't taught to make picture perfect imagery. A quick glance at my scopes I can often tell if a piece of footage has been touched, and persons more skilled than me can tell exactly how just with just maths.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by Pinke]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Sorry for the double posts but with the quoting it takes up lots of space.

To conclude though ... I think some persons really need to go back to the drawing board before joining this debate. It's often why true experts stay away from topics such as this, and 'experts' like to cash in. The media loves a 'what if' - 'we landed on the moon!' doesn't sell seats. We 'maybe didn't' does. But you have to look at these people's credentials and knowledge.

Some person with no background knowledge in lens flares claiming it's a reflection off a wire ... it's flimsy at best and it's difficult to summon the energy to discount all of these claims one by one.

I can summarize some information I have time for though ...

Real experts have something much more than 'look at that' - they know exactly what they're looking at. If they don't, they find out.

Creating a convincing VFX such as a sci-fi tower or an explosion - difficult but not too hard, and often the more insane it looks and the more it interacts with the camera the more people will 'believe' it.

Creating reality ... As much as people don't believe it, or don't want to admit human limitation it's considerably harder. It's not just a matter of a bit of clone tool and photoshop. We're talking about matching grain pixel by pixel perfect. Front stage projection with grain removed and reintroduced just right with no artifacts. Distances matched perfectly to focal length to create perfect depth of field. Wire painting jobs that are so perfect that they even stand up to several mathematical scopes and interpretations. Slow down work that you can't detect at all on any format. Lights which hit the convection of a lens just right. Replicated a 'moment' of a lens. Not a lens in general but that exact lens precisely.

This isn't what artists do - we create nice images not perfection. We have a rule we live by - if it looks right, it is right. If these images are faked then this rule wasn't followed. Some kind of rule of awesome perfection was. This stuff doesn't get taught.

I find people are often disrespectful of the field I work in - especially lay persons with tiny small amounts of knowledge. I hate to sound arrogant, but they assume it's a little photoshop, a little splash of this, and anything can be hoaxed or hidden. There is so much more to it than that, and I'm not special or important or anything.

What you have to understand is most of these questions go unanswered because the answers themselves are complex. I'd say if you're truly interested in this field as a passion begin learning it right now seriously. No more just glancing at a handful of images and vaguely guessing or alluding to what might be going on ... really understand what a pixel is, how its formed, and how it moves then you have a much higher chance of finding some form of truth.

Will warn you though, is a addictive and drives you nuts some days.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I told you DJW001
Im hitting it from all angles.
Thats how I do.


In other words, you're thrashing about like a drowning man. You never have formed a coherent theory, have you? Just a few pages ago you made the following statement:


I said long time ago that the science behind Apollo is probably sound...


In other words, you admit that it is physically possible to go to the Moon. Presumably you made this admission to avoid having to deal with things like radiation, celestial mechanics, rocket thrust, etc. Subjects well beyond the comfort level of someone who doesn't understand how shadows are cast.

Now you make the following curious assertion:


The trip to the moon was impossible because it was financially unfeasible.


At least you had the caution to use the word "unfeasible" rather than "impossible." Right, then explain how creating a vast bureaucracy and industrial complex that is forced to work in a piecemeal, compartmentalized "need to know" fashion is economically feasible? I seem to recall you citing the Manhattan Project as a model. So in addition to the expense of building and launching gigantic (and trust me, very real) rockets, they have the added expensive of doing everything in the most complicated, inefficient manner possible. If actually going to the Moon is financially unfeasible, building all the hardware and then not doing it while creating the longest. most complicated film in history while wearing a blindfold is preposterous.

Note: I wanted to provide a link to the exact quote, but this thread is so long I eventually gave up!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Skylonda
Question -

Why is every picture of the moon I've ever seen in black and white?

The only color to be found is from the astronauts and their equipment.

My common sense tells me there should be at least some native colour there.

Am I being dense and/or just missing something?

Can someone please straighten me out if I'm looking at this wrong?


Alot of photography was black and white.
On could say the bright sun washed out many of the colors
But there were descriptions of say orange soil



145:28:25 Cernan: How can there be orange soil on the Moon?! (Pause) Jack, that is really orange. It's been oxidized. Tell Ron (Evans) to get the lunar sounder over here.



This false-color photograph is a composite of 15 images of the Moon taken through three color filters by Galileo's solid- state imaging system during the spacecraft's passage through the Earth- Moon system on December 8, 1992.



Your link doesn't work. Try this one:

www.solarviews.com...


When this view was obtained, the spacecraft was 425,000 kilometers (262,000 miles) from the Moon and 69,000 kilometers (43,000 miles) from Earth. The false-color processing used to create this lunar image is helpful for interpreting the surface soil composition.


www.solarviews.com...

You do know what a "false color image" is, of course:


...false-color images can be generated by digital image processing techniques to represent up to three independent measurements over a two-dimensional map or image. For example, a satellite might capture average intensities in short ranges of the ultraviolet spectrum and the near infrared spectrum. These measurements can be combined with altitude information in such a way that blue represents ultraviolet, green represents altitude, and red represents infrared. Then a bright yellow pixel indicates a high-altitude object that emits or reflects infrared light but not ultraviolet light; a magenta pixel indicates a low-altitude object that emits or reflects both infrared and ultraviolet light; etc. Because human visual perception is limited to three independent coordinates (Combination of Red, Green and Blue) at most three measurements can be depicted in such a way.


lmgtfy.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Ladies and gentlemen...



We're going to try this one more time...

Post to the topic, not each other.

...and that topic would be

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

The personal commentary/shots stops.


Quite right. Sorry. I'll try to address the issues raised and not the delivery.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by theclutch
By now we should have a base up their mining for oil


Oil?
On the Moon?
Good Idea, but how to get all those dead dinosaurs up there?

[edit on 28-6-2010 by debunky]


Glad you brought this up.

Who says oil comes from dinosaurs.


Another of those myths and misconceptions that to do this day you
can find in science books. Ask yourself why.

Currently the research and the evidence is pointing to oil being abiotic:



It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time explaining any such documented phenomena.


You see how people just take information for granted?
I grew up thinking oil came from fossils.
I grew up thinking oil is finite.
Well its not, not finite as we know it.

Thats why I question everything that doesnt make sense to me.
I am a victim of western education and propaganda.
This includes Apollo.
I can no longer accept long held "facts" as being facts when the source
is suspect.

If the US could put men on the moon,
they would have built military bases.
Its an opportunity they wouldn't have let slip away
knowing that soviets could do the same.

In other words, by proving that you can land a man on the moon
The US opened the door for their rivals to do the same.
And controlling the moon means controlling the Earth.


Massively off topic, so I'll let it slide.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join