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: 129
377
<< 126  127  128    130  131  132 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, what makes those photos fake.
Real simple, looking through the videos and photos of Apollo 11 I distinctly noticed that the horizon seems to cutoff at a short distance. And it was those photos that made it really stand out


The surface isn't perfectly flat. There is a small rise that the shadow is on. It's blocking our view of the horizon. The photos taken from further away are not as obscured by the small rise. Plus the last photo you posted (AS11-40-5961) looks to be on slightly higher ground as well.

There are also plenty of other photos that show the horizon beyond that small rise. Plus there are a lot of photos taken from within the LM looking out in that direction.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by jra]


Regarding the surface:
In order for the horizon to stop, it must be higher than the camera.
You say there is a slight rise, I dont see it myself, but regardless, how much of a rise are you talking about, and where can we see this rise clearly?

Because I dont see it here:


I dont see a depression where Neil could have been to lower the camera below the horizon here:

There is a clear crater in the distance, but I doubt he was in that.

I dont see it here:


So that cannot be the explanation.
They have settled on a very level surface.

Regarding other photos showing space behind the LM, sure there are but they have the same problem, like this one:



That horizon is really not going to far.

And, it could be the LM was positioned around the set to make the space look bigger than it was. That could explain why they didnt bother to create a crater. Because they would have to keep doing it over and over.

For the pictures with an extended horizon you have to go look at the next magazine.
Where they are in the LM, well of course their view would be limited so the set can be more controlled.

The more I look at the Apollo 11 record, the more I see how limited the documentation of the event really was. None of the photos I have seen translates to an 'OMG thats a big set' they would have create to fake it.

And even so, we have already shown that NASA had no problem making big set pieces for their "simulations" :

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Or here:


Blasting craters for a new section of the Cinder Lakes outside Flagstaff, Ariz. (July 1968). USGS Astrogeology constructed a mockup of a section of the moon’s Sea of Tranquillity in a cinder field to aid with training and time-and-motion studies. USGS Astrogeology Science Center image




now thats huge.

None of the photos required any wires, because there was no jumping by any astronauts. I find the fact we see no motion in the astronauts telling. Everything looks still and composed.

Nothing there that can verify they actually were on the moon.




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Where did you find that mir image?


Space.com....here is the direct link and the site has many more images of mir.

Just so you know that they are in space, and not outside in a training simulator, here is the caption from nasa about the picture.


Mir Living in a Tin Can Russian Cosmonaut Valery Polyakov is seen in Mir's port from shuttle Discovery during the STS-63 mission in February 1995. Polyakov -- who boarded the station on Jan. 8, 1994 -- left the orbiting outpost after a 438-day mission, the longest human space flight ever - NASA


Heres the direct link...Mir hatch open in space

Take care Exuberant

Peace

[edit on 2-7-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


I'm sorry???


Are you sitting there and telling everyone you actually believe that the photo you showed is of an OPEN PORTHOLE on MIR???

Really?? I believe your sense of perception is flawed....do you see that hinged cover? Here, same shot, reversed, not so heavily cropped:



See? Those are COVERS....the porthole does NOT open! It is a window! It has an exterior cover....for protection during the launch, probably (will have to research MIR history). Could be used for sleep periods, too...IF that is where they slept...to make it dark, ya know? So they didn't have the Sun popping in every 90 minutes while they were trying to sleep.....

Honest, this is kinda sad, to bring this up, and try to tie it to the Moon landing "hoaxes"....




[edit on 2 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I don't know why you feel it's necessary to continue to look so foolish...do you get some weird kick out of it?

You linked a lot of photos, all perfectly explainable...and there can be many, many examples right here on Earth to show exactly why you are so, so wrong....why do you do it? It's just silly, at this point...and a little sad too.


But...let's look at this picture, for instance:



Is this a movie set? Or, is it real??

See where the footprints go of into the distance, on the left? That is a small rise, and the ground dips away...the effect is to fore-shorten the horizon...it's an optical illusion, of course. ANYONE who has two eyes and has been on Earth has seen this effect countless times...

In this case, of course, the dunes and hills BEHIND that first little dip are high enough to be visible...BUT, the photographer could have lowered the camera, or just pulled back a bit, and IF there was another slope behind him, then the rise in front --- not very steep, as you can see -- could possible obscure the distant dunes.

How difficult is this to comprehend?? WHY is this such a problem??





[edit on 2 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

See where the footprints go of into the distance, on the left? That is a small rise, and the ground dips away...the effect is to fore-shorten the horizon...it's an optical illusion, of course. ANYONE who has two eyes and has been on Earth has seen this effect countless times...

In this case, of course, the dunes and hills BEHIND that first little dip are high enough to be visible...BUT, the photographer could have lowered the camera, or just pulled back a bit, and IF there was another slope behind him, then the rise in front --- not very steep, as you can see -- could possible obscure the distant dunes.

How difficult is this to comprehend?? WHY is this such a problem??

[edit on 2 July 2010 by weedwhacker]


thanks Weed for helping me prove my point


Now it looks much more realistic






Now it looks like a real location, and not some movie set.
The background has depth. Your eye can see far into the distance.
With no atmosphere on the moon, thats what I would expect.

Assuming they landed in a huge flat area, what should we expect to see?
Even here you can sense the distance



Now watch when I superimpose that image with NASA's

Flush with the horizon


Not flush


you can see, anyone can see, how fake the flush horizon looks. It looks like its in front of a fake backdrop, like in model photography. Thats because our brains can understand that the distance of that horizon should be quite far.

The non flush picture looks real even though it might not be correctly placed in terms of distance, the fact that the horizon seems to go far into the distance, makes the picture work. So even if there were dips and rises, the horizon would still be seen.

And as I demonstrated, the horizon of the Apollo photo is not a hill, so Apollo pushers should stop pretending that it is or offer evidence for it.

Clear case of that LM being in the studio on our wonderful planet Earth.
Case closed.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by verylowfrequency
 


Several points. Assuming this isn't satire (which it seems to be)

1. You say this man is a genius, have you any proof of this? Or is this your own embelishment. I don't want to use an ad hom, just the accuracy of your thread title.

2. The flag movement occurs either when someone is touching it or when someone is near it. Jump up and down near a flag on Earth and you can get it to move slightly. On the moon the level of gravity is reduced so the force of jumping is less, but the lack of air resistance could easily result in movement. More importantly the static charge of the astronaut could attract or repel the flag. The youtube user claims otherwise by passing a statically charged balloon past the flag he has. However he doesn't take into account the air resistance around him. This shows a serious flaw in his methedology.

3. How were the mirrors placed on the moon to reflect todays lasers?

4. No crater? If you use this argument then i ask where is the large dust cloud as the pod lands? If you want a crater you need dust and none appears. This suggests that they either cut the engines before landing (official explanation) or that the particles, being jagged and existing in minimal gravity simply were thrown up and then sank back onto the surface rather quickly.

5. The user comments about the astronauts not jumping higher than 12 inches, is it not possible they feared jumping to hard? I know that if i were on the Moon i would take things a little easy. Bouncing yes, messing around sure, trying my absolute best to jump as high as possible? No.

6. His comments ragarding the light are ignorant at best. The sun is relfecting in all directions upon the surface and so would reflect Aldrins visor, further as Armstrong was facing him then Armstrong would be relfecting light toward Aldrin. Indeed this is the same argument for all reflections upon the faceplate.

7 The youtube user mentions mythbusters and dislikes their explanation, despite them proving the lighting myth incorrect with an experimental model. He disliked the albido of the surface, yet he fails to realise that the sun is filtered throught he Earths atmosphere whereas the moon is directly reflecting the suns shine.

Consider the albedo of other planets

www.asterism.org...



Earth’s albedo is 0.37; Mars is 0.15; Jupiter, 0.52; Saturn, 0.47; Uranus, 0.51; Neptune 0.41. Pluto’s albedo varies from 0.5 to 0.7.


As we can see, a simple comparison of Earth vs the Moon is not a scientific way of using albedo.


This guy isn't a genius if he cannot even get his experiments within the parameters of the Moon. His experiment of running past the flag with a charged balloon show this guy is a moron when he doesn't take into account the level of air resistance.



Dead on the money: like it or not folks, we MADE IT TO THE MOON!



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   
As Foos doesn't seem to be responding to criticism from people he doesn't like (you'll note he has not addressed any of my previous post), I'll just mention this. For anyone who is not quite up with photographic analysis, and who might be tempted to take any of FoosM's tragic garbage seriously, I would offer the following observations:

1. To do serious photogrammetry (that is, using images to make measurements and conclusions about 3-dimensional scenes), you really do need to understand the topic.

2. To overlay images, they must OF COURSE be properly matched in perspective, namely focal length/field of view, and 'tilt/roll'. Only someone who was completely IGNORANT of the topic, or wanting to MISLEAD or TROLL would try to match images for which s/he does not have that information.

3. VERY SMALL differences in terrain can cause dramatic changes in the location and appearance of the 'horizon'. You can easily show this by holding a camera -preferably using about 35mm focal length equivalent- at chest level like many of the Apollo shots were taken, and taking a little walk on undulating land (sand dunes are indeed excellent for this).

As FoosM has demonstrated superbly (if unwittingly), any 'analysis' done without having a clue about the subject, is WORTHLESS. They don't let me near a surgical mask - FoosM should be kept away from Photoshop...


But ...... at least he is consistent with his quality level.



Can I ask, in all seriousness, are there any OTHER Apollo deniers here who are convinced by FoosM's analysis? Anyone?

If so, what particular aspect of his analysis do you find compelling? If ANYONE else cares to take up the debate and is willing to engage in sensible discussion about the process required, I am happy to elaborate on the above issues in some detail and provide examples.

As has been shown throughout this thread, trying to educate FoosM is a complete waste of time, but if anyone else needs some help - please say so...



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Nice to see you are back, letthereaderunderstand...

But did you think we would forget the questions you RAN AWAY from????

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
You can't be an expert. You don't answer questions. I see two shadows facing each other. Unless there is something reflecting the light back, it isn't possible.

That will be 75 dollars. I'll just add it to your tab.


I have a simple challenge for you, 'let'.., one that goes right to the heart of your knowledge and experience on this topic.

Point out the two shadows facing each other, very precisely. By all means pick your favorites. You could probably use truthquest's 'angles' to identify them, if you are not capable of editing and posting an image.

Now, if I - using a camera with a similar angle lens, the Sun, and a couple of suitably placed objects - can duplicate the effect (and also SHOW YOU HOW YOU CAN DO IT FOR YOURSELF), will you apologise and admit you are completely wrong?


So, whenever you are ready, LTRU. You WERE proven wrong, and I'll happily do it again if you want it rubbed in.

And please try to keep your postings on topic, thanks.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
And I can't resist, even though WW has already pointed this out...

The following is just EMBARRASSING. I guess it's sort of funny, but I am just finding it.. sad.


Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Where did you find that mir image?

Space.com....here is the direct link and the site has many more images of mir. Just so you know that they are in space, and not outside in a training simulator, here is the caption from nasa about the picture.

Mir Living in a Tin Can Russian Cosmonaut Valery Polyakov is seen in Mir's port from shuttle Discovery during the STS-63 mission in February 1995. Polyakov -- who boarded the station on Jan. 8, 1994 -- left the orbiting outpost after a 438-day mission, the longest human space flight ever - NASA

Heres the direct link...Mir hatch open in space
Take care Exuberant

Peace


This is getting to be quite a comedy act...


Hey, LTRU, how do you tell the difference between a hatch and a VIEWport?

Oh, sorry, I shouldn't have asked you, because you obviously don't know...

Bit embarrassing, that... But for anyone else, the giveaways might be:
- size. imagine said astronaut in full space suit and 'backpack'. Yeah, that'd work.
- shape. hatches are often rounded rectangles, for good reason (see above)
- hatch controls. most hatches have hefty manually operated handles and stuff so they are very securely closed and so you can.. er.. open them from the inside...
- thickness. hatches tend to be quite thick, and have wide, multiple seals, viewport covers tend to be thinner..
....
There are quite a few others, and of course you could always research where Mir's hatches actually WERE...

Yes, I think LTRU would make a great research assistant for Xube... And I loved the way Exuberant1 pounced on it!
Tragic.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
As Foos doesn't seem to be responding to criticism from people he doesn't like (you'll note he has not addressed any of my previous post), I'll just mention this. For anyone who is not quite up with photographic analysis, and who might be tempted to take any of FoosM's tragic garbage seriously, I would offer the following observations:



So I went through your big long post, and in the end you offered what? Nothing.
You mock my and discredit my examples as not being scientifically accurate, but you
offer no evidence why its not.

I find it strange you want to apply all kinds of science to my examples, but you dont want to apply it to NASA's photos. Actually I rarely see anyone applying any science to NASA's photos and videos.

The case of the missing, moving flag of Apollo 14.

Missing or Hidden:



Moved:



And before you say a person moved it, well NASA has a video of it
Moving or Disappearing:
www.hq.nasa.gov...



Lets go back to


What is that on the MET?
NASA claims its a cover, but
How could it be so square?
I mean they are putting it on this:


And if you look closely and it appears like a piece of
gold aluminum on a picture of the MET. How so, well the left corner looks like its casting a shadow on a flat surface.

Here's NASA's explanation, believe it or not



Eric Jones from the ALSJ was contacted and worked together with Ken Glover through the subject. He asked me to post his analysis to the BABB. Here it comes:
---
Would you please pass the following on the the posters at Bad Astronomy
with thanks from both me and Ken.

We took a look thru the relatively small number of Hasselblads of the
flag and, as well, the TV and 16-mm film and see the following:

While Ed and Al were taking tourist pictures of each other - such as
9233 - they had the flag pointing a little north of up-Sun - an azimuth
of about 045 - so that the flag was well displayed for the 16mm camera
mounted on the MET. After they finished that series of photos, they
turned the flag so that it was more or less perpendicular to the TV.
That put it pointing on an azimuth of about 110 - a little south of
up-Sun - where it stayed throughout EVA-1. Post-EVA-1 photo 9324
shows the orientation best. With this orientation, the flag was seen
pretty much edge-on from the ALSEP site, as in 9367.

As one of the posters noted, at about 1:08 in video clip
www.hq.nasa.gov...
the flag swings around the pole in response to cabin depression. (It
would be a very interesting exercise in fluid dynamics to estimate how
long it would take expansion of the dumped gas to reach the flag and
how much force it would impart. There are folks who know how to make
such estimates, but I'm not one of them.) Photo 9486, which Ed took
from Station H late in EVA-2, shows the orientation of the flag at that
time. It looks to me that the flag is oriented more or less
perpendicular to Ed's line of sight, suggesting that it's pointing on
an azimuth of about 045. This orientation is confirmed in a brief
glimpase we get in video segment
www.hq.nasa.gov... when Al repositions
the TV when he gets back to the LM at the end of the EVA, we see the
flag more or less pointing at the TV on an azimuth of about 045.

Finally, photos taken after PLSS jettison such as 9338 show the flag
pointing northwest, on an azimuth of about 315.
The most likely cause, of course, is the jettison depressurization at
136:19. Unfortunately, the flag is not in the TV field-of view at that
time.


You see, where is the science to find out how much force it took to move that flag?
Doesn't NASA as a scientific agency investigate these types of things?

By the way, doesnt the flag in the second video seem far from where it planted in the photos? And I do say "seem", as in I dont know for sure that it is. Maybe someone else can verify if it is so. And if it is well thats a curious situation.
www.hq.nasa.gov...


I love how in the video the Astronaut goes into the shadow of the LM and becomes pitch black, LOL.


Anyway, back to my examples, the pictures speak for themselves.
I dont need to have scientific precision to get across a point.
Maybe you, CHRLZ need that, maybe you cant trust anything, so you need science to tell you what is what in this world.

You are free to create your own images and prove the Apollo record as being real.
Good luck in doing so.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 




If you took time to read my post you would understand I know the Pete used to like to joke around. And that is why he was able to leave so many clues during dialogue.


Clues What clues?

Problem is you cant let go of Apollo being real so your mind wont interpret his words as being clues:


Let go of Apollo, well then Foosm since you think Apollo wasn't real, then stop using the internet and the technology that was developed from it. Throw your computer away too, your cell phone, any wireless devices etc.

In other words, don't be a hypocrite, if you don't like Apollo don't use the technology the Apollo program brought into the modern world.


First we have Conrad saying they didn't go to the moon, then during his supposed moon trip he calls the sun a stage light, amongst other things:


The amount of pure speculation you use, doesn't proof anything other than all you do is reach and state whatever you wish to prove what you want. Again I have not seen any evidence from you yet to date.


Conrad about the flag "on the Moon":
"This American flag looks fine, just aside the Lunar Module, is it? It looks like a model."


To describe some thing in words, doesn't mean that it was a model sheesh.


"If one looks through the many 100 s of pages of radio transcript of Apollo 12 so one gets the feeling having been at a volleyball game on Saturday afternoon and not having been witness of heavy steps of the human beings on a foreign and deadly orb."

At the end Houston said after 131 hours and 51 minutes mission time:

"This was the best simulation we ever had." And nobody laughed...


He was referring to the actual landing mission being successful. Even Al Bean had a chance to fly the LM accent stage and said, "Its better than the Sim."



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM
 




If you took time to read my post you would understand I know the Pete used to like to joke around. And that is why he was able to leave so many clues during dialogue.


Clues What clues?

Problem is you cant let go of Apollo being real so your mind wont interpret his words as being clues:


See above




Let go of Apollo, well then Foosm since you think Apollo wasn't real, then stop using the internet and the technology that was developed from it. Throw your computer away too, your cell phone, any wireless devices etc.

In other words, don't be a hypocrite, if you don't like Apollo don't use the technology the Apollo program brought into the modern world.


What!? What does that got to do with anything.
Sorry but that comes across very childish and off topic.




First we have Conrad saying they didn't go to the moon, then during his supposed moon trip he calls the sun a stage light, amongst other things:


The amount of pure speculation you use, doesn't proof anything other than all you do is reach and state whatever you wish to prove what you want. Again I have not seen any evidence from you yet to date.


Well thats crazy because the video was posted like twice!
And any of the text you can copy and paste it in Google to get various links about it.
So like I said, you just dont want to hear an alternative to what you have grown up with. Maybe the truth is too painful for you to handle??





Conrad about the flag "on the Moon":
"This American flag looks fine, just aside the Lunar Module, is it? It looks like a model."


To describe some thing in words, doesn't mean that it was a model sheesh.


Besides words how else is suppose to describe things he sees? And out of the many ways he could have described it, why did he say MODEL? Does it look like a model to you? Well funny for us non believers it does. Now, do you want to agree with him and say it looks like a model?




"If one looks through the many 100 s of pages of radio transcript of Apollo 12 so one gets the feeling having been at a volleyball game on Saturday afternoon and not having been witness of heavy steps of the human beings on a foreign and deadly orb."

At the end Houston said after 131 hours and 51 minutes mission time:

"This was the best simulation we ever had." And nobody laughed...


He was referring to the actual landing mission being successful. Even Al Bean had a chance to fly the LM accent stage and said, "Its better than the Sim."


He? Who are you talking about? Do you know who said the quote?

131:51:00 Gibson: Roger. We copy that.

[Other crews tended to talk louder to Houston than to each other. Pete and Al are a notable exception.]
131:51:05 Conrad: Boy, Houston. That Comm is super; it sounds like you're right inside my helmet.
131:51:09 Gibson: Roger. It's the best sim(ulated EVA) we've had.


It was NASA, so now what do you think they meant by it?



131:51:38 Gibson: That's affirmative. Cut the TV cable below the adapter, about 1 inch and then...(correcting himself) that's 1 foot below the adapter, and then stow the TV camera in the ETB.
131:51:50 Conrad: Okay. (Long Pause) Hey, look at that Surveyor, Al. That's not anywheres near as bad a slope (as it had seemed during EVA-1).

131:52:09 LM Crew: (Garbled) shade.

131:52:11 Bean: Hey, Houston, that Surveyor looks a lot better today.

131:52:13 Conrad: Yeah, now that the Sun's up on it.


Note:

a lunar day is officially 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes and 3 seconds long.


So what does he mean it looks better "now that the Sun's up on it." ??



How much did the Sun move between their EVA's?



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So I went through your big long post, and in the end you offered what? Nothing.


So there you have it folks, my post contained 'nothing', so FoosM decides he doesn't have to address any of it. Here's the post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In it, amongst other 'nothing', you will note that I asked FoosM to CITE several quotes. He has refused to do so, which is clearly against the spirit of the forum and may indicate that he is providing FALSE quotes. I hope the mod's are watching this.

AGAIN, FoosM, CITE your CREDIBLE source for those quotes, especially this one:

"This was the best simulation we ever had."


ADDED - I note that FoosM has now 'cited' (well, not exactly) that 'quote', revealing that what was in his quote marks was NOT the quote at all. Earlier FoosM also claimed that the 'quote' was made at the end of the Apollo 12 mission, which it clearly was NOT.



You mock my and discredit my examples

?? Literacy at its best! I mock your "___"? I NEVER did ....
But yes, I admit I discredit your easily discreditable 'examples'. See below for one more.


So, even though NOONE else seems to be supporting FoosM's claims, let's just deal with the very first new piece of garbage in DETAIL. FoosM doesn't want that to happen - as I will show you... Watch what happens next...


The case of the missing, moving flag of Apollo 14.

Missing? Oh look, a new claim, now that the others are discredited... The denier's modus operandi.

OK, FOOSM, LET'S GET DOWN TO BUSINESS.


Missing or Hidden:


FoosM, there are two simple and obvious questions that ned to be answered in order to make that claim.

As YOU claim the flag is missing, you MUST know the answers to these 2 VERY simple questions...:

1. Where SHOULD the flag be in that image?

2. IF it is in the field of view of the camera, what could have prevented it from appearing?



IF YOU DON'T OR CAN'T ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, I WILL, and let me tell you - THAT WILL BE EVEN MORE EMBARRASSING.
I STRONGLY suggest you do it, and then you can gracefully admit your error, apologise, and move on. (At this point I am not telling you what the error is (or 'errors are'), but even someone completely uninformed should be able to work it out..)

BACK TO YOU, FoosM.


IF, and only IF you can answer those two VERY SIMPLE questions, I'll happily move on to your other claims.

This is your BIG CHANCE, FoosM. Don't blow it, now....




[edit on 3-7-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


I'm sorry???


Are you sitting there and telling everyone you actually believe that the photo you showed is of an OPEN PORTHOLE on MIR???

Really?? I believe your sense of perception is flawed....do you see that hinged cover? Here, same shot, reversed, not so heavily cropped:



See? Those are COVERS....the porthole does NOT open! It is a window! It has an exterior cover....for protection during the launch, probably (will have to research MIR history). Could be used for sleep periods, too...IF that is where they slept...to make it dark, ya know? So they didn't have the Sun popping in every 90 minutes while they were trying to sleep.....

Honest, this is kinda sad, to bring this up, and try to tie it to the Moon landing "hoaxes"....




[edit on 2 July 2010 by weedwhacker]


To be honest, I hadn't thought about that weedwacker....a "Porthole"...duh. Thanks, I can be dumb sometimes too, it's a gift.

I still have a few questions though if you would oblige.

1. Why is the light not lighting the inside. I know light can drown an exposure and perhaps it would be more lit if his . wasn't in the portal but that leads me to my next question.

2. If there is some sort of glass in the porthole, why is there no reflection. You can clearly see his face, why not any of the lighting from the rigs or reflection of the shuttle or earth?

3. If it is just a light porthole, why is it big enough for a body to move through?

More then likely, you are right and I thank you for bringing that to my attention, still curious about my questions though.

Peace



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Nice to see you are back, letthereaderunderstand...

But did you think we would forget the questions you RAN AWAY from????

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
You can't be an expert. You don't answer questions. I see two shadows facing each other. Unless there is something reflecting the light back, it isn't possible.

That will be 75 dollars. I'll just add it to your tab.


I have a simple challenge for you, 'let'.., one that goes right to the heart of your knowledge and experience on this topic.

Point out the two shadows facing each other, very precisely. By all means pick your favorites. You could probably use truthquest's 'angles' to identify them, if you are not capable of editing and posting an image.

Now, if I - using a camera with a similar angle lens, the Sun, and a couple of suitably placed objects - can duplicate the effect (and also SHOW YOU HOW YOU CAN DO IT FOR YOURSELF), will you apologise and admit you are completely wrong?


So, whenever you are ready, LTRU. You WERE proven wrong, and I'll happily do it again if you want it rubbed in.

And please try to keep your postings on topic, thanks.


Sorry, C. You'll have to refresh my memory or link me to the op. I don't remember what pic we were talking about, and since you didn't post the picture you did, I have no reference, but to answer your question this is my reply.

I am a Man. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong and will be the first one to admit it when I am. I don't rub things in peoples faces, it's in humane. I cherish all of these folks, including yourself and can react when my ego (which I try not to operate on) is threatened no different then yourself. I like people, I like you and thank you for your welcoming.

Again, if you could refresh my memory, I would be happy to carry my point or concede if proved wrong.

I think the problem with this debate is not the evidence, which abounds from many different angles of the mission and so forth.

The first problem is knowledge of the avg. citizen who is not linked in with these fields. I know that because I am one. Education is needed as things are not always what they appear.

The second is the witnessing. Though people don't need to actually see something to believe it, seeing is believing. People saw the moon landings but not in a way that one is used to experiencing an event.

In a fore time you might have a large group witness something together, such as war, or natural disaster, but even if a large group, the story will still remain local and become a source, and if regional it will become a report, and if national it will become Legend and if Global, still farther Myth.

With this event, 3 billion souls came to the knowledge at once, unprecedented in the known annuls of our current history with pearl harbor/ww2 and the atomic bomb/ww2 dropping in second and third (all American events mind you), yet this knowledge lacked 4 direct senses to confirm this moment with. It instantly became myth because it was Global first, so it is myth last.

Instead it is, "do you remember where you were when we landed on the moon and what you were doing." Do you see, It was only real for three people in all reality. One rep for each billion. One . if you will for each person on earth. It's a problem of experience. While all people (figuratively) got to witness this, it lacked 4 qualities to confirm it to ones mind. This causes doubt.

You notice the moon landings weren't questioned until relatively recently. This is due in part to the endless string of wars and the corruptions tied to them through the Military Industrial Complex Lobbyists, Corporate Scandals and Political Scandals and the knowledge of them spreading to the common citizen. It doesn't take long for people to see the MIC are the same contractors employed by NASA.

Wither or not NASA is involved in funny business doesn't matter, because they employ shady characters. I don't mean the individual NASA employee, but more their contractors.

This paints NASA in a bad light and gives reason for people to find fault, and you know how good we are at pointing the finger. We just forget we've still got 4 pointed back at ourselves.

Let me make clear, I desire this to be true, the moon landings, but I also desire that people have patients with one another. I have launched into things before hurt in my ego and ignorance to the subject, using again, only my eyes to confirm.

I am learning and I am changing, believing all things are possible, but confirming those things which I truly know. I am learning not to judge, rather to ask questions and would desire the same from both sides, so that as a whole we are helping one another. I have no desire but to see us intelligent, loving, and helping.

I'm finding skepticism does no good, rather to not have an opinion on something you can't validate yourself. I hold truths which are self evident.

Otherwise, I find the whole thing a waist of my time and yours if we can't see each other first and learn to work with each others strengths not weaknesses, because if all we concentrate on is that we can all go strait to hell.

Anyone can call someone stupid, or ignorant or a fraud. Anyone can point the finger. I'm tired of it, it cyclical, it's dead.

Like I said, I would be happy to go back over what you were talking about and concede if I'm wrong.

Peace



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
LTRU, I am impressed by your response - and your acknowledgement that the Mir thing was a porthole, was great. I hope what follows will continue in that vein.

First up, let me apologise - my posting was quite harsh, and judging by your two posts here, I was mistaken. I'm sorry.

But I would ask you to consider that the posting of unresearched claims followed by either the complete refusal to acknowledge the flaws in the claim, or the disappearance of the original poster, are the tactics of choice for the 'virulent' apollo denier - in particular those pushing their youtube sites. Witness Jarrah White - who does this all the time, and the OP of the thread, Wwu777 aka Vinstonas Wu, who runs a 'skeptics' website that is a complete and utter sham.

I get very very sick of seeing the same old stuff recycled, and also of seeing stuff posted where the claimant clearly hasn't a clue about what they are talking about, and hasn't bothered to do even the most basic investigation. Hence my anger at what I perceived to be more of the same...

Anyway, on to answer your post in a more polite tone!!...


Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Sorry, C. You'll have to refresh my memory or link me to the op.

It was this picture, and the picture to the right of it shows that this is NORMAL behavior of shadows in a wide angle scene:

Shadows Compared...

Like I said, I could do something similar, but really.. this is Photography - Perspective of Wide Angle Lenses 101... Basic stuff....




I am a Man. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong and will be the first one to admit it when I am.

Kudos to you! I try to do the same.


I don't rub things in peoples faces, it's in humane.

That's a very fair criticism of me - but I only do that when the tone of the converstaion indicates it is being done deliberately/tauntingly (eg your $75 bet thing..) or repeatedly (witness FoosM..)


I think the problem with this debate is not the evidence, which abounds from many different angles of the mission and so forth. The first problem is knowledge of the avg. citizen who is not linked in with these fields. I know that because I am one. Education is needed as things are not always what they appear.


And that is indeed the key - you are very perceptive! The Apollo mission was way a. of its time in many ways. It was driven by an intense desire to beat the Russkis to the moon, some risks were taken, and in some ways they were lucky. Eg, the incredible Saturn V rocket was an unbelievable masterpiece of engineering that worked in a way that no similar rocket ever has, and the whole project was blessed with some remarkable engineering and a little blind luck.. Apollo 1 was a disaster, but in a way it caused an intense re-consideration of the methodologies used in the project, along with an unprecedented openness, resulting in a remarkable safety record from then on.

Now if you add all that up - a complex project, in a unique and unusual environment (both physically and politically), using science and techniques never before (or since) used - and mostly unfamiliar to Joe Average..

.. YOU HAVE THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY FOR HOAX CLAIMANTS TO MAKE A BUCK, or just pretend to be heroes.

All they have to do is look for anything unusual.. and it's ALL unusual!! So of course there will be reams of stuff that will be difficult to understand and explain... Then you can add on jokes made by the astronauts, even people's lack of experience with perspective or photographic concepts... Or silly pre-conceptions, like that a vehicle designed to operate in 1/6 gravity and a vacuum should look 'pretty' or like it would appear in science fiction movies... On and on it goes - endless opportunities for snake-oilers and the ill-informed.


People saw the moon landings but not in a way that one is used to experiencing an event.

I'm curious - were you alive and sentient then?
I know what you are saying, but this event was extraordinary. I wasn't the only one glued to the TV, reading the articles, listening to the radio broadcasts, watching and doing my best to understand the engineering. It was a MARVELLOUS time - everyone was watching in awe and admiration.


With this event, 3 billion souls came to the knowledge at once, unprecedented in the known annuls of our current history

Yes, unique in that sense. But how else could it have unfolded?


Do you see, It was only real for three people in all reality. One rep for each billion. This causes doubt.

Well... 12 people actually. And don't speak for me - I have no doubt. May I suggest you hire the DVD "In the Shadow of the Moon", and have a good listen to what several of those twelve have to say... (and see some of that higher resolution footage to boot). It is and was real for them.


You notice the moon landings weren't questioned until relatively recently.

And I take those points and agree somewhat. I would venture that it is only now that quite large opportunities exist for people to make money out of these claims. But have ANY credible scientists or engineers come forward to definitively state that it never happened? Why is that, do you think?


Wither or not NASA is involved in funny business doesn't matter, because they employ shady characters. I don't mean the individual NASA employee, but more their contractors.

I disagree. Name any company or government organisation and I'll vouch that it contains 'shadiness'. So what? I'm not trying to be facetious, but really, even the most worthy organisations fall on their swords from time to time, but does that mean that none of their achievements are real?


We just forget we've still got 4 pointed back at ourselves.

EXACTLY. I simply believe that in 1969, NASA managed to get men onto the Moon. Whether some of NASA/their contractors/deals were to any extent corrupt or questionable, is a side issue. FWIW, apart from Saturn V, I believe Grumman's LM was a similar masterpiece of engineering - almost faultless from its first test flights. So at least one of those contractors did an amazing job. I don't just think this was NASA's finest hour, I think it was mankind's. Yes, there were probably a few nasty/corrupt bits along the way. But such is life...


Let me make clear, I desire this to be true, the moon landings, but I also desire that people have patients with one another. I have launched into things before hurt in my ego and ignorance to the subject, using again, only my eyes to confirm.

If that's the case, stick around and debate! The problem with these discussions is that people make comments (or repeat claims long debunked) and then don't stick around and listen and learn...


Like I said, I would be happy to go back over what you were talking about and concede if I'm wrong.

Well, this post pretty much sums it up. I have offered to go to the trouble of making up a similar 'simulation', but is it necessary after seeing that? All that is happeining is that in an image taken thru a wide angle lens (think 'fish eye') perspective and terrain issues cause the shadows to angle just as shown. It's worth noting that I posted that at about the same time as I busted Jarrah White on his claimed 'expert'. She was no such thing - as she herself admitted later, conceding that the shadows were most likely correct. I can dig up that email if you wish.

Anyway, hope this helps, and hope there are no remaining hard feelings.

Peace back


[edit on 4-7-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
LTRU, I am impressed by your response - and your acknowledgement that the Mir thing was a porthole, was great. I hope what follows will continue in that vein.

First up, let me apologise - my posting was quite harsh, and judging by your two posts here, I was mistaken. I'm sorry.

But I would ask you to consider that the posting of unresearched claims followed by either the complete refusal to acknowledge the flaws in the claim, or the disappearance of the original poster, are the tactics of choice for the 'virulent' apollo denier - in particular those pushing their youtube sites. Witness Jarrah White - who does this all the time, and the OP of the thread, Wwu777 aka Vinstonas Wu, who runs a 'skeptics' website that is a complete and utter sham.

I get very very sick of seeing the same old stuff recycled, and also of seeing stuff posted where the claimant clearly hasn't a clue about what they are talking about, and hasn't bothered to do even the most basic investigation. Hence my anger at what I perceived to be more of the same...

Anyway, on to answer your post in a more polite tone!!...


Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Sorry, C. You'll have to refresh my memory or link me to the op.

It was this picture, and the picture to the right of it shows that this is NORMAL behavior of shadows in a wide angle scene:

Shadows Compared...

Like I said, I could do something similar, but really.. this is Photography - Perspective of Wide Angle Lenses 101... Basic stuff....




I am a Man. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong and will be the first one to admit it when I am.

Kudos to you! I try to do the same.


I don't rub things in peoples faces, it's in humane.

That's a very fair criticism of me - but I only do that when the tone of the converstaion indicates it is being done deliberately/tauntingly (eg your $75 bet thing..) or repeatedly (witness FoosM..)



Ah yes witness FoosM...

Well here I go


First of all that photo is not a debunk.
Why, well that rock, in question, is too far from his . and is naturally pointing to the vanishing point and not the . of the photographer.
So bring that rock closer then we can talk.

The JW demonstration:


Furthermore, looking closely at NASA's photo, I had found other issues



Rocks close to the . that simply refuse to follow the rules.
I mean a shadow going down? Whats that all about?



In it, amongst other 'nothing', you will note that I asked FoosM to CITE several quotes. He has refused to do so, which is clearly against the spirit of the forum and may indicate that he is providing FALSE quotes. I hope the mod's are watching this.


Gee CHRLZ I thought you had studied Apollo six ways to Sunday.
You really dont know where I got those quotes? Where else could I get them from?
Do I have to keep posting it over and over again?
I got them where everyone else gets them, a place where I get alot of my material.
history.nasa.gov...

What else...



OK, FOOSM, LET'S GET DOWN TO BUSINESS.


Missing or Hidden:


FoosM, there are two simple and obvious questions that ned to be answered in order to make that claim.

As YOU claim the flag is missing, you MUST know the answers to these 2 VERY simple questions...:

1. Where SHOULD the flag be in that image?

2. IF it is in the field of view of the camera, what could have prevented it from appearing?


BACK TO YOU, FoosM.

IF, and only IF you can answer those two VERY SIMPLE questions, I'll happily move on to your other claims.

This is your BIG CHANCE, FoosM. Don't blow it, now....



Back to me? Wait a minute CHRLZ, I came to you, you are the answer man, right?
Why are you asking me the questions? What a turn of events, just solve it already. These mysteries are piling up here.



DJW001:


Notice the quality of the motion. As he hops along, his arms and legs move at a pretty normal speed. In fact, he scoots along very rapidly. The only thing "slow motion" is the rate that he (and the dust he kicks up) fall. As CHRLZ pointed out, if you sped the sequence up, his arms and legs would be flailing comically. Again, observe the quality of the motion:


And, so long as we're reduced to argumentem ad youtubum, you might want to watch this as well:



Here is Jarrah's video on both subjects

Especially watch at 6:00

You can clearly see that the motion and height could easily be done
on here on Earth. Again what proof is there that it all happened on the moon?



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Even Jarrah had to claim it was only "near" perfect. You honestly can't see any difference there? How the "astronaut" on the right has a distinctly jerky quality to his motion? You still haven't addressed how the camera could pan if it was front projection. Wouldn't having the front projection shining on the wires make them more obvious? And if they were painted black, why don't they show up when the astronaut moved in front of the brightly lit hill? And how did they get all that dust to spray up so high and splash right back down without kicking up a dust cloud?



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


Even Jarrah had to claim it was only "near" perfect. You honestly can't see any difference there? How the "astronaut" on the right has a distinctly jerky quality to his motion?


framerate
I would say that would have to be considered




You still haven't addressed how the camera could pan if it was front projection.


I thought I did, but you can even see it done in 2001.




Wouldn't having the front projection shining on the wires make them more obvious?


I dont know, would it? Why would it?



And if they were painted black, why don't they show up when the astronaut moved in front of the brightly lit hill?


Many ways they could hide the wires.
Cliffhanger used Front Projection as well as wires.



And how did they get all that dust to spray up so high and splash right back down without kicking up a dust cloud?


You really see a difference a difference you can describe that happens consistently?




I sure dont, and all I provided was a video with good old beach sand.
NASA, as already mentioned, made simulated regolith.

And LOL at astro kicking a boulder


[edit on 4-7-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I thought I did, but you can even see it done in 2001.


No you can't. Kubrick only used front projection for the daylight scenes on Earth. The highly reflective material picks up scattered ambient light in the studio and washes out gray if the projected image is too dark. The travelling "moon bus" was a matte effect. Oh, and in the clip you posted, the shot where the astronauts start to descend into the excavation... painted on glass. Kubrick was a notorious "control freak" and needed to know the exact composition that would end up on the screen, hence his use of front projection for the "cave men" scenes. Except for 2001, Kubrick almost never used special effects, and when he did, they were always "practical."

Edit to add: Now speed up the "twinkle toes" clip and explain why the sample bag on the PLSS is flapping so unnaturally fast. It's the perfect example of the mass versus weight issue that so many of us have brought up, and why footage taken on the Moon looks so "unnatural!"

[edit on 4-7-2010 by DJW001]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 126  127  128    130  131  132 >>

log in

join