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: 146
377
<< 143  144  145    147  148  149 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So I asked the question, how could you get hotspots on the Ladder and the Astronauts helmet?

Someone said from EARTH.

Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?


Of course he goes on to say the moon itself. But the moon would not create spot like effects on the helmet and ladder. Especially because he states this:

The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

www.badastronomy.com...

See? Where did the spot lights come from?


Why are you linking to a discussion on another board and trying to make it appear that someone on this thread posted it? That is extremely misleading. For the benefit of the thread hopping passer-by, allow me to quote the original post and link to FoosM's brilliant response:



Originally posted by FoosM


Well Ok lets get to it:



Okay, let's.



As per checklist, Ed takes two pictures of Al out the window. These are AS14-66- 9229 and 9230.


history.nasa.gov...


113:52:53 McCandless: Antares, this is Houston. You are Go for two-man EVA. Over.


history.nasa.gov...


113:53:40 McCandless: Roger, Al. (Long Pause)
[The horizon tilts in the TV picture as Al raises the MESA to a comfortable working height.]



I have no idea why the camera would tilt. But take a look these video captures:



If you read the transcript you posted, you might have some idea.






Those are light sources (see arrows).


Correction. Those are reflections of a light source. The same light source, obviously. You speak in the plural as though every reflection requires a separate light source. Have you learned nothing from the earlier discussions about shadows?

From where? Its not the Sun, it cant be the landscape.



Correct: it is not the Sun. The ladder is in the shadowed side of the LM.


They look like spot lights to me.



Why? Why do these look like spotlights to you? Do you see a pool of light from these spotlights anywhere? Again, I note the plural. Why would a special effects team that was trying to recreate the "inky blackness" of a shadow in a vacuum use filler lights? It would ruin the entire effect.






" target='_blank' />


Oh come on, those are spot lights. Those spots are on the top portion of the helmet.
So dont tell me some nonsense its from the ground.
If its not spots, it must be some powerful stars.




"Oh come on..." Very persuasive reasoning. Those reflections are indeed on the top part of the helmet, suggesting they are coming from nearly directly overhead. (Two correct observations!)

Why do you ask if the reflections are caused by stars? I hope it's not because you think that each reflection requires a separate light source (still). Let me ask a series of rhetorical questions. Why do moon hoaxers worry about why stars don't show up on photographs taken on the Moon? Why don't they question something much more obvious? Like why, in all the panoramas the astronauts took, you can never see the Earth? There are only a handful of images of the Earth taken from the surface of the Moon, always from a very low camera angle. (BTW, Kubrick put the Earth in nearly every scene on the Moon's surface in 2001.) It's because, physical librations aside, the Earth always stays in the same place in the lunar sky. From the latitudes and longitudes of the Apollo landing sites, this was always within 30 degrees of vertical. In other words, the Earth, the second brightest light source on the Moon was always pretty much directly overhead. The source of that blue, point-like reflection on the astronaut's helmet and the shiny bits of the LM is the Earth! The more complicated patterns you see glistening on the helmet in the closer shots is due to the earthlight shining through overhanging rendezvous radar antenna rig, plus back-scattered light being reflected of the downward slanting LM windows.


You can read the original here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Did FoosM perform a detailed analysis of my theory? Did he determine the position of the Earth in the lunar sky, the orientation of the LM and calculate the angle of incidence on the helmet to prove that I was wrong? No, he posted an emoticon, some pointless rhetoric and a video from a different mission. You can read his refutation here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sorry if I'm taking this a bit personally, but I take responsibility for my posts. If I'm wrong, I admit it. If I don't know, I'll say so. When I speculate (as I did above) I am open to constructive criticism...but I will not have my statements be willfully misconstrued or misrepresented. FoosM makes it appear that I said something I did not. If he cannot link to the post where I made the statement about the lunar soil being "preferentially reflective" I expect a public apology.



Edits to fix nightmarish formatting and to make my accusation more accurate.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by DJW001]

[edit on 24-7-2010 by DJW001]

[edit on 24-7-2010 by DJW001]




posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Erm.... little factual error there:
Baron died after he exposed NAA to congress.
Suicide or not: I am sure a lot of people at NAA were pissed at him. Maybe even enough to kill him. Yet getting your car hit by a train is pretty hard to stage. On the other hand the whole getting fired for what you believe is right thing can be very depressing. Wouldn't rule out suicide in that situation.

In case you wondered: I don't think David Kelly commited suicide. Little doubt that Ruby shot Oswald. Franz Fuchs hanging himself with 2 plastic prostetics for arms ... undecided on that one...



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
I have a question for you debunkers and authority worshippers:

(unsupported suspicions and opinions removed)

You debunkers are gullible zombies of establishment and authority.

Nice. I'm sure that will be ok with the mods.


I have a question for YOU, WWu777. About something VERY SPECIFIC, unlike the suspicions and opinions expressed by you..

What gives YOU the right to demand answers, when you RAN AWAY from this thread when caught misleading the forum. Here's where you MISLED the forum about the LLRV:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


So, "It couldn't perform at all on Earth."? How many successful flights were there? Do you want me to tell you and show you some? It would be better for your credibility if YOU did that.

And "It failed when Armstrong tested it" Yes, on ONE of its flights it did. But how many times did Armstrong fly it successfully?

That MISINFORMATION you posted was just one example of MANY. You claim to be a serious researcher. You claim to be answerable for your words, unlike us 'gullible zombies'. So PROVE IT by telling us what the LLRV's full record was, and then apologising.

I'm SICK TO DEATH of that type of posting - make a claim and then run for it, hoping some of it will stick. Shame on you, and this forum for allowing it.


Your avoidance of this thread after posting the initial rant and a few non-specific posts, is very telling about you. When will you be addressing the rest of the errors shown in white's videos, and the rest of YOUR misinformation? I have a list ready....

After all that, I might answer your OFFTOPIC questions.

[/rant]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Is this an attempt to derail the thread and have it locked?

Pretty poor form mate, why dont you answer some of the questions posed to you before you fled?


jra

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
When people with incriminating evidence against powerful people, such as Thomas Baron, sudden die mysterious and it gets ruled a suicide, do you ever get suspcious...


It was ruled to be an accident, not a suicide.


or do you buy the official story because to you, authority = truth?





If you can't see anything suspicious about Thomas Baron committed suicide and taking his family with him, just before he was about to expose NASA to Congress, then you are brain dead and beyond help.


So you believe he was assassinated... with a train?! Come on. There are a thousand easier and more subtle ways to kill someone.

And he already testified before congress three months before he and his family were killed. Having him assassinated after all that is pretty useless. And his report was more damaging to NAA, he did not bring any allegations against NASA in his report.


You debunkers are gullible zombies of establishment and authority.


Leave out these kinds of comments if you want to be taken seriously. It's also a violation of the board rules.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Huh? "powerful people"??


...incriminating evidence against powerful people, such as Thomas Baron...


Thomas Baron was a cog in the machinery, a worker at NAA. He (rightly) saw problems in the culture that existed at NAA, and the quality control gaps that were endemic as a result. This is all well documented, and came out after the tragic fire of Apollo 1. It was known internally as well....but, NAA was not the sole contractor for NASA, nor were they the only ones having problems. (See the difficulties Grumman had, on the LM. Still, they all managed an incredible feat of engineering).


The only ones who you might consider to be "powerful people" would be Harrison "Stormy" Storms, Jr. (head of the NAA division responsible for the NASA contracts) and his bosses??

Baron's mistake was in not knowing how to effectively voice his concerns within the company...his concerns were NOT (as is pictured by the "hoax" believers) that NAA was incapable of building what they'd contracted for --- he was concerned for the safety of the crews. I think he was a pest, a nerd, and irritating...there was always an understood quality of "risk" involved, jsut as there is with any experimental aerospace technology. His heart may have been in the right place, but....

He didn't seem to understand the concept of the time pressures they were under....NAA HAD bitten off a big piece of work, and they were getting buried in it.

You should read the book about "Stormy" ...( oh, why did I bother to suggest that?!? You don't want to read anything that upsets your "hoax" paradigm!!!
)

For everyone else, its title is: "Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race to the Moon." Has a lot of good insider details....did you know that NAA, besides building the CSM, also built the Second Stage of the Saturn V??? They got that contract rather late, too.... (THAT is a whole other amazing story of innovation, and creativity.....they were squeezed by necessity to trim weight, everywhere they could...since the First and Third stages were already well along in design....)


Here, instead of the nonsense and exaggerations foisted by "hoax" fantasists, read this factual account of events regarding Thomas Baron:


Mr. Baron started working for NAA in September 1965 and was assigned as an inspector at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), the launch site. In late 1966, Baron presented to NASA officials a 58-page report alleging improper action, discrepancies, failures, and other irregularities he had witnessed. KSC officials notified NAA managers, who met with Baron to address his concerns. The senior quality control officer of NAA attended this meeting. They found that some of Baron's criticism had merit, but the rest of his report was inapplicable or unfounded for a variety of reasons.

www.xmission.com...

He sounds like a typical, over-achieving nerd type, to me. I'm sure many of us have encountered people like him before???


Hate to say it, but the stereo-typical absent-minded nerd type, with tunnel vision tendencies, is just the sort to get himself (and tragically, his family in the car with him) hit by a train at a grade crossing. It's in the nature of the scatter brained, sometimes....



Really....people who believe in this "hoax" BS do so only because they don't bother to research and THINK for themselves...






[edit on 25 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by payt69




apollohoax.proboards.com...

Gotta give it to ya, FoosMasoos, you're a rare breed


[edit on 23-7-2010 by payt69]


Ahhhh what a thread that was... man were feathers ruffled and ignorance exposed in that epic search for the truth. A thread where Jay Utah tries to explain the VABs with a picture of a half eaten glazed donut.

I truly think that is a thread to be studied, dissected, analyzed. Not only for the information that was brought forth, but the behavior and attack tactics of what some would call the Apollogists, the Apollo Defense Force, the Propagandists or NASA Fanboys

Thank you for bringing it to the attention for our dear readers. Let me at least offer the highlights.

Here is the background:

One day a person calling himself 'swank23' decides to join the ApolloHoax.net forum to ask a troubling question.
Little did he know he was about to enter a pit of vipers. Here is what he posted:
apollohoax.proboards.com...


My friend found this article put out by NASA. It is talking about the radiation exposure an astronaut would receive going to the moon or to mars.
This is the article.
science.nasa.gov...

I have always lambasted anyone who tries to talk about the Van Allen Belt, NASA clearly states that the astronauts received minimal exposure due to the one hour time frame, but this article seems to directly contradict what NASA has said.

I can normally shut most people up about the moon landings, but I really do not know how to argue with this point.
Please answer these questions so that I can shut my friend up.
1)Why would NASA be worried about any of this. We obviously had the technology in the 60's to take care of the problem. I would think that by now we would have technology that far surpasses what we had then. You will have to forgive my lack of knowledge concerning the eccentricities of space travel.
2)These are the quotes that he keeps throwing in my face.

"Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. Astronauts en route to the Moon and Mars are going to be exposed to this radiation, increasing their risk of getting cancer and other maladies. Finding a good shield is important."

I am really confused and I hate being wrong. Please help me debate my friend into little pieces. I am really starting to question myself.


So begins the thread "Please help me debunk my friend"

Things begin pleasantly enough, but after sometime it turns sour. Swank23 tries to be as polite as possible, even admitting to his mistakes, as he probes for answers to the question of radiation beyond LEO. But the wagons begin to circle as if by asking TOO many questions you are perceived as a first class threat.
apollohoax.proboards.com...

And as if not satisfied by the work of his minions the Big Honcho, the End Boss, the Overlord Jay Utah, the man behind Clavius flexes his fingers for some verbal abusing.
apollohoax.proboards.com...

The thread starts to loose focus, Swank23 is derailed into discussing other aspects of Apollo... and so frustrated by what he is reading, feeling Swank23's pain,
a new member joins the fray determined to get answers. FM.
He tests the waters with a few simple questions:

The question is, why cant NASA build from what they already know?
Which probes did NASA launch prior to Apollo to determine the dangers of radiation? And what did they find? Why cant this research be used today for future missions? How did they determine a safe duration for the moon landing the first time around? They must have known, where is this data?


apollohoax.proboards.com...

After receiving a few replies FM comes back a few days later ready for business.
First a summary of his research on the dangers of radiation
apollohoax.proboards.com...

A second post brings up the important orbit and TLI
basically the one and a half orbits before going towards the moon.
apollohoax.proboards.com...

These posts stir up the hornet's nest and FM realizes he better be ready for the attacks and not to get distracted by them.
Common replies include 'why dont you research it yourself'
-which of course defeats the purpose of forums
or answering a question posed with 'you dont understand'
-well thats why the question was asked.
Or Jay Utah's method of declaring his opponent as being vague while he himself offers vague explanations.
These types of replies are generally ignored as they are tactics to derail a thread.

The third post brings up an important finding by FM.
Going by NASA's transcript it appears that it could potentially take Apollo 4 to 5 hours to travel through the Van Allen Belts!
Does that sound strange?
Why?
Keep in mind the VABs extend a third of the distance from the Earth to the Moon.
And it took Apollo about three days to get to the moon.
apollohoax.proboards.com...

FM is trying to get to some agreement by everyone that indeed the VABs are dangerous.

This brings us to our first illustration describing how Apollo would or wouldn't have gone through the VABs
apollohoax.proboards.com...

FM reiterates his claim that it took longer than an hour to get through the VABs
apollohoax.proboards.com...

JayUtah gets aggressive
apollohoax.proboards.com...

A revised sketch
apollohoax.proboards.com...

which brings forth a round of pats on the back.

That sketch belongs in every single Apollo book and website, Hoax or Reality.
I daresay I have not seen such a good illustration of how the spacecraft stayed out of the more energetic parts of the VAB



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Is your summary of that thread as accurate as your summary of this one?



So I asked the question, how could you get hotspots on the Ladder and the Astronauts helmet?

Someone said from EARTH.

Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?


Of course he goes on to say the moon itself. But the moon would not create spot like effects on the helmet and ladder. Especially because he states this:

The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

www.badastronomy.com...

See? Where did the spot lights come from?


I don't think anyone here can trust your version of things until you explain yourself.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Fascinating, utterly one-sided (and I expect entirely incorrect) trip down your memory hole...er, I mean "lane".


But, I couldn't help but notice a distinct CHANGE in your style of writing???


Almost as if (nah, this couldn't be it, could it?) someone else is "ghost writing" for you???

....because, I didn't see eve one little emoticon! Like



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
But FM is not so easily convinced and pushes for a better illustration. One that would settle the issue once and for all.
apollohoax.proboards.com...
&
apollohoax.proboards.com...

Jay Utah steps up to the plate and gives us:
apollohoax.proboards.com...
A disgusting looking half-eaten glazed donut that at first glance looked like a... nevermind

After this letdown by Jay Utah, FM decides to once more push for a better illustration and clear answers

So again, and nobody has answered this.
How long was Apollo in the VABs?
I dont care if it was barely touching the edge or it didnt go through the hot spots.
I asked how long it was in the VABs and where did they get this 1 hr figure from?

apollohoax.proboards.com...

Amongst other things FM points out that Phil Plait and NASA dont agree

Phil Plait responding to a question about the VABs:
“…they were in the belts for just a few minutes. Inner, outer, it doesn’t matter. Since they weren’t in them for long, they didn’t get a lethal dose of radiation.

apollohoax.proboards.com...

Another illustration is made, based upon an illustration that FM proposed as a template
apollohoax.proboards.com...

FM offers some advice on the diagram
apollohoax.proboards.com...

JayUtah goes on a tirade
apollohoax.proboards.com...

FM main problem with many of these diagrams are that they illustrate the VABs as being smaller than they have
been reported as being 3.5 to 4 radii tall and 9 to 10 wide
apollohoax.proboards.com...

FM discusses info on Van Allen
apollohoax.proboards.com...

at this point it seems like its open season to character assassinate FM
apollohoax.proboards.com...


Then forum member Bob B. puts together several diagrams and animations
apollohoax.proboards.com...
he has Apollo leaving the VAB after 90 minutes

More patting on the back ensues. Everybody just takes for granted Bob B. has answered any and all questions...
apollohoax.proboards.com...

...all but FM.
apollohoax.proboards.com...
He asks for clarification on the figures, and exposes the myriad of contradictions between the Apollo defenders on
how long it took to go through the belt.
How many do you suppose have revised their estimates to
Bob B.'s findings?

he then questions Bob B.'s data further by comparing it to NASA's
apollohoax.proboards.com...

Bob B. and several other forum members including Jay Utah accuse FM for not understanding NASA data.
Telling him that he is confused between Nautical Miles (NASA standard) and Statute Miles (FM claims was actually used in the NASA transcipt)
apollohoax.proboards.com...

What makes you think they meant nautical miles?

Because it was for the longest time the standard in spacefaring. We still use it for historical reasons, but we typically use SI units now.

How do you know that for sure?

Because I do this for a living and you don't.


Wow... what an ego.

FM counters with a series of punches, including proving NASA had also used Statute Miles in their transcripts:
apollohoax.proboards.com...

FM admits that the CM was shielded for bremsstrahlung. But he doesn't go further to see if the LM was shielded for it.
A missed opportunity.
apollohoax.proboards.com...

We finally come full circle
Drewid posts his youtube video on the trajectory of Apollo going through the VABs.
apollohoax.proboards.com...

Again pats on the back across the board.

FM admires the work put into the diagram, but is not impressed by the conclusions. The diagram has the same faults as the others have.
It looks nicer, but its not based on NASA's own transcript as well the belts seem too small. Throughout it all, reading the responses,
you get the feeling that some people didnt want the trajectory to be plotted in the first place. What were they afraid of? As well you see the board is full
of 'yes men', where it seems that anything a pro apollo supporter posts is considered a fact.

No, I dont see how or where FM got owned. He was holding his own against many opponents and through his persistence he convinced
the board members to create something that not even NASA had, a plot of Apollo going to the moon through the Belts. Diagrams that people have used for schools and debates.

A very entertaining and informative read indeed.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


Is your summary of that thread as accurate as your summary of this one?



So I asked the question, how could you get hotspots on the Ladder and the Astronauts helmet?

Someone said from EARTH.

Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?


Of course he goes on to say the moon itself. But the moon would not create spot like effects on the helmet and ladder. Especially because he states this:

The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

www.badastronomy.com...

See? Where did the spot lights come from?


I don't think anyone here can trust your version of things until you explain yourself.


What exactly is your issue and what are you exactly accusing me of?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 



Fascinating, utterly one-sided (and I expect entirely incorrect) trip down your memory hole...er, I mean "lane".


You are quite free to choose your own side and see how far it takes you.
And if you see any mistakes, then post them. Because simply making negative accusations towards other forum members is lame.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You aren't the same person....perhaps now there will be adult conversation.

Anyway, SINCE this thread is about "White Noise", and his videos that infest....errrr, are posted on YouTube...

(I have selected that new moniker to describe "Jarrah White", and his idiotic videos. Wasn't a term I coined, though I wish I had thought of it....no, it's from the YouTuber who authored the following video....)


ENJOY!!!
(Pssst...take note of the credits, at the end...it's worth the full monty)


(Notes on the video, from the YouTuber):
"Not only has Jarrah made another video that any elementary school kid could debunk, but he has also politely provided us with all the necessary video to prove him wrong. Just like his 'black box' experiment."


"White Noise" !!! That one still makes me



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You aren't the same person....perhaps now there will be adult conversation.

Anyway, SINCE this thread is about "White Noise", and his videos that infest....errrr, are posted on YouTube...

(I have selected that new moniker to describe "Jarrah White", and his idiotic videos. Wasn't a term I coined, though I wish I had thought of it....no, it's from the YouTuber who authored the following video....)


ENJOY!!!
(Pssst...take note of the credits, at the end...it's worth the full monty)


(Notes on the video, from the YouTuber):
"Not only has Jarrah made another video that any elementary school kid could debunk, but he has also politely provided us with all the necessary video to prove him wrong. Just like his 'black box' experiment."


"White Noise" !!! That one still makes me



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


Is your summary of that thread as accurate as your summary of this one?



So I asked the question, how could you get hotspots on the Ladder and the Astronauts helmet?

Someone said from EARTH.

Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?


Of course he goes on to say the moon itself. But the moon would not create spot like effects on the helmet and ladder. Especially because he states this:

The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

www.badastronomy.com...

See? Where did the spot lights come from?


I don't think anyone here can trust your version of things until you explain yourself.


What exactly is your issue and what are you exactly accusing me of?


What part of this post did you not understand?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am accusing you of grossly misrepresenting the following part of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You then present a rubbish post from another poster from another thread in such a way that it is implied that it was part of the above exchange on this thread and hence made by me. This is essentially character assassination. I am accusing you of deliberately propagating disinformation in plain sight.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001


I don't think anyone here can trust your version of things until you explain yourself.


What exactly is your issue and what are you exactly accusing me of?

What part of this post did you not understand?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am accusing you of grossly misrepresenting the following part of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You then present a rubbish post from another poster from another thread in such a way that it is implied that it was part of the above exchange on this thread and hence made by me. This is essentially character assassination. I am accusing you of deliberately propagating disinformation in plain sight.

Dude, I think you got me confused with someone else, because I have no idea what you are going on about. You got an issue that I countered your argument from a quote from Phil Plait?

Did you or did you not say that the reflection on the Astonaut's white helmet was Earth? And that the Earth was powerful enough to cause fill lighting?

If you did not, then why did you reply? if you did, well then what's your problem?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001


I don't think anyone here can trust your version of things until you explain yourself.


What exactly is your issue and what are you exactly accusing me of?



What part of this post did you not understand?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am accusing you of grossly misrepresenting the following part of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You then present a rubbish post from another poster from another thread in such a way that it is implied that it was part of the above exchange on this thread and hence made by me. This is essentially character assassination. I am accusing you of deliberately propagating disinformation in plain sight.



Dude, I think you got me confused with someone else, because I have no idea what you are going on about. You got an issue that I countered your argument from a quote from Phil Plait?

Did you or did you not say that the reflection on the Astonaut's white helmet was Earth? And that the Earth was powerful enough to cause fill lighting?

If you did not, then why did you reply? if you did, well then what's your problem?



Did you or did you not make this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Someone said from EARTH.

Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?


Of course he goes on to say the moon itself. But the moon would not create spot like effects on the helmet and ladder. Especially because he states this:

The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

www.badastronomy.com...

See? Where did the spot lights come from?


Yes, I made a very good case for your mysterious "spotlight" to be specular reflection of the Earth. Where did I ever post anything stating that the lunar surface is "preferentially reflective" as you falsely claim?

Any further attempt to derail this thread further by posting off topic posts about grudges you have on another site will be brought to the Mods attention.

Edits to correct formatting.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by DJW001]

[edit on 25-7-2010 by DJW001]

[edit on 25-7-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   

You are quite free to choose your own side and see how far it takes you.
And if you see any mistakes, then post them. Because simply making negative accusations towards other forum members is lame.


First I see we've run for the shelter of completely different topics rather than discussing the incorrect and contradictory information on light and media posted by Foos. There is a whole list of mistakes that you haven't answered to yet, so this post is confusing to me.

It's also a bit worrying that negative accusations are upsetting you now, considering you and your supporters have mocked my intelligence and accused me of lying repeatedly since my first post on the board. You haven't had any evidence other than your self congratulatory attitude, and as for constantly accusing me of being slow ... Yes, negative accusations towards other forum members is lame.

Secondly I'm over accusations like this one:


Not only for the information that was brought forth, but the behavior and attack tactics of what some would call the Apollogists, the Apollo Defense Force, the Propagandists or NASA Fanboys


Several times in this thread people have constantly stated that people are propagandists or the like ... It just goes to show it doesn't matter what side of the debate you're on you can still use 1984 tactics.

Honestly, the whole 'them and us' thing is just insulting to all the people who contribute to this thread and don't agree with you. According to the cookie crowd NASA spend 'millions' on people to agree with them. Well I don't think anyone here is getting paid on this board. So I think it's time you lot just admitted that people, ordinary humans, disagree with you. Painting us out to be some kind of WWII monster everyone has to be aware of ... and who is the propagandists again? So far I'm leaning towards Jarrah White and his contagious and superior attitude. It's like the text book doctrine of the fascist male machine from Junger's book.

When I had a look through the whole thread last week I found its full of this insulting stuff so it's probably gone on too far, but really its a bit of a stain on the ATS board at the moment.



[edit on 26-7-2010 by Pinke]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Did you or did you not make this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Someone said from EARTH.

Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?


Of course he goes on to say the moon itself. But the moon would not create spot like effects on the helmet and ladder. Especially because he states this:

The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

www.badastronomy.com...



Ummm... who do you think I quoted?
You see that link at the bottom from (badastronomy)
Thats not a forum.
Thats an article by Phil Plait.
I quoted him.
He thought the Earth was bright enough for fill light on the moon, and he retracted that idea.

You get it? Thats not you... thats Phil... oh wait, are you Phil Plait?

If you are not Phil P. then you can either agree or disagree with him and explain how your earlier position is supported by his statement or not.
But to try to derail this thread by accusing me of misquoting you shows how low you will go to win an argument. Or you are very confused.

All you had to do is ask for clarification instead of going on a rant and throwing around threats. Apparently the information revealing the moon hoax is really making you loose your mind, which I warned everyone could happen.


Y'all gon' make me lose my mind up in HERE, up in here
Y'all gon' make me go all out up in here, up in here
Y'all gon' make me act a FOOL up in HERE, up in here
Y'all gon' make me lose my cool up in here, up in here


No... dont worry, Im not quoting you.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 143  144  145    147  148  149 >>

log in

join