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: 217
377
<< 214  215  216    218  219  220 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


So I assume that your ignoring my post about moon dust means you are tacitly admitting defeat on that front. None of the lunar samples are weathered, or show signs of having been subjected atmospheric ablation.

I was only guessing as to camera speed. Whatever it was at any given point scarcely matters to me.

As for your challenge to "uninterested observers:" When expressing your opinions, please specify what benchmarks you are using to estimate time and distance. Specify how you determine the altitude, with reference to known landmarks.




posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Im not convinced. If the only proof it was filmed at 6fps is because of the length of the sequence, that is not enough evidence for an Apollo sceptic.
If Neil Armstrong came and farted moon dust in your face, that wouldn't be enough evidence to you.

It's quite obvious the descent footage is shot at 6fps. And all it takes is simple math to figure it out. Count the frames, divide by the time the descent takes.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Now I gave benefit for the doubt when the moon was a good distance away, but when it got closer??
Does anybody else think this looks like time-lapse photography?
Oh, and I don't think you know what time-lapse photography is, either. Time-lapse refers to footage that is recorded at a lower frame rate than it is played back, thus making time appear to run faster. The descent footage is still being played back at the same speed it was recorded (1 second recorded is 1 second played back). That's not time lapse.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
There have been a number of things that I have talked about elsewhere, yet strangely have not yet discussed in my MoonFaker series. Had Phil Webb's latest videos not given me the opportunity to talk about these subjects, I wouldn't have even bothered wasting my time on them.

Webb's latest videos are nothing but a ridiculous attempt to muddy the waters regarding whether the Apollo astronauts were on the ground or in earth orbit during the time they were supposed to be on their moon flights.

In addition to clearing up Webb's poisoning the well, we'll also be looking at: the fact that NASA used Apollo 13 as an excuse to cease the Apollo program having allegedly completed Kennedy's goal with Apollo 11; on all the moon flights NASA found ways to degrade and or limit the amount of footage they had to fake; and any hint of zero gravity in the Apollo 15 CSM telecasts always seem to last 30seconds or less.

We'll also emphatically establish how the telecommunications were faked on either scenario: Earth orbit mode and Grounded mode.







Well Tom, have fun.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


So I assume that your ignoring my post about moon dust means you are tacitly admitting defeat on that front. None of the lunar samples are weathered, or show signs of having been subjected atmospheric ablation.


And you know this how? You have examples of lunar dust samples from the Apollo era?
Furthermore, as I already stated, they could have made a simulant specifically as the "real thing". Or simply use one of the found meteorites and make "dust" from that.




I was only guessing as to camera speed. Whatever it was at any given point scarcely matters to me.


Mattered enough for you to offer an answer.




As for your challenge to "uninterested observers:" When expressing your opinions, please specify what benchmarks you are using to estimate time and distance. Specify how you determine the altitude, with reference to known landmarks.


Why?



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Im not convinced. If the only proof it was filmed at 6fps is because of the length of the sequence, that is not enough evidence for an Apollo sceptic.
If Neil Armstrong came and farted moon dust in your face, that wouldn't be enough evidence to you.


If old geezers farting in your face is how you obtain evidence, well good for you.
But my standards are far higher than that.



It's quite obvious the descent footage is shot at 6fps. And all it takes is simple math to figure it out. Count the frames, divide by the time the descent takes.


Well if its so obvious go for it... oh wait, you prefer the face fart.


Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Now I gave benefit for the doubt when the moon was a good distance away, but when it got closer??
Does anybody else think this looks like time-lapse photography?
Oh, and I don't think you know what time-lapse photography is, either. Time-lapse refers to footage that is recorded at a lower frame rate than it is played back, thus making time appear to run faster. The descent footage is still being played back at the same speed it was recorded (1 second recorded is 1 second played back). That's not time lapse.


And you know its being played back at the correct or same speed how?



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

If old geezers farting in your face is how you obtain evidence, well good for you.
But my standards are far higher than that.

You obviously have no problems with excrement, as your arguments are littered with it.



Originally posted by FoosM

Well if its so obvious go for it... oh wait, you prefer the face fart.



I already did it above. There are about 5600 frames, which would cover the 15 minute descent at 6fps

Originally posted by FoosM

And you know its being played back at the correct or same speed how?


Because at 12fps, the video would only cover 7 minutes and at 24fps, it would cover less than 4 minutes. You can see from the mission timeline that the descent did not take that short amount of time.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
You're wasting your time with Foos, he is the equivalent of the insolent child that finds it amusing to keep saying 'why' to everything you answer. Like the child he deserves a good spanking and being made to sit in the corner facing the wall, but sadly it won't happen.
If you feel yourself getting annoyed with his stupidity just sit back with a smug look on your face knowing that a jellyfish after a stroke still has a higher IQ and better reasoning skills.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



And you know this how? You have examples of lunar dust samples from the Apollo era?
Furthermore, as I already stated, they could have made a simulant specifically as the "real thing". Or simply use one of the found meteorites and make "dust" from that.


In other words, you refuse to acknowledge that even a non-geologist can instantly tell the difference between geological samples formed on Earth due to weathering and samples collected on the Moon. This can readily be done with a small magnifying lens. Imagine trying to duplicate all those rare isotopes and keep those nasty hydrogen and oxygen molecules from interacting with the minerals you expose on the increased surface area of your fake moon dust. (And yes, I've actually seen real moon dust with my own eyes. It was sealed in a container with an inert gas, but I could view it through a lens.) Where is this secret workshop located where they grind meteorites into erratically shaped particles without contaminating them with terrestrial carborundum located. anyway? How many magic elves did they need to hand craft each particle? Did Santa Clause swear them to secrecy?


Mattered enough for you to offer an answer.


You asked a question. It's rude to ignore a question, as you have been doing. Can you honestly see no difference between weathered and un-weathered particles? I'm not surprised you've latched on to the 16mm films. You seem to think that Project Apollo was just a movie. It wasn't. There are so many real, physical artifacts, like the lunar rock samples, that you flee because they testify to the historical reality of the program.


Why?


Because if you don't have objective standards of measurement, all you're doing is offering an uninformed opinion. But that's the name of the game with you, isn't it, FoosM? Avoid facts and figures wherever possible and try to convince everyone that something "looks wrong.," knowing that to an Earthling, everything in space "looks wrong."



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


What I find rather odd is one day you know how to format your posts almost correctly then other days you seem to 'forgotten' proper formatting, providing link to sources, etc etc.

You sure seem cut the corners with everything you do Jarrah, as usual the Grandson of the Apollo Hoax, you continue to prove to be the fraud like your predecessors.

Now here is something that has been answered to many times:

There have been a number of things that I have talked about elsewhere, yet strangely have not yet discussed in my MoonFaker series. Had Phil Webb's latest videos not given me the opportunity to talk about these subjects, I wouldn't have even bothered wasting my time on them.

Webb's latest videos are nothing but a ridiculous attempt to muddy the waters regarding whether the Apollo astronauts were on the ground or in earth orbit during the time they were supposed to be on their moon flights.


I love in your series that you say that some, missions were in earth orbit and others were on the ground IE you say Apollo 15 astronauts never left earth.


Seriously, why fake some missions to space and not others?? Are you as clueless about what you say, as you look?



In addition to clearing up Webb's poisoning the well, we'll also be looking at: the fact that NASA used Apollo 13 as an excuse to cease the Apollo program having allegedly completed Kennedy's goal with Apollo 11; on all the moon flights NASA found ways to degrade and or limit the amount of footage they had to fake; and any hint of zero gravity in the Apollo 15 CSM telecasts always seem to last 30seconds or less.


Is there some proof of forgery in that comment? All it is; pure speculation and opinion, like everything you say, NO MERIT!


We'll also emphatically establish how the telecommunications were faked on either scenario: Earth orbit mode and Grounded mode.


Let me explain this to you for the MILLIONTH TIME....

If the Apollo mission were faked from LEO [low earth orbit] The spacecraft would be revolving around the earth every 90 minutes. And you say that no one would be able to tell the difference of being on a moon shot or on LEO?

Your IQ is lowering actively. I am sure this might be hard for you to comprehend, but again billions of Ph.d's on the planet wouldn't be as easily fooled as you are of such nonsense.

There isn't a thing that you try to come up with that hasn't been shot down in a flame.

Last thing for you is this definition:


FRAUD noun:
1.) a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
2.) a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be


fraud

Like your collecting money for your moon shot, all to defraud people of money.

Your agenda is known, all you care about is perpetuating non-sense about Apollo to line your pockets with money, all in false pretenses.




posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 




Because if you don't have objective standards of measurement, all you're doing is offering an uninformed opinion. But that's the name of the game with you, isn't it, FoosM? Avoid facts and figures wherever possible and try to convince everyone that something "looks wrong.," knowing that to an Earthling, everything in space "looks wrong."


Well said!


I think people tend to forget another world as in the condition of the moon: There is no way to compare the other world [moon] to what we expect on earth, for they are clearly not the same.




posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
edit: in regards to JW's new videos above I have another question ...

Considering the Parkes and Honeysuckle stations had a collimation tower nearby for testing purposes...

(from the honeysuckle site)


Located on a nearby mountain ridge to the west was a tower, known as a Collimation Tower, with special equipment and antennae to simulate a spacecraft, so the main antenna could be pointed at it to run tests on all the transmitting, receiving and processing equipment. Before every pass all the equipment was checked out on the Collimation Tower. If a problem appeared while tracking a spacecraft, the station could quickly check out all its systems by going to the tower and running tests to confirm whether the problem was in the station or in the spacecraft.




Considering a tower like this was 3km's northwest of the Parkes observatory, could it have provided simulated data, video etc. if the power was set high enough to saturate the Parke's dish regardless of which direction it was pointing? Thereby fooling the operators. Fooling them to believe they were actually receiving Apollo transmissions when in fact it was simulated data and video.

source: www.honeysucklecreek.net...





edit on 12-10-2010 by ppk55 because: edit... JW's videos above



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Hopefully China will get to the moon soon and show that there is no American flag up there. No offense to Americans but your government is full of s***. There are too many stories of deceipt against their own country and people for me to believe anything they say.

I know the English government are no angels either so don't start that argument please, i'm not interested.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Considering a tower like this was 3km's northwest of the Parkes observatory, could it have provided simulated data, video etc. if the power was set high enough to saturate the Parke's dish regardless of which direction it was pointing? Thereby fooling the operators. Fooling them to believe they were actually receiving Apollo transmissions when in fact it was simulated data and video.



They would notice that the signal was stronger than the one they were expecting and that the source was not moving. Besides, the tower was probably controlled from the same room as the dish.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jexmo
 


Because China would never lie about a thing like that? And why "hopefully?" Why does it bother you so that maybe the US did one thing right and told the truth about it? How has the Apollo Program personally injured you? Seriously, I'm curious as to why some people fervently believe that humanity has not been able to land on the Moon.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin turns out to be fake.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Also, here is conclusive proof that the mainstream media lies and fabricates stories deliberately.



Jarrah White:
Last month I received quite a few emails informing me of the 2010 Australian Geographic Awards Night, where a piece of digitally remastered Apollo 11 moonwalk footage would be screened and Buzz Aldrin would attend as the guest of honor.

I purchased tickets and asked if it were possible to arrange an interview with Aldrin. The organizers couldn't arrange one, but invited me to attend the press conference the day before the awards ceremony.

During the conference I questioned Aldrin about the Dutch moon rock incident. In October 1969, during their goodwill tour, the Apollo 11 crew gave a moon rock to the then US Ambassador to the Netherlands, J. William Middendorf, who in turn presented it to former Dutch Prime Minister Willem Drees. Last year, the moon rock in question was proven to be a piece of petrified wood.
www.telegraph.co.uk...

It seems the Sydney Morning Herald jumped on my attendance, as on October 6 they released an article alleging that I was an antagonistic gate crasher who needed to be removed by security. These allegations are both false and libelous.
www.smh.com.au...

To prove that I was not an uninvited, antagonistic interloper or removed from the conference, I am releasing this video showing my invitation to the conference, my exchange with Aldrin and the last few minutes of footage showing that I stayed the whole way through.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Let me see if I am following your "logic" here, by mentioning this (IS it related to that numb skull Jarrah White's claims that "somehow" the missions were "faked", and all the signals were able to "fool" the very experienced and knowledgeable people who were monitoring them???)

Before going on, let's examine what "Jarrah White" (and his apparent proxy, FoosM, who posts here, have claimed. Alternately, it varies:

We have seen the "claim" (FoosM, perhaps on behalf of "Jarrah White") that Apollo Astronauts were somehow, after being seen assisted into the Command Module capsule, spirited out, via the Emergency Egress System (which, of course, NO ONE SAW!!! Not one of the many reporters,and other observers on scene at launches...people who where VERY familiar with all aspects of the Apollo missions, and technical details).

However, following along with this incredible "scenario", FoosM would have us believe that, once removed from the spacecraft, all the communications were (and here, he jumps back-and-forth) either pre-recorded, or "acted" on a sound stage.


Of course, just ONE glaring flaw (as if it needs ANY) is the lightning strike on Apollo 12, at launch...SEEN by everyone watching the launch, at the Cape, and certainly impossible to "fake", nor anticipate ahead of time...

Trying to keep up with "Jarrah White", again, from some of his idiotic videos, with their equally inane claims...he tries to fool his "audience" with nonsense about the Apollo crews remaining in LEO for the entire mission (even though MANY people not associated with NASA --- amateur space enthusiasts --- SAW the LOI burn as the Apollo spacecraft begin its trans-lunar journey, OUT of Earth's orbit).

"Jarrah" conjures up an incredibly complex "scheme", involving the sorts of technologies available (maybe) today, but certainly NOT in the late 1960s. Satellites (secret, of course!) that are used as "relays", to "simulate" the telemetry, and time delays. DARN!! With all that "figurin", it'd be easier just to actually GO TO THE MOON!!!

But wait, there's more!! "Jarrah" also has another (mutually exclusive, if you stop to think about it) claim that the Astronauts were NEVER launched....somehow, their CM fooled everyone (all of the evident re-entry heating and burn damage) and was "really" just dropped out of an airplane, for the filming of splashdowns.

SO..."Jarrah" can't even keep his "ideas" straight....and falls flat on his face with each increasingly inane attempt to come up with ANY scenario, other than reality of Apollo.


Finally, "Jarrah White" and his know-nothing sycophants have somehow come up with the twisted ideas that the folks in Mission Control could be "fooled" (for an ENTIRE mission, mind you) by "fake" telemetry....because, according to them, it's "The same during the training simulations."

I am amazed that ANYONE is silly enough to fall for such obvious idiocy, and lack of comprehension of reality. It is a sign of a total lack of knowledge and understanding of what a training simulation session is actually like, and how it is incredibly different from REAL WORLD!!!

Using an airline flight simulator, as an example: First, we KNOW going in that it's a simulator...and, during each roughly two-hour session, a LOT of different things happen, that are not based on realism, in terms of the timeline. Each function, and point of the training session, is isolated from the rest --- broken up into segments, and in between there's a slight break while the Simulator is re-set, either to repeat the last, or start into something else.

It would have been exactly the same with the Apollo (or Gemini, and Mercury) training, as it is today with the Shuttle. What "Jarrah White" either doesn't realize (or, hopes the patsies who slobber all over his junk videos won't realize) is that NO "simulated mission" could have been sustained for the lengths of time seen, to complete a full Apollo mission. DAYS of time, uninterrupted...and no accidental glitches, not one thing to make a person say, "Hey!! We're being fooled here!".

Because, IT WAS REAL!



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


As usual, another LIE!!! WWu777, you have been caught out posting utter lies many times, now....oh, well, of course, you can hide behind the "news" story. But, do you really wish people to believe that your investigative skills are so poor that you didn't look deeper??

The "story" has been oft-repeated (INCORRECTLY) and the record needs to be cleared. Here is what ACTUALY happened:


The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969 from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.


NOT a "gift directly form the Apollo 11 Astronauts" as that crap article (and now you, and others) claim.

But wait, where did MIDDENDORF get it from?


Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.


www.usatoday.com...

NONE of the Apollo lunar samples (especially THAT SOON AFTER the Apollo 11 mission ended) were disseminated outside of NASA storage facilities.

en.wikipedia.org...


Of course, have yet to see any Moon HBs who don't resort to innuendo, misunderstandings (direclty, or suggested) or outright falsehoods..........



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


LOL


WONDEFUL! I love it. So Jarrah becomes a little cry baby when someone twists events around and lies about HIM!
Now the little squirt knows what it feels like... Awww.. Poor little Jarrah


I wonder if Jarrah is too stupid to see the irony that he has demonstrated that a newpaper will lie, yet his own line of questioning was in reference to a newspaper article that could be and probably was equally inaccurate.
And before some idiot comes along and moans that the fake moon rock was reported in several sources, they usually buy the same stories either from a central source or from each other, so don't even bother.

Muppet!
edit on 12-10-2010 by AgentSmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Oh the irony! His only proof of his side of the story is a video which he has been maintaining all along can be faked and alleged "e-mails." How weak.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 214  215  216    218  219  220 >>

log in

join