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: 294
377
<< 291  292  293    295  296  297 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I assumed my explanation made it clear that I was superimposing the zoomed-in frame with the "strings" on the original image, and that the black outline made it clear where the edge of the frame was.

Here are the two whole frames, unscaled. The flashes and the "strings" are 145 and 111 pixels away from the right edge of the frame.





posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by backinblack
 


I assumed my explanation made it clear that I was superimposing the zoomed-in frame with the "strings" on the original image, and that the black outline made it clear where the edge of the frame was.

Here are the two whole frames, unscaled. The flashes and the "strings" are 145 and 111 pixels away from the right edge of the frame.



lol, I'm not blind...
This new two frames DO show the spots in the same location but now the background is moving..!!!!
What the hell are you trying to show..??

They ARE moving mate..No denying it...



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
lol, I'm not blind...
This new two frames DO show the spots in the same location but now the background is moving..!!!!
What the hell are you trying to show..??

They ARE moving mate..No denying it...


*sigh*

We have two frames. One that is zoomed out, which shows the flashes, and one that is zoomed in, that shows the "strings."

In the first animation I posted, I superimposed the "strings" image on top of the flashes image. Because the camera had zoomed in when we see the string, I scaled it down (to 86.95% of its original size), and moved it such that the "background" lines up in both frames. I marked the location of the flashes with green lines. I then scaled down the green lines by the same amount and moved them the same amount, and what coincided with the flashes on the first frame now coincides with the "strings" on the second frame. So yes, the spots move with respect to the image I've created, but they do not move with respect to the edges of the two frames (the edge of the first frame signified by the edge of the image, and the edge of the second frame signified by the black outline).

In other words, your mouse isn't the marker of the location, the green lines are.

In the second image, I took both frames and did not scale down or move the second one. So now the location of the flashes and lines are the same in both frames (since the dimensions of the image is the same as both frames), but the backgrounds don't line up, because in the second frame, the camera has zoomed in.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


SIGH all you want..

In the last two frames you posted the arrows remain in the same spot but the background moves..



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Yes, and I just explained why.

Put two dots on your camera lens. Take a picture. Now zoom in some and take another picture.

Now when you open both pictures, you'll see the dots are in the same location in both pictures, but the background has changed. (As in the second animation I posted).

If you scale down the second image such that the backgrounds line up, the dots will move (as in the first animation).



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by backinblack
 


Yes, and I just explained why.

Put two dots on your camera lens. Take a picture. Now zoom in some and take another picture.

Now when you open both pictures, you'll see the dots are in the same location in both pictures, but the background has changed. (As in the second animation I posted).

If you scale down the second image such that the backgrounds line up, the dots will move (as in the first animation).



WTF.?? If you zoom in the dots SHOULD move apart..!!
They don't in your shots...
They stay in EXACTLY the same spot while the background moves..
That should not happen unless you made a mistake or it was deliberate...



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
WTF.?? If you zoom in the dots SHOULD move apart..!!
They don't in your shots...
They stay in EXACTLY the same spot while the background moves..
That should not happen unless you made a mistake or it was deliberate...


No, the dots on the camera lens will NOT move apart if you zoom in. Why would they? They're fixed on the lens. They're going to project to the same locations on the image sensor no matter what is in front of the lens. They're going to stay in EXACTLY the same spot while the background moves.

If you have dust specks on your camera's sensor, they're going to show up in the same location no matter what picture you take, no matter the level of the zoom.

That's my whole point, that the flashes and "strings" we see are a function of the camera (be it on the lens or the sensor), precisely because they do remain in EXACTLY the same spot.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
WTF.?? If you zoom in the dots SHOULD move apart..!!
They don't in your shots...
They stay in EXACTLY the same spot while the background moves..
That should not happen unless you made a mistake or it was deliberate...


No, the dots on the camera lens will NOT move apart if you zoom in. Why would they? They're fixed on the lens. They're going to project to the same locations on the image sensor no matter what is in front of the lens. They're going to stay in EXACTLY the same spot while the background moves.

If you have dust specks on your camera's sensor, they're going to show up in the same location no matter what picture you take, no matter the level of the zoom.

That's my whole point, that the flashes and "strings" we see are a function of the camera (be it on the lens or the sensor), precisely because they do remain in EXACTLY the same spot.


Are you for real???
If two objects are 10cms apart in a normal pic and I zoom in 50%, then the objects will appear 20cms apart..
That's reality.....



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Are you for real???
If two objects are 10cms apart in a normal pic and I zoom in 50%, then the objects will appear 20cms apart..
That's reality.....

I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding this.

I'm not talking about zooming by scaling the image. I'm talking about zooming by changing the focal length of the camera (as happens in the original video we're talking about).

If your two objects are specks of dust stuck to the image sensor, it doesn't matter how much you change the focal length of the lens. Those two specks are going to be in the same position on every shot.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Imagine my disappointment when I woke up this morning looking forward to reading Foos' response, only to find out he was speechless on the matter. You keep trying to defend Jarrah's corner and state he wasn't tricking the audience, so answer this simply question, in fact this is open to any of the Jarrah fans:

Jarrah clearly states:

"Given that the maximum doses of radiation one can receive before dying is 500 REM, that means the astronauts would receive 1333 REM or 2.6 times the lethal dose in the belts alone. Hopefully this puts the 30 degree inclination trajectory argument to rest."



Why is he telling his viewers the Astronauts will receive this dose?



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



I'm glad you brought this up ... I've just come across this video that involves the 'mythbusters'.


Why are you changing the subject? At this point, you need to ask yourself one question: why did Jarrah White do a calculation "proving" that astronauts traveling at a thirty degree inclination would receive a lethal dose of radiation, when the document he used proved that they wouldn't? Did you make any attempt to confirm his research yourself, or did you just believe it because Jarrah said it? Jarrah has been lying to you. As I have pointed out, he uses exactly the same propaganda techniques in his videos as the main stream media. He lies, distorts and cherry picks... and yet you defend him. The fact that he used the unshielded radiation data and then claimed that it was the dose the astronauts would receive is an outright lie. The fact that he knew better means that the entire "Moonfaker" video series is intended as a HOAX.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55
 



I'm glad you brought this up ... I've just come across this video that involves the 'mythbusters'.


Why are you changing the subject? At this point, you need to ask yourself one question: why did Jarrah White do a calculation "proving" that astronauts traveling at a thirty degree inclination would receive a lethal dose of radiation, when the document he used proved that they wouldn't? Did you make any attempt to confirm his research yourself, or did you just believe it because Jarrah said it? Jarrah has been lying to you. As I have pointed out, he uses exactly the same propaganda techniques in his videos as the main stream media. He lies, distorts and cherry picks... and yet you defend him. The fact that he used the unshielded radiation data and then claimed that it was the dose the astronauts would receive is an outright lie. The fact that he knew better means that the entire "Moonfaker" video series is intended as a HOAX.


Actually, the most damning thing against Jarrah is his reticence to debate on any forum. When he tried on IMDB he got eviscerated so badly that most of his posts were deleted because they became so vile.

But a "truth seeker" like Jarrah should be happy to debate anyone, anywhere, if his information is as solid as he claims. Yet he hides at Youtube where real-time debate is impossible, and he can take his time and answer any criticisms with his usual dishonest tactics.

Come on Jarrah! MAN UP! We're waiting.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Don't be ridiculous Tom, Jarrah will never show his face publically here as he's a coward and every time he tries to get involved in a 2-way conversation with anyone that actually knows what they're talking about he gets the whipping of his life.
All that results is the showing of he's true colours of being ignorant, rude and so abusive he makes me look like Mr Pleasant. As pointed out, we just have to look at the various attempts in the past he has made to communicate to see what a nasty, stupid little boy he is.
Similarly to the Wizard of Oz, he just hides behind the curtain of YouTube while dishing out his brand of ignorance pretending to be some great man that he can only dream of being.
No we won't see Jarrah here, he's too cowardly and scared of getting his ass whipped like it has every time before. Besides, if he posted here, after he started to recieve the formentioned whipping then thanks to the ATS censoring system his posts would look like this:

# # # # # # # # # #




posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



No, the dots on the camera lens will NOT move apart if you zoom in. Why would they? They're fixed on the lens. They're going to project to the same locations on the image sensor no matter what is in front of the lens. They're going to stay in EXACTLY the same spot while the background moves.


Ahh, sorry..I thought YOU resized the pics..
I missed the "camera zoomed in" bit..

I read where you said you upscaled them..



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
gods alive it was hard work even going through a quarter of this thread, are there some threads 'debunking' each of his videos one at a time?



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Versa
 


I think that "Jarrah White" is a serial pest, and way too prolific, spewing too many essentially similar videos, to be able to tackle them individually.

Did you see any of the links to the YouTube video poster "PhilWebb59"?

He does an outstanding job of summarizing "JW" videos in his responses. There are some others on YouTube too...unfortunately, "JW" continues to spam them out, relentlessly. He has an agenda, and it doesn't involve the "hoax", except for the way it can massage his ego, and line his wallet in every way possible.

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

Here's one to start off.....It is "MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #01: Water in Moon Rocks"



I found as many as up to "Critique #22"....there may be more.......
edit on 2 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
The problem with this thread is that its very title, "Young aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate" is like a piece of malformed code destined to create a dysfunctional thread. It would have been more honest to call it "Portal To My Friend's YouTube Channel." The subject of the thread is Jarrah White, whose very name is like waving a red flag in a bull's face to some people. Whenever Jarrah gets debunked, his supporters change the subject and try to turn the thread into "Prove To Me That NASA Landed Men On The Moon Without Using Historical Evidence" or "I Don't Understand Something About This Photo So It Proves Apollo Is A Hoax." Then people fall for it and the whole thread skews way off topic, and Jarrah gets lost until someone posts his latest video and the cycle begins anew. Every few pages a poor innocent passer by stumbles onto the thread, reads the first post and skips immediately to the last page. They then bring up an issue that has been discussed to death a dozen times before, tempers grow short and the cycle repeats. This thread needs to be aborted, or it will continue to spin mindlessly like a lifeless cosmonaut orbiting a dead star.

There is ample room for a debate about the "Moon Hoax" on a new thread. FoosM, start a new thread with a title like "Top Ten Reasons Why I Think Apollo Was A Hoax" and I'm sure we'll all run right over there to join you... but at least the discussion will be focussed, instead of being pulled between the two "strange attractors" (Jarrah vs. NASA) that have caused this thread to go completely chaotic.
edit on 2-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by almostextreme
 


Good-bye, this thread is bad enough as it is.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 291  292  293    295  296  297 >>

log in

join