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: 308
377
<< 305  306  307    309  310  311 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

So what?


Brilliant response.


The photos could have been in NASA's possession all the time.


The point was that the picture I posted was released by NASA only a short time after the LRO entered orbit. So it would have been impossible for it to have taken the picture any earlier.


NASA sent plenty of probes to scan the surface of the moon.


Yes, to do things like measure the long-term radiation and look for water. Not image the landing sites.


They could have even used observatories like the Hubble.


It has already been explained many times why Hubble cannot image the hardware left on the moon.

Don't you read the thread?


Its still evidence from NASA and not third parties.

Russians sent probes to the moon, where are their pics of the LM etc?


People who don't think Apollo was a conspiracy don't see the need to take detailed pictures of the hardware, given the hundreds of pictures we already have. Redundancy is a waste of money.

There have been dozens of countries who have been involved with sending probes both into deep space and to the moon. NOT ONE scientist from any of those countries has questioned ANY of the numbers produced by Apollo. If the radiation for the VABs were so much higher than NASA has published, the probes from these other countries would have been fried, or if the radiation on the moon is so much higher, they could have lost their probes, yet every country does not remotely question NASA and Apollo.

Are they ALL lying?




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Nope.
Why would I bother to post anonymous when Im using a false identity?


Interesting statement. Please explain.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Saw this on another site.
Found it curious.

Is the CM landing?

CSM separation sequence:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
why isnt the top of the CM black, shouldnt it be reflecting space?

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

now compare it to the video:
2:22


Starts off with the CM far above the moon, which is in the background, also note its reflecting space, and then we see the LM with the background of the moon...? When did the switch happen?

Compare the LM's lighting in the video to the photos:

A view of the LM Eagle, shortly after undocking from Columbia:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Notice the lighting is different? Much darker

www.lpi.usra.edu...
its moving away from the CM... yet where is the moon in the background like we saw in the video?
And who is manning the controls while videos and photos are being made?

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Now if I compare the video to the photos...
(www.lpi.usra.edu...)
...is that the same Eagle?



Maybe its late and Im just seeing things but to me it
seems like the images are reversed!
How did that happen?
But regardless, you can see the lighting is different.
How can it be different if its the same situation... or did these two events
happen at different times?






www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

So what?


Brilliant response.


Thanks





The photos could have been in NASA's possession all the time.


The point was that the picture I posted was released by NASA only a short time after the LRO entered orbit. So it would have been impossible for it to have taken the picture any earlier.


I know what your point is, but you are wrong that it was impossible see below:




NASA sent plenty of probes to scan the surface of the moon.


Yes, to do things like measure the long-term radiation and look for water. Not image the landing sites.


Bzzz... wrong answer.
Now why would you want to walk into a gut check?

Was Clementine before or after LRO?
Was Lunar Orbiter before or after LRO?

The moon has already been mapped dude, probably more times than you know.





They could have even used observatories like the Hubble.


It has already been explained many times why Hubble cannot image the hardware left on the moon.

Don't you read the thread?



Dont you read my sentences?
Where did I say anything about taking photos of hardware?
We are talking about maps.
Are you attempting to mislead readers or were you confused about the context?





Its still evidence from NASA and not third parties.

Russians sent probes to the moon, where are their pics of the LM etc?


People who don't think Apollo was a conspiracy don't see the need to take detailed pictures of the hardware, given the hundreds of pictures we already have. Redundancy is a waste of money.


Right.
I thought the US & USSR were enemies in a cold war/space race.
I would think the USSR would want to verify US claims.
But thats the crux of the issue. Why wouldnt they?
Why would they simply say, "sure we believe you Americans, you would never trick us.
And you would never build military bases on the moon to become a 'uber' power in the world"
LOL.

But now you want us to believe they were allies/friendlies?

sigh.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Oh, I am going to enjoy examining your post HERE --- but, before getting into it....WHAT is your point, exactly here??? WHY are you still avoiding the obvious??

"Jarrah White" has been exposed as a fraud and a liar....is it going to help by obviously continuing to post these distractions? Trying to distract from the "Jarrah" lies, especially the latest, and very obvious, one about the radiation in the Van Allen Belts?

DO YOU THINK people are that stupid?? Seriously....do you??



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


OK...first hit:


Originally posted by FoosM
Saw this on another site.
Found it curious.

Is the CM landing?

CSM separation sequence:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
why isnt the top of the CM black, shouldnt it be reflecting space?


Really?

Hint: Where is the Earth, in relation to the spacecraft? (The CSM) AND, where is the Sun??

AND.....WHERE IS THE MOON??? You know, that BIG, BRIGHT thing that reflects sunlight?? (As does the Earth, too.....).....

"reflecting space"..... :shk:

Your "argument" is somewhat valid, when applied to many, many Science Fiction films that purport to be "in space"......WHEN they are in deep space, and not in the near vicinity of a star....such as our SUN!!!!

This is why, for instance, "Star Trek" decided to add some lighting enhancements to the StarShip Enterprise for the movie series (and the Next Generation TV series as well...and many others that followed after the "Classic" show of the late 1960s). A minor homage to the 'purists' who, rightly, pointed out the lack of illumination when NOT NEAR a major star......and, thus, a light source.....






edit on 10 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
CSM separation sequence:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
why isnt the top of the CM black, shouldnt it be reflecting space?
It is reflecting space. You can see where the lunar horizon is. Given the amount of glare, it looks like it's reflecting an area very near the sun.


Originally posted by FoosM
now compare it to the video:
2:22

Starts off with the CM far above the moon, which is in the background, also note its reflecting space, and then we see the LM with the background of the moon...? When did the switch happen?
There was an hour and 24 minutes between when they separated and when the descent orbit insertion burn on the LM started. That's more than half an orbit around the moon. Plenty of time for the lighting conditions to change. And you're also dealing with different sensitivities between the still camera film and the sequence camera film.



Originally posted by FoosM
And who is manning the controls while videos and photos are being made?
This isn't like driving a race car. Other than the separation burn and a few RCs firings, there weren't any controls that needed manning. Over the course of near 1.5 hours, there's plenty of time to take some photos. The sequence camera was mounted in the window.


Originally posted by FoosM



Yup, the video has been mirrored (flipped left to right). You can see the S-band antenna is hanging off the right side of the LM as we see it in the video, and it should be on the left. I can see the US flag on the right side, where the "UNITED STATES" lettering should be. Why they mirrored it, I have no idea. I'm sure I'm see that footage in the correctly-oriented direction before.


Originally posted by FoosM
How can it be different if its the same situation... or did these two events
These events happened over 1.5 hours, with varying light conditions from no sun to sun directly "overhead."
edit on 10-1-2011 by nataylor because: formatting



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Ah, here's why the video is mirrored compared to the photos: It was shot through a mirror!


history.nasa.gov...

Right Angle Mirror. This accessory, when attached to the bracket-mounted 16-mm camera and lens, facilitates photography through the spacecraft rendezvous windows along a line of sight parallel to the CM X-axis with a minimum of interference to the crewmen. It adapts to the 18-mm and 75-mm lenses by means of bayonet fittings.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Ever since the Apollo "hoax" nonsense started, these "claims" have only found audience when they have been made absent any direct, and immediate ability to refute....WITH REFERENCED FACTS.

The "hoax" claims have, time and again, relied on an appeal to the "emotion" of the audience, and have (sometimes) cleverly played that audience for fools....counting on their general (and sometimes less than basic) understanding of photography, perspective, and physics ..... AND, the true fact that this same audience has ONLY the Earthly experience to draw upon, for comparisons....and, thus....little innate comprehension of the nature of alien environments and situations, such as are encountered in space, and on the surface of other celestial bodies besides the Earth....with other atmospheric, or LACK of atmospheric, situations.

"Jarrah White" has become adept at this deception. Again....whether the man (child?) is so deep into the delusion that he actually cannot see his deception....or, whether he is deceiving with ulterior motive, it is hard to say.

Only HE (and perhaps his inner circle of closest friends/colleagues/family) know for sure.......



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM
 


Ah, here's why the video is mirrored compared to the photos: It was shot through a mirror!


history.nasa.gov...

Right Angle Mirror. This accessory, when attached to the bracket-mounted 16-mm camera and lens, facilitates photography through the spacecraft rendezvous windows along a line of sight parallel to the CM X-axis with a minimum of interference to the crewmen. It adapts to the 18-mm and 75-mm lenses by means of bayonet fittings.


Nice catch..
I just assumed they may have put the negatives in reversed, no biggy where real film is involved..



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst


But why would the Indians and the Japanese scientists confirm the American landing sites if there was no evidence?


The landing site might be confirmed,
but the hardware isnt.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Facefirst


But why would the Indians and the Japanese scientists confirm the American landing sites if there was no evidence?


The landing site might be confirmed,
but the hardware isnt.


The Japanese didn't confirm anything but a "halo". Source : www.jaxa.jp...

What is the difference between this "halo" and a "face on mars"?
edit on 1/11/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: grammar



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



What is the difference between this "halo" and a "face on mars"?


The "face on Mars" is a natural feature in a random location. The halo is a notable surface discontinuity in precisely the location where a manned landing is known to have taken place.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



In later missions why didnt they bring equipment to photograph stars?
No excuse for that.


We've already done that one:


[


Good opportunity to bring JW's videos on the subject of STARS


Apollo cameras should have picked up at least bright stars


Its about studying the moon not the stars, lol



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Facefirst


But why would the Indians and the Japanese scientists confirm the American landing sites if there was no evidence?


The landing site might be confirmed,
but the hardware isnt.


The Japanese didn't confirm anything but a "halo". Source : www.jaxa.jp...

What is the difference between this "halo" and a "face on mars"?
edit on 1/11/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: grammar


Thats right... and what was the "halo"?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Facefirst


But why would the Indians and the Japanese scientists confirm the American landing sites if there was no evidence?


The landing site might be confirmed,
but the hardware isnt.


The Japanese didn't confirm anything but a "halo". Source : www.jaxa.jp...

What is the difference between this "halo" and a "face on mars"?
edit on 1/11/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: grammar


Thats right... and what was the "halo"?





I am not going to rely on the verdict of a vindictive child who thinks rubbing a balloon on the side of his head is actually going to accurately simulate static charges in outer space.

The kid has been shown to bully people in forums, misrepresent facts and in one known case, knowingly use a false witness. (That's called lying) He has also been shown by people who are actually trained in space related fields that he knows little to nothing of the very subjects he pontificates about.

Jarrah provides no proof of anything other that his own technically unqualified, speculative opinion.

Sorry, I'm done with Jarrah.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst

I am not going to rely on the verdict of a vindictive child who thinks rubbing a balloon on the side of his head is actually going to accurately simulate static charges in outer space.

The kid has been shown to bully people in forums, misrepresent facts and in one known case, knowingly use a false witness. (That's called lying) He has also been shown by people who are actually trained in space related fields that he knows little to nothing of the very subjects he pontificates about.

Jarrah provides no proof of anything other that his own technically unqualified, speculative opinion.

Sorry, I'm done with Jarrah.


Wow, you give up easy.
Is it because you cant find a good explanation for the moving flag on NASA's side?
Do you give up on NASA too?

*waves hand*



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


???

You posted a video (www.youtube.com...) by "Jarrah White" that effectively destroys his Apollo "hoax" claims??


In his desperate attempts to just have a vindictive pissing contest with another YouTube poster's videos, he manages to shoot himself in the foot with all of the references to the photographic evidence of the LM on the Moon!!!!

Can you see, now, "Jarrah White" for what he truly is?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 






Is it because you cant find a good explanation for the moving flag on NASA's side...


Still trying to distract and deflect? By bringing up OLD, already explained "hoax" nonsense?? Do you think it will make people FORGET about "Jarrah White"s lies and disinformation, and obvious trolling nature of his YouTube vdeos?

WHY won't you discuss the radiation lies by "JW"?? Have you given up, seeing how your "hero" has been exposed?

(waves hand).....



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Apollo cameras should have picked up at least bright stars


Or at the very least, Venus:



Al Shepard took this photo on Apollo 14. You can read about it here. I know: an obvious fake. Whenever someone points to something your vast research overlooked, it must be a fake.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 305  306  307    309  310  311 >>

log in

join