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: 339
377
<< 336  337  338    340  341  342 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
So have you guys solved the Moon Hoax Debate? Is there a winner yet? There's 338 pages of debate, surely by now someone is the clear winner.

Or are you guys just blabbing on and on about nothing?




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
So have you guys solved the Moon Hoax Debate? Is there a winner yet? There's 338 pages of debate, surely by now someone is the clear winner.

Or are you guys just blabbing on and on about nothing?


No, it seems now that the apollo believers are playing dirty..
Seems quoting NASA is no longer considered proof to them..
It's just a backslapping star feast regardless of whether their posts are right or wrong...

Well maybe they are learning..



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Are you saying I am wrong when I posted a NASA link that clearly states their sats had resolutions as high as 2.5cms..?????

No, you are being asked for RELEVANCE to the topic. You know, that thing you are complaining about...


Really, what a retarded thread this is turning into..
Everyone argueing over irrelevant facts..

Can't spot why?
indeed...

See above.... If you want it to stop, stop doing it. If you posted relevant stuff, there would be no problem. May I remind you that it was Sayonara and you who raised the resolution issue, but you have gone absolutely nowhere with it except to argue about satellites that have nothing to do with the Moon or Apollo and falsely claim you can identify car makes in normal GE satellite images. Why? I have no idea.

If you actually get back on topic - namely Apollo, I'll be happy to address any issues..


So... WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
edit on 30-1-2011 by CHRLZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by harrytuttle
So have you guys solved the Moon Hoax Debate? Is there a winner yet? There's 338 pages of debate, surely by now someone is the clear winner.
Or are you guys just blabbing on and on about nothing?


JW spamlink removed


Please do not encourage spamming of video links without comment by giving JW more hits . JW himself is too cowardly to appear on this forum under his own name.

If sayonara has some point to make, he should state it in his own words and bravely take responsibility for it.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by harrytuttle
So have you guys solved the Moon Hoax Debate? Is there a winner yet? There's 338 pages of debate, surely by now someone is the clear winner.
Or are you guys just blabbing on and on about nothing?


JW spamlink removed


Please do not encourage spamming of video links without comment by giving JW more hits . JW himself is too cowardly to appear on this forum under his own name.

If sayonara has some point to make, he should state it in his own words and bravely take responsibility for it.


Who made you the boss of this thread?

NASA?





posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Who made you the boss of this thread?


You, apparently, thanks. But I just like playing by the rules - the T & C states:

15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you

Any questions - is that unclear to you in any way?

As for me, I have the courage of my convictions, so I don't let 'someone else's' videos speak for me.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
 


You only have to post a link NOT the picture it has to be from orbit NOT an aircraft so lets see a link I bet you cant.


Mate, it would prove nothing..
Discuss the facts, not crap..
The LRO pics show no discernable details..
I really don't care what can be seen from pics on Earth..
That's not the issue we are discussing...Get over it..!!


Chrlz, it was this clown pushing for facts on what earth sats can do..
I continually said its irrelevant..
So stop the bull..
It's boring...



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by backinblack
Are you saying I am wrong when I posted a NASA link that clearly states their sats had resolutions as high as 2.5cms..?????

No, you are being asked for RELEVANCE to the topic. You know, that thing you are complaining about...


Really, what a retarded thread this is turning into..
Everyone argueing over irrelevant facts..

Can't spot why?
indeed...

See above.... If you want it to stop, stop doing it. If you posted relevant stuff, there would be no problem. May I remind you that it was Sayonara and you who raised the resolution issue, but you have gone absolutely nowhere with it except to argue about satellites that have nothing to do with the Moon or Apollo and falsely claim you can identify car makes in normal GE satellite images. Why? I have no idea.

If you actually get back on topic - namely Apollo, I'll be happy to address any issues..


So... WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
edit on 30-1-2011 by CHRLZ because: (no reason given)


Seriousy, learn to read mate..
I didn't start the crap about earth sats resolution..
That was one of your boys...
I could waste my time quoting their posts but I can't be bothered..
You can read.. Go do it..!!!



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Seriousy, learn to read mate..
I didn't start the crap about earth sats resolution..
That was one of your boys...
I could waste my time quoting their posts but I can't be bothered..
You can read.. Go do it..!!!

HERE is where SAYONARA disputed the satellite resolution issue.

HERE and HERE is where YOU stated (and then repeated) that you could make out the car models...

So I guess it's no wonder that you 'can't be bothered' to go back...


You see, BiB, I can read. More importantly, I comprehend and I remember. That's why I don't make all that many mistakes...



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by backinblack
Seriousy, learn to read mate..
I didn't start the crap about earth sats resolution..
That was one of your boys...
I could waste my time quoting their posts but I can't be bothered..
You can read.. Go do it..!!!

HERE is where SAYONARA disputed the satellite resolution issue.

HERE and HERE is where YOU stated (and then repeated) that you could make out the car models...

So I guess it's no wonder that you 'can't be bothered' to go back...


You see, BiB, I can read. More importantly, I comprehend and I remember. That's why I don't make all that many mistakes...


Well learn to comprehend then..
Maybe simply reading is not enough...

Fact..The LRO has a mere 50cm resolution at best..
Fact..Spy satellites on Earth have up to 2.5cm resolution..

Fact..I continually said it was irrelevant but YOUR mate WMD_2008 kept nagging...

Mere reading is not enough without taking posts in proper perspective...

I WILL waste my time to post the WHOLE sequence of posts if I must....



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Fact..The LRO has a mere 50cm resolution at best..
Fact..Spy satellites on Earth have up to 2.5cm resolution..
Fact..I continually said it was irrelevant but YOUR mate WMD_2008 kept nagging...

So to briefly summarise:

Fact - you have no point whatsoever to make, despite all the claims about resolving car models, despite the posted resolution figures you 'merely' posted just then, etc.


Got it.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by backinblack
Fact..The LRO has a mere 50cm resolution at best..
Fact..Spy satellites on Earth have up to 2.5cm resolution..
Fact..I continually said it was irrelevant but YOUR mate WMD_2008 kept nagging...

So to briefly summarise:

Fact - you have no point whatsoever to make, despite all the claims about resolving car models, despite the posted resolution figures you 'merely' posted just then, etc.


Got it.


Nothing to say about that because it's all crap...
Do I REALLY need to post the whole story??



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


FUNNY when I went to your 7cm / 2.5 cm res link guess what it said NO LONGER IN USE!!!! do you know what NO LONGER IN USE MEANS!!! so who is the CLOWN then


The reason that the Earth sat images look better is because we CAN RECOGNISE objects in the pictures.

Building, vehicles, trees etc.

Now I live in the UK if I went to the outback in JW land (Australia) and laid out some objects in a specific order documented it photographed it and no one else could get to them and 40 yrs later a Sat flew over and pictured the area exactly the way it was documented including my tracks would that be enough proof for most people I had been there.

I think it would!

www.bluesky-world.com...

Some text for you from link above.


Level of detail Satellites generally reside several hundred kilometres above the earth's surface. Although satellite imagery has improved greatly over the years it is still lower resolution than aerial photography. High resolution satellite imagery as high as 50cm per pixel is readily available, up to 41cm in the case of GeoEye-1 (however, the U.S. Military requires resampling the imagery to 50cm for all customers not explicitly granted a waiver by the U.S. Government). Military satellites more than likely have a higher resolution but as yet this imagery has not become publically available. Most off-the-shelf satellite imagery is between 250m and 50cm in resolution.


Now some in bold and some underlined for your benefit as you seem to have some problems with taking in information!

Off the shelf 250cm LOWER RES THAN LRO to 50cm SAME RES AS LRO



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Hi backinblack

A little linky here just to let everyone see that NOT ONLY you know nothing about photography YOU KNOW NOTHING about how resolution works look at the nice pictures on the link done to show poeple like yourself that haven't got a clue how resolution works!


www.nerdmodo.com...

Another link

www.fas.org...

Its stated here if you look at 20-40cm range THEY SAY THE FOLLOWING


Identify automobiles as sedans or station wagons


Not the make not the model even at 20cm

Then when you get to 10cm THEY SAY THE FOLLOWING.


10-centimeter resolution imagery permits the description of vehicles


Not the make not the model.

When you made the claim we were looking at a link to 60cm pixel what JOE PUBLIC gets to see



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



The question is , do you??
I posted information from a source that YOU accept as credible yet you are carrying on with these ridiculous posts..
If I had of quoted JW as a source you would do the same...

Tell me what the f I am meant to do?????


Admit that it's frustrating when someone insists on playing silly epistemological games... like automatically rejecting evidence for arbitrary reasons. You wonder why the tone gets sharp here? You claim NASA is not a reputable source, then turn around and cite NASA to score a debating point. Your "undecided" point of view, if sincere, is solipsistic. You don't sound that stupid or crazy, so why do you play these games? The historical question of the lunar landings is subject to the same standards of evidence as any other historical event, and the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports the interpretation that things happened more or less as the primary sources suggest.

And this has been the first truly on topic post in nearly twenty pages!



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Hi blackinblack

This is so everyone can see why you threw YOUR teddy out the pram

Your quote that started it or should that be LIE that started it.


Originally posted by backinblack

I say we can usually make out what make of car it is..
The LRO pics are mere pixels..
FACT.....
I really don't know why you'd bother useing pics that would be slammed by skeptics in seconds to prove equipment left on the moon..
Other facts are far more credible proof..
Stick to PROVABLE facts, not the LRO crap..


Bold and underlined YOU would never have seen an image with the resolution THAT YOU CLAIM!
Now can we move on as I posted a few times post a link to a pic I said it wouldn't happen


Now everyone can see you are NOT trustworthy or at best like a lot on your side of the fence prone to exaggeration a bit like JW, Foosm and lets not forget ppk55

edit on 30-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by wmd_2008
STILL NO LINK YET BECAUSE YOU ARE TALKING BS!!!! is that not right you have saw an aerial photo and thought it was a sat picture thats why you CANT POST a link.

Here is something for your little mind to chew on

First posted by jra on here.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

One half of the picture is a still taken from the flim by the Astronauts as they left the Moon the other half from the LRO FUNNY even the tracks match


Mate. grow up..
WTF does it matter to the thread??
The pics we have from the LRO are what they are...
Resolution is a MAXIMUM of one pixel per 50 cm..

I dont care if a pic from the moon can read my credit card details here on Earth..
It DOESN'T change what the LRO resolution was..And that was pretty darn low......


You can all rant on and star eachother for lies all you wish..
Fact is I condisered what can be done with earth based sats as irrelevant,,
and posted so, but kept getting nagged by a child to prove an irrelevant point..

After getting bored with the childish nagging I posted the NASA link clearly showing the spy sats with 2.5cm res...More than high enough to confirm my off the cuff remark that we could see the make of a car.

WMD_2008 agrees that the old sats COULD take pics at 2.5cm res but we are no longer useing them and have gone backwards to a maximum of 50cm res..


We can still argue on about a topic I think was irrelevant from the start, or we can move on to real debate..



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
So have you guys solved the Moon Hoax Debate? Is there a winner yet? There's 338 pages of debate, surely by now someone is the clear winner.

Or are you guys just blabbing on and on about nothing?


Hi harrytuttle. You asked three questions and I responded to you with a video posted by youtube user WhiteJarrah | January 05, 2011 titled "Phil Plait - Bring it On". I felt that this video answered your questions, it was relevant to the discussion.. I am sorry that other people in this thread thought it was spam. Apparently a complaint was made to the mods and my response to you was deleted. The description of the video reads "Phil Plait had some interesting words at the TAM 8 meeting."

Jarrah White's video titled "Phil Plait - Bring it On" illustrates conclusively that there is no clear winner in the Moon Hoax Debate. In the video Jarrah is openly engaging Phil in a bit of dialogue. Jarrah's video illustrated that Phil was not willing to entertain any questions from Jarrah at that time. Phil Plait exhorted in front of a large audience "..if anyone wants to argue my strength and my passion BRING IT! OK? I'm ready for you."

Jarrah White's video titled "Phil Plait - Bring it On" illustrates very conclusively that Jarrah was in fact "BRINGING IT" to Phil Plait and that Phil didn't want any part of it!


That, harrytuttle, is the status of the debate after 338 pages.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
After getting bored with the childish nagging I posted the NASA link clearly showing the spy sats with 2.5cm res...More than high enough to confirm my off the cuff remark that we could see the make of a car.

I'm not sure that 2.5 cm figure is correct. I can't find any other mention of that kind of resolution for any KH satellites. By my calculations, even at a very low 200 km orbit, you'd need a nearly 4-meter mirror just to get infrared coverage at that resolution. If you want coverage of the whole visible spectrum, and were at a more realistic (but still low) 400km orbit, you'd need a mirror over 14 meters in diameter. That's far larger than even the largest telescope mirror in use on earth (10.4 m).



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 336  337  338    340  341  342 >>

log in

join