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: 351
377
<< 348  349  350    352  353  354 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You are missing the bloody point!!!!!

Irrespective of whether or not (THEY WERE!!!!) on the Moon, when the photos were snapped....it is a direct result OF THE CONCAVE HELMET VISOR that results in the final image, and the reflection back to the camera....BECAUSE, the person (Astronaut, in this case) who was holding the camera was pointing it in the way it was being pointed.....the IMAGE was purely accidental!!!!

For Pete's sake, TRY to learn a bit by actually going out and doing this for yourself!!! There Is NO ONE on this board who hasn't had this sort of experience who DOESN'T understand these photographic concepts!!!
edit on 3 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 


You are missing the bloody point!!!!!

Irrespective of whether or not (THEY WERE!!!!) on the Moon, when the photos were snapped....it is a direct result OF THE CONCAVE HELMET VISOR that results in the final image, and the reflection back to the camera....BECAUSE, the person (Astronaut, in this case) who was holding the camera was pointing it in the way it was being pointed.....the IMAGE was purely accidental!!!!

For Pete's sake, TRY to learn a bit by actually going out and doing this for yourself!!! There Is NO ONE on this board who hasn't had this sort of experience who DOESN'T understand these photographic concepts!!!
edit on 3 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


I guess in your rush to post another rant you missed my post that said I think the camear IS in fact pointing in the right direction..

I missed NO point weed, you just fail to comprehend my posts...
I NEVER said foosm was correct.
I only pointed out facts...



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


THIS was the most recent post of yours.....I responded to one or (two) earlier. Please clarify:


Foosms issue is the direction the camera is pointing..
The pics hard to tell but it DOES in fact appear something is pointing towards the visor, not to the left as Foosm stated..
Therefore the pic would be fine in my view...

My issue in saying pics like these are fake is "why would they bother?"
It would be one of the easiest pics to fake..


You seem to have, at the last sentence, just agreed with me>???

DO try to stay focused...in ALL the Forum Topics, emmmmkay???


edit on 3 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Right, kids! Everybody grab a spoon, perform the experiment. and we'll talk!



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


WW, I will respond to civil debate..
Your posting style falls a looooong way short..

Change and you will see my replies reflect that change.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Right, kids! Everybody grab a spoon, perform the experiment. and we'll talk!


lol, I did...But I didn't need to..
That wasn't my issue from the start...

Stared for humour....



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Using Apollo photography is very difficult to use as proof of fakery.
Since none of us can go to the moon to verify the images.
However, they are interesting to study.

I want to begin with this image:


www.hq.nasa.gov...

I want to know who took the photo?

The astronaut in the reflection
has his camera pointing down and to the side.
So how did he manage to take a photo


Nice one FoosM
My eyes were also drawn to the united states of tape. I was wondering if you (or anyone else) knew what exactly it was printed on? Was it paper/ink/tape or was it stencilled/painted onto some ultra thin mylar/metallic sheet and then taped up on the external facade of the LEM? Anyway... I hadn't seen that picture before so thanks for posting it.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008


HERE WE GO AGAIN I take it you mean the reflection in the helmet you know a CURVED surface which alters the perspective


Smoke and mirrors again Foosm




Yes, stop trying to confuse people with smoke and mirrors.

A curved surface cannot magically make somebody who is standing forward stand to to the side.
And the camera, no matter what should at least look like its pointing to what it is taking a photo of as demonstrated here:


here

and even here


Its clear in the reflection that Schmitt is standing very similar to this photo:

compare to:


In that position he wouldn't be able to take the photo that he made.



Foosm Foosm Foosm when is it going to sink in with you OBVIOUSLY anything to do with OPTICS and PHOTOGRAPHY is just TOO MUCH for you to process.

Underlined and in bold the word above YOU do know what similar means, in your example photographs is the curvature of the reflective surface EXACACTLY the same (NOT SIMILAR) as the area of the helmet that the Astonauts reflection appears also are the people taking the pictures the same distance away.

Apples with apples your problem is YOU DONT UNDERSTAND the concepts behind photgraphy and then jump to conclusions.

How an object looks in in reflection is down to the shape of the surface and the paths taken by the light rays now either YOUR level of eduction is not enough to understand these principle or becuase you are so hell bent in trying to prove Apollo didn't happen it clouds you judgment so what one is it Foosm.

SO are you not clever enough to understand or trying to be to smart you shot yourself in the foot.


edit on 4-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: unerlined and bold

edit on 4-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



How an object looks in in reflection is down to the shape of the surface and the paths taken by the light rays now either YOUR level of eduction is not enough to understand these principle or becuase you are so hell bent in trying to prove Apollo didn't happen it clouds you judgment so what one is it Foosm.

SO are you not clever enough to understand or trying to be to smart you shot yourself in the foot.


Knowing how much you do about optics, I'm sure you'd agree with what I previously said..
You can DISTORT on image by reflecting off different surfaces, but you can not ALTER the image in any way shape or form..



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Dear Readers,

I hope you all had a chance to review the videos regarding FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION.
As a reminder for those who might have missed it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The image I want to present is:
AS17-134-20491


Jack Schmitt ALSEP photo. Down-Sun photo of the Central Station with the Lunar Surface Gravimeter (LSG) in the background to the right. Note the red adjustment wheels on the antenna mast and the experiment attachment hardware on the top surface. The gold-colored foil curtain provides thermal protection.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

I want you all to look at the ground passed the LSG
Look at the neat grey line(s) that cuts across the picture:



Is this grey line a scratch on the photo or the original negative?
No, as we can see it goes behind objects:



Could it be tracks from the lunar rover?
No, for one the line(s) are too neat, too straight, and there is only one track and look where they meet:
You will see a neat symmetrical curve:



Is this artifact, evidence for the foreground and background separation necessary for
FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION, or maybe a 1960's - 70's version of PHOTOSHOPPING?

Again some images for comparison and consideration:




I am curious to your theories and explanations.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

How an object looks in in reflection is down to the shape of the surface and the paths taken by the light rays now either YOUR level of eduction is not enough to understand these principle or becuase you are so hell bent in trying to prove Apollo didn't happen it clouds you judgment so what one is it Foosm.

SO are you not clever enough to understand or trying to be to smart you shot yourself in the foot.


Knowing how much you do about optics, I'm sure you'd agree with what I previously said..
You can DISTORT on image by reflecting off different surfaces, but you can not ALTER the image in any way shape or form..


BiB, may I very politely point out that the image content does not get changed by a curved surface reflection, it gets distorted, and of course it is the scene as it appears AT THE VISOR. Straight lines no longer point at what they should, curves appear, magnifications and reductions occur, perspective gets changed to the point of only being usable by a full ray-tracing process. *The reflection can even 'see' (and therefore show) things you can't see*, because of course the reflective surface is at a very different location and angle to your eye's retina, or the camera's lens and film.

Think about all that, especially the part about it being the scene AT THE VISOR, not the scene as it appears from the taking camera's viewpoint. Think about it *hard*.

In regard to the more general point of perspective distortion, and shadows supposedly pointing in the wrong direction, I'm a bit of a devious chap sometimes.. (just ask ppk), and I often post images that have multiple purposes, or for reasons that may not become clear until later. Now, I'd just like to draw your attention to this one that i posted earlier:

Do you notice anything odd? Yes, it looks a bit weird because of the heavy underexposure to make it look like moonlight, but there is something else. No-one seems to have picked up on it (and I'm guessing that is because it is an earthly scene and not under suspicion).

But it shows the perspective issue that I am talking about, without even needing a curved mirror surface!!! Lenses, mirrors, and indeed anything that focuses light (even your eye) bends perspective, *especially wide angle lenses, or curved mirrors*. Surely you have seen the issues before in 'fish-eye' images? That image above was taken with only a moderately wide angle lens, yet that lens has distorted the image quite markedly. Look at the shadow of the tree across the road. Now look where the Sun is (obviously it's in the centre of the glary bit. Does the shadow point at the Sun? How could it possibly NOT point at the Sun?

There is no fakery involved - as I said, this image is on slide film - and I'm happy to send that slide to a mod if need be, or post a cropped area of the original filmscan at full resolution showing film grain (I aint posting the whole thing at full-res, as it happens to one of my money making images!...) Now of course if that image was taken on the Moon, Foosm would again be screaming that it proves the Apollo landing doesn't exist - simply becasue he doesn't get perspective distortion. Photographers do get it. So do people who understand geometry, and optics...

Truth is, the shadow does point dead straight at the Sun in the 3d reality of that 2d scene, but that lens distorts the image enough to throw it siginificantly out. And yet that lens does not apply anywhere near the distortion a close-to-spherical visor would.

You CANNOT, CANNOT start drawing lines randomly around an image with perspective issues, and expect them to make sense WITHOUT a proper analysis. And things WILL point in the wrong directions. If they are corrected for the distortions, the problems will disappear.

Thing is, this is just ANOTHER change of subject. It's Foos' stock in trade. He will never admit he was wrong about the star-brightness issue, or radiation, or a multitude of other topics, he just keeps dancing on.

BiB, may I ask, are you still in doubt about the star brightness issue? I haven't finished with it yet, but I'm just curious as to what you think now. Do you think the way FoosM has simply moved on without answering the questions posed to him, or debating any of the science or photographic facts, is appropriate?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



BiB, may I ask, are you still in doubt about the star brightness issue? I haven't finished with it yet, but I'm just curious as to what you think now. Do you think the way FoosM has simply moved on without answering the questions posed to him, or debating any of the science or photographic facts, is appropriate?


No, I am in no doubt..
I am also all for resolving one issue before moving on to the next..
That's the way a GOOD debate should work..

Though I have no control over how other members chose to post..



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

BiB, may I ask, are you still in doubt about the star brightness issue? I haven't finished with it yet, but I'm just curious as to what you think now. Do you think the way FoosM has simply moved on without answering the questions posed to him, or debating any of the science or photographic facts, is appropriate?


No, I am in no doubt..
I am also all for resolving one issue before moving on to the next..
That's the way a GOOD debate should work..

Though I have no control over how other members chose to post..

Thanks for that, I appreciate the frankness. I just want to find out if *anyone* is being swayed by foosm's rants and new-topic-every-five-minutes approach.

Clearly, spending lots more time on the star issue will be a waste, as foo just ignores it completely. Indeed, the more time we waste chasing up topics he has dropped like the proverbial hot potato, the more effective he thinks he is by moving onto new topics..

However, if ANYONE other than the 3 deniers, is still in doubt about the star brightness issue, please say so.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by backinblack

How an object looks in in reflection is down to the shape of the surface and the paths taken by the light rays now either YOUR level of eduction is not enough to understand these principle or becuase you are so hell bent in trying to prove Apollo didn't happen it clouds you judgment so what one is it Foosm.

SO are you not clever enough to understand or trying to be to smart you shot yourself in the foot.


Knowing how much you do about optics, I'm sure you'd agree with what I previously said..
You can DISTORT on image by reflecting off different surfaces, but you can not ALTER the image in any way shape or form..


BiB, may I very politely point out that the image content does not get changed by a curved surface reflection, it gets distorted, and of course it is the scene as it appears AT THE VISOR. Straight lines no longer point at what they should, curves appear, magnifications and reductions occur, perspective gets changed to the point of only being usable by a full ray-tracing process. *The reflection can even 'see' (and therefore show) things you can't see*, because of course the reflective surface is at a very different location and angle to your eye's retina, or the camera's lens and film.

Think about all that, especially the part about it being the scene AT THE VISOR, not the scene as it appears from the taking camera's viewpoint. Think about it *hard*.




*warning strong language*


I presented a photo where I pointed out that
the photographer was not in the position to have taken the photo
he supposedly took. Ive read many posts thereafter but none have been
able to prove that my observation is incorrect.
You can say it is incorrect, but that does not make it incorrect.

So,
1st: Identify the camera in the reflection. Because maybe we are all looking at a different object.
2nd: Once the camera is identified explain/show where you think the camera is pointing to.


If you can do that, and prove that the camera was able to capture the image in question.
Then I can retract my question "who is taking the photo?"

This is not necessarily a challenge directed to CHRLZ.
If he wants to continue the debate about the stars, have at it.
I have summarized my viewpoint, twice, on the subject, so I doubt anybody
needs to have me do it again. Im moving on until new information is forthcoming.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Nice one FoosM
My eyes were also drawn to the united states of tape. I was wondering if you (or anyone else) knew what exactly it was printed on? Was it paper/ink/tape or was it stencilled/painted onto some ultra thin mylar/metallic sheet and then taped up on the external facade of the LEM? Anyway... I hadn't seen that picture before so thanks for posting it.


I have no idea how that flag was attached to the LM.
Or why the even needed it considering they were planting a flag.
Was this so the astronauts would not confuse it with the Russian LM?

Anyway, it is something I will have to look into further.

But I want to know your opinion, SJ, do you think the Schmitt, the photographer, is in the correct position to have taken the photo? Or do you think a convex surface, and from what I understand the sides of the helmet were a bit flatter, could have visually rotated the astronaut to the side and downwards to make it appear that he is not facing his target?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
hey, foos.

I know it's asking a lot, but try to think a little. Where do YOU think the reflected astronaut should be pointing? Be specific.

Too hard? Yes, I figured that would be the case.

So, why not answer a very simple question... but first you need to imagine something. Imagine, instead of a visor, that right where that visor is, was ...

YOU.

You are looking back at the photographer, pointing his camera towards the ladder, which is off to your right, at almost right angles...

Now, what scene do you see?


Because that is the scene you are looking at, in the visor - that's what the visor sees, and reflects. But unlike your eye, the visor has a 'fisheye' curve to it, so it distorts and bends the entire scene, exaggerating angles even more...

Would you like me to set up a similar small scaled scene and show you...? Say PLEASE..

Or can you use your brain and imagine this? And maybe for the first time ever, you could concede that you have blown it, and are wasting everyone's time. If not, then what comes next is what you deserve.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



But I want to know your opinion, SJ, do you think the Schmitt, the photographer, is in the correct position to have taken the photo? Or do you think a convex surface, and from what I understand the sides of the helmet were a bit flatter, could have visually rotated the astronaut to the side and downwards to make it appear that he is not facing his target?


Let's make this even simpler. Have you ever been to a clothing store that has three full length mirrors joined at 45 degree angles so you can see how the suit looks from different angles? If you stand with your feet pointing towards the central mirror, what do you see in the mirror to the right? Is your body facing that mirror, or has the view been rotated 45 degrees, revealing things you cannot see in the front mirror? The astronaut's visor is like that angled mirror, it is reflecting the photographer's profile, who has pointed his camera at the plaque, not the astronaut, just as your feet were pointed towards the central mirror, not the mirror on the right. This is why the reflection appears rotated. It is also distorted by the curvature of the helmet. You obviously have not performed the spoon experiment because you are not interested in gaining the experience that leads to understanding. Your argument is based upon ignorance and hence, faith. You are promoting superstition.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I want you all to look at the ground passed the LSG
Look at the neat grey line(s) that cuts across the picture:


Sometimes. when analyzing a photo, it helps to compare it to one taken from a different angle:



This is AS17-134-20496, taken a few frames later. Notice how your mysterious line is clearly visible running diagonally across the frame:



(Sorry about my poor mouse control, I need to play more video games!) Now please explain, FoosM: If that line is where the bottom of a rear projection screen hits the floor of the set, how is it possible to see the image projected on it? The rear projection screen reflects directly back towards the projector, which must be perfectly aligned with the camera. The screen must be at a perfect right angle to them both. Well?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I was wondering if you (or anyone else) knew what exactly it was printed on? Was it paper/ink/tape or was it stencilled/painted onto some ultra thin mylar/metallic sheet and then taped up on the external facade of the LEM?


An excellent question! Personally, I have no idea. Why don't you research it and share the results with us?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
hey, foos.

I know it's asking a lot, but try to think a little. Where do YOU think the reflected astronaut should be pointing? Be specific.



I have already answered this.
Identify the camera, and show what or where the camera is pointing to.
Thats what I have asked to make a final determination.




top topics



 
377
<< 348  349  350    352  353  354 >>

log in

join