Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by DJW001
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:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/26b4766a3120.jpg[/atsimg]

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

Sorry DJ but what you are pointing is not what I pointed to.
And if you see a "mysterious" line cutting across the screen in your photo example.
Please identify what that line actually is.

reply to post by FoosM

Sorry DJ but what you are pointing is not what I pointed to.
And if you see a "mysterious" line cutting across the screen in your photo example.
Please identify what that line actually is.

Funny, your eyesight must be going. Look carefully at the picture you forgot to quote:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d30b058321e.jpg[/atsimg]

Usually you're pretty quick to spot small details. Why can't you see the diagonal line indicated by the white arrows? Because you don't want to see it, perhaps? It is in exactly the correct position to be the line you pointed out in the earlier picture. I'm not sure what it is, but I'm 100% certain it isn't a front projection screen.

reply to post by FoosM

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.

Is that your final answer? It has already been explained that the camera is the Hasselblad reflected in the astronauts visor, which is obviously pointed at the plaque on the LM ladder. What is there to determine? Your competency in interpreting reflections?

reply to post by FoosM


Oh, for Jeebus' sake....you tried this before, many pages ago:

FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION.

You showed everyone then that you have NO CLUE about FSP technology, nor its limitations. Cherry picking, is all you can do, with a few carefully selected so=called "examples"....and the FSP nonsense gets blown out of the water with a simple viewing of many, many, many other stills and videos!





Rider's eye view, travelling across a great deal of Lunar real estate....NO "front screen projection"!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Oh, for Jeebus' sake....you tried this before, many pages ago:

FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION.

You showed everyone then that you have NO CLUE about FSP technology, nor its limitations. Cherry picking, is all you can do, with a few carefully selected so=called "examples"....and the FSP nonsense gets blown out of the water with a simple viewing of many, many, many other stills and videos!

You know what Weed, I presented a photo
with a very unusual line through it. And instead of trying to explain what it is, you
want to distract us with promo clips of Apollo.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Sorry DJ but what you are pointing is not what I pointed to.
And if you see a "mysterious" line cutting across the screen in your photo example.
Please identify what that line actually is.

Funny, your eyesight must be going. Look carefully at the picture you forgot to quote:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d30b058321e.jpg[/atsimg]

Usually you're pretty quick to spot small details. Why can't you see the diagonal line indicated by the white arrows? Because you don't want to see it, perhaps? It is in exactly the correct position to be the line you pointed out in the earlier picture. I'm not sure what it is, but I'm 100% certain it isn't a front projection screen.

DJ, my eyes are just fine and so are my spatial skills.
That line that you want to keep pointing to has nothing to do with the line in the photo I provided. All you are doing is pretending that some mystery is solved by introducing some new mystery. Focus on the photo that I presented and offer a reasonable explanation for it.

And dont get hung up with FSP like mr. Weed.
Im not saying its FSP, I dont know what technique was being used for the photos.
What is important is that the photo can seen as evidence for NASA having composited the Apollo photos. So before we solve your mysterious line, lets solve the one I presented first.

reply to post by FoosM

DJ, my eyes are just fine and so are my spatial skills.
That line that you want to keep pointing to has nothing to do with the line in the photo I provided. All you are doing is pretending that some mystery is solved by introducing some new mystery. Focus on the photo that I presented and offer a reasonable explanation for it.

Good, in that case, please indicate where the line from your photo is in the photo I posted. As for producing a new mystery to deflect from another mystery, why did you introduce your photo before we settled the reflection mystery? Let me give you a hint, courtesy guyverunit1:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dbce3160ad5.jpg[/atsimg]
Full post here.

This diagram illustrates how the curved surface of an astronaut's helmet rotates the photographer's reflection if the astronaut is standing to one side of the frame. There was an entire thread devoted to it, wasn't there, ppk?

Now, do you disagree with guyverunit1's interpretation? If so, why?

Originally posted by FoosM

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.

The ONLY answers I have seen from you claim the image is wrong, on no basis whatosever except your lack of knowledge of perspective and refusal to acknoweldge the scene in the visor is what you will see had you been positioned there. I gather you are now conceding that it is right?

IF IT IS PROVEN THAT THE IMAGE IS EXACTLY CORRECT, WILL YOU APOLOGISE FOR WASTING THE FORUMS TIME AND ADMIT YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE PERSPECTIVE ISSUE? (Just like i admit my ignorance of neurosurgery..)

For the record and to answer your ridiculous and repeated questions, despite the fact that several conversations have made it clear...

1. The PHOTOGRAPHER is Jack Schmitt.

2. The camera he used was the one loaded with colour film (which is the one Cernan *was* using, but they had exchanged them because Schmitt wanted to use colour for some upcoming ALSEP shots.)

Thing is, all of this can EASILY be found out, and SHOULD HAVE SIMPLY BEEN STATED BY YOU, from the A17 lunar surface journal. Here's a link:
history.nasa.gov...

To find the relevant text, click on Image Library at the left, then either do a lot of scrolling, or simply use your browser to FIND "AS17-134-20488". The information about which camera it was, can be found a little above that image reference.

Do you, FoosM not know how to do this???? Next time, do it properly and stop getting others to do your work for you (in the hope that they might make an error you can then pounce on, or that you can distract from the issues at hand...)



NOW, DO YOU CONCEDE THE POINT ABOUT STAR BRIGHTNESS????

If NOT, answer the questions about taking images of stars from the lunar surface:

1. How exactly would these images, taken from the sunlit side of the Moon, be 'astounding'?

2. What sort of equipment would you suggest they use, and how?

3. Just how many f-stops advantage would there be? (Or if you prefer, what would be the limiting magnitude advantage?)

4. What effect would using a different speed film (from those available at the time) have on all this, or would you suggest an electronic sensor? How much dynamic range did the films/sensors of that era have, and why is that relevant?

5. How would these 'astounding pictures' compare to those from say the Palomar 48", or perhaps the Cerro Tololo or Kitt Peak 158" scopes?


I know it's your worst nightmare, FoosM, but I'm going to MAKE you finish that topic, one way or the other. Your choice... Last chance - and then I'll answer them.

And note - I've answered ALL of FoosM's questions... Why is he having such a difficult time with mine?

BTW, for any budding detectives who want to help foo on his latest quest to eliminate all the other possibilities that might lead to supporting his claim of it being a 'backdrop seam' (forgive my mirth), maybe this would have been the place to start his 'investigation':
www.lpi.usra.edu...

In conjunction with this:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

I'll stop there, not wanting to further encourage the laziness of the deniers.

Again, you would have to ask, why doesn't FoosM do that sort of legwork before posting? After all, he wants people here to believe he is an expert............

And again, why the new topic when he hasn't acknowledged all his errors in the old ones??? (That's a rhetorical question, I don't think there is much doubt why he does this..)

Just a quick technical question. According to your methodology, does this photograph prove that Stalin never existed?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9f500e6da9a1.jpg[/atsimg]

Wish it was that easy..

If so, imagine how many would be left in the White House..

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM

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.

The ONLY answers I have seen from you claim the image is wrong, on no basis whatosever except your lack of knowledge of perspective and refusal to acknoweldge the scene in the visor is what you will see had you been positioned there. I gather you are now conceding that it is right?

IF IT IS PROVEN THAT THE IMAGE IS EXACTLY CORRECT, WILL YOU APOLOGISE FOR WASTING THE FORUMS TIME AND ADMIT YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE PERSPECTIVE ISSUE? (Just like i admit my ignorance of neurosurgery..)

For the record and to answer your ridiculous and repeated questions, despite the fact that several conversations have made it clear...

Ok folks, here we go.
CHRLZ after is now about to present evidence.
I stated earlier what I need as proof regarding the perspective issue.
Lets see if CHRLZ provides that proof:

1. The PHOTOGRAPHER is Jack Schmitt.

Not proof and not proven.

2. The camera he used was the one loaded with colour film (which is the one Cernan *was* using, but they had exchanged them because Schmitt wanted to use colour for some upcoming ALSEP shots.)

Relevance?

Thing is, all of this can EASILY be found out, and SHOULD HAVE SIMPLY BEEN STATED BY YOU, from the A17 lunar surface journal. Here's a link:
history.nasa.gov...

Relevance?
Ive seen this tactic before, and Im not sure what its called.
He cant prove himself right on the subject we are discussing...

To find the relevant text, click on Image Library at the left, then either do a lot of scrolling, or simply use your browser to FIND "AS17-134-20488". The information about which camera it was, can be found a little above that image reference.

so he proceeds to somehow claim I needed to provide more information to the readers or
that I didnt comprehend the context or history of the photo as NASA has described it?

Do you, FoosM not know how to do this???? Next time, do it properly and stop getting others to do your work for you (in the hope that they might make an error you can then pounce on, or that you can distract from the issues at hand...)

Its like he is trying to pick a fight with me by suggesting I am stupid thereby having me lose focus.


Sorry CHRLZ, if you haven't noticed by now or remember me saying: I recognize those type of tactics.
Oh look CHRLZ... go get your spear! I see your WHITE WHALE of RADIATION!



Catch it and bring it home it has been soooooooooo long.

Originally posted by FoosM
I dont know what technique was being used for the photos.

That is easy, a astronaut on the moon taking them - why do you go off on silly tangents, we know you know nothing at all about photography, I suggest you do a course where you can learn.

What is important is that the photo can seen as evidence for NASA having composited the Apollo photos.

No, it is just more evidence you know nothing at all about photography

Originally posted by DJW001
Just a quick technical question. According to your methodology, does this photograph prove that Stalin never existed?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9f500e6da9a1.jpg[/atsimg]

It proves that photo manipulation and compositing was pretty advanced and that both the US and USSR were capable. The Russians had done similar tactics with their Cosmonauts in their space program.

Lost Cosmonauts

So thanks DJ, now readers can understand the Apollo photography is not proof of a moon landing.
And that the grey line in this photo:



is possibly the proof of the deception.
Either that or the Astronauts were line painting for roads.



Maybe thats what the equipment was for

reply to post by FoosM

It proves that photo manipulation and compositing was pretty advanced and that both the US and USSR were capable.

So you think this photo is pretty advanced? Wow, just wow. Also, you didn't exactly answer the question, did you? Please state what you consider to be admissible evidence for an assertion, according to your methodology. Does the photo in question prove that Stalin never existed?

By the way, FoosM. you still haven't admitted your entire "why are there no stars" argument was either an attempt to deliberately mislead people or founded on complete ignorance. Which one was it? Don't make me post that photo again.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by FoosM
I dont know what technique was being used for the photos.

That is easy, a astronaut on the moon taking them - why do you go off on silly tangents, we know you know nothing at all about photography, I suggest you do a course where you can learn.

What is important is that the photo can seen as evidence for NASA having composited the Apollo photos.

No, it is just more evidence you know nothing at all about photography

Terrific Dereks..
So I guess YOU can explain the line Foosm pointed out across that picture..
I'm looking forward to your expert opinion..

foo's latest runaway is hardly worth a reply, but for the sake of completion, he asked:

I want to know who took the photo?

To which I answered Jack Schmitt, and provided a full citation.

He also asked:

So how did he manage to take a photo

It had been pointed out already that ...well, he pointed the camera and pressed the button. Personally I think this is too stupid a question to bother replying to, but there's the answer anyway.

At that point he changed the subject to front projection (for obvious reasons, the debate was lost).

But he then asked:

1st: Identify the camera in the reflection. Because maybe we are all looking at a different object.

Umm, that would, of course, be the very fuzzy camera held by the fuzzy astronaut (Jack Schmitt) in the reflection in Cernan's visor that no-one but foo is having a problem identifying. But my answer (which was also fully explained in the citation), was there anyway:

The camera he used was the one loaded with colour film (which is the one Cernan *was* using, but they had exchanged them because Schmitt wanted to use colour for some upcoming ALSEP shots.)

This is a pretty clear identification of the camera. Yet later foo screams 'Relevance?'. Well, foo, you asked for it - so if that isn't relevant, then clearly it is foo, the requester, who is not relevant.

2nd: Once the camera is identified explain/show where you think the camera is pointing to.

Again, such an ignorant question is not really worth responding to, as the camera is clearly pointing in the direction shown by the flipping image. So that would be.. slightly to the left of the plaque. Is anyone else having a problem with that????

Now all of this 'problem' that foo has, stems from a simple fact.

FoosM, the guy who tells us he is just fine with spatial stuff, simply doesn't get the fact that if a mirror is NOT directly facing you, then your reflection will be angled. Pretty basic stuff really...

Now if there is anyone else who doesn't get this, may I suggest you get a mirror right now, and set it up facing you on the desk. You are looking right at it, and everything is straight on... But now move it off to the side, and angle it inwards somewhat (remembering that the curvature of the visor in the image exaggerates the effect). Do you notice what is happening?

Foos doesn't understand this.

And now wants you to believe I am explaining all this... to 'fight' with him.

Well, if explaining simple facts and watching them be ignorantly rejected is a fight, then yes, that's what it is then. Who's 'winning', dear reader? I'd be interested to hear any lurkers take on this topic.


It's all a bit of a shame, really.... It's not much of a battle of wits when your opponents do not come fully armed.


Now, one more thing. I'm anticipating the next foo move, so may I ask the readers - from that original image, can you clearly identify the direction that the fuzzy astronaut is pointing the fuzzy camera? It will need to be quite accurate for what comes next...

Ready, foo? Feel free to walk right back into the ring.... But i'd suggest tossing a towel might be a better move....

Originally posted by backinblack
So I guess YOU can explain the line Foosm pointed out across that picture..
I'm looking forward to your expert opinion..

How about you have a go, BiB? If not, why would you criticise others? Before you continue your cheerleading, I suggest you do a quick count of the number of things Foo hasn't answered, nor properly researched. What do those numbers suggest to you?

And can you tell us WHY, in YOUR opinion, you think that grey line is important. How have you determined that it isn't a power/comms cable to an experiment package? Or a scratch or scanning defect? Does it suggest to you, in any way that matters, that it is a sign of screen projection?

I'm looking forward to YOUR expert opinion. Works both ways...

Personally, I think encouraging a poster in this way, to simply move onto the next thing he doesn't understand before anything else is properly resolved or conceded, just might be seen as a bias on your part. I trust you wouldn't want that... Further, if you are not adding to the topic by either supporting the claim in some material way, or addressing the possibilities for what it might be, then you really aren't adding anything.

You'll note above that I provided links for the Apollo 17 experiments and where they were positioned. What have you done with that data? Or Foo? Do you see a small issue there, or not?