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: 353
377
<< 350  351  352    354  355  356 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   

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


Look harder.



It's clearly going over top of the equipment. It's noticeable in the areas that aren't overly bright or over exposed.

Also, if you download the photo from The Gateway to Astronaut Photography, you can see that the line continues outside of the image.





It's most likely from processing the film or something that was on the film itself and not a sign of front screen projection.




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I hadn't even mentioned the pic..
Dereks commented like he knew what he was talking about so I merely suggested he shares that knowledge with us all..



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

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


Look harder.



It's clearly going over top of the equipment. It's noticeable in the areas that aren't overly bright or over exposed.

Also, if you download the photo from The Gateway to Astronaut Photography, you can see that the line continues outside of the image.





It's most likely from processing the film or something that was on the film itself and not a sign of front screen projection.


JRA - excellent work..!! We didn't even need to check the experiment package locations....


Bye bye to another foosm.

He will, of course, be back shortly to apologise for wasting our time.


And I've learnt a lesson too - never assume that foo has even checked the full scan of the image and has done even the most cursory, basic checks to ensure that whatever he is seeing isn't simply a photographic/scanning defect.

This sort of stuff is ignorant handwaving at its absolute worst. Shame on you, FoosM.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

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.


Is that the best you got DJ?
Hiding behind a photo and a question that has nothing to do with Apollo.
As I said before, I had my say about the "stars" issue until new evidence is presented.
Why do you insist on spamming the thread?

Come up with your own ideas for once. An original thought. An original post, either debunking JW or supporting his evidence.
For once.

I bring new material to study and discuss.
What do you bring?
A photo of an eclipsing moon, over and over and over again.
Did you take that photo?
Are you proud of it or something?
Nice photo DJ, proud of you, can we move on now?

So much material to talk about here:
Try this one since you like photography:




1. The far left side the image is correctly exposed, as you head towards the center you see a vertical line of light causing some over-exposure of the image (orange rectangle). Though it appears to be more light reflecting or refracting off a pane of glass:

or 1:38



What is causing that effect?

2. There are double exposed cross hairs (orange circles).
How does that happen, and why did it happen in this particular photo?

3. In the visor of the astronaut you see a reflection of the astronaut taking the picture. In this case the astronaut seems to be correctly facing his subject. In an earlier case I presented:
www.hq.nasa.gov... and the one you brought up in regards to a PPK post history.nasa.gov... they dont.
Whats the difference between them?

Now before you complain... Im asking to you make comments on Apollo photography supposedly taken on the moon. Not photographs we know were taken here on Earth. See the difference? Do you understand? You get my point? Grok it?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


No, you NEVER settled anything, you giggled and ran away....only now do you lie, and attempt to sweep it under the rug, call it "done":


As I said before, I had my say about the "stars" issue until new evidence is presented.


You know damn well what you're doing. There never was any "stars issues", and you are distracting with the offhand toss-in of the phrase "evidence is presented". I say you must know exactly what you're doing, because I cannot truly envision anyone that has a world view this seriously askew, as you would seem to have readers 'believe'....based on your grossly inane questions, on subjects and views that are clear to every other rational adult who possesses all of his/her normal faculties.

Others will, if they deem it worth their effort, respond precisely to each of those questions, above....(1,2 &3)...although, as noted those sorts of "questions" (they are yet more attempted distractions) have already been asked and answered, in various ways, throughout this thread (and in others).


And that, dear readers, is childish behavior at its finest example. What has been spammed and trolled into this thread, pumping it up to page-after-page on inanity??

Reminds me of the equivalent of a very young lad who first realizes the 'power' of the word "why?", and thinks he is the most cleverest of all the boys in the world......smirking behind his hand, at the adults who genuinely try to be helpful, and answer his questions in order to educate.....until they catch on to the "game" the little brat was pulling, all along.....and then the little kid's smug self-satisfaction comes crashing down around his ears.


So, consider the delicious, delicious irony in what was written here, and the utterly inept attempt to deflect, and accuse, someone else....(this is the old "I'm rubber, you're glue..." childhood game).


For posterity:

Why do you insist on spamming the thread?



edit on 5 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

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


Look harder.



It's clearly going over top of the equipment. It's noticeable in the areas that aren't overly bright or over exposed.

It's most likely from processing the film or something that was on the film itself and not a sign of front screen projection.


Good find, you had warned me to check out there photos before.
I should have done so!

I can see with your example it does cross the objects
though its debatable if its crossing over the cross hairs.
But I'll retract my earlier statement that it does not.

However, before poeple start celebrating,
it doesn't explain what it is and how it got there.

If its a scratch, which I assumed it was when I first noticed it,
how could it possibly do this:



You see thats not one line going across the screen, that looks like two lines meeting
each other in the middle. So I ruled out "unintentional" scratch made during the
processing of the photo by either the camera or the lab. I've seen scratches on
Apollo pictures before and when I compared them to this one they simply
look different. 9 times out of 10 you can tell when you have a scratch in the picture or neg.

And I know Im not the only one puzzled, because most of you defenders also
are not sure what it is either. I got DJ telling me to look at other mysterious lines in photos heading off into strange directions, and CHRLZ posting various maps like somehow that particular line was demarcated.



And I'll play devils advocate:
If it an intentional scratch or marking, as in somebody drew a line. Why would it be on the final copy?




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I've looked at different sites with that pic..
That line seems to vary a lot from one pic to another..
In the pic you posted it looks much thicker than in the pic JRA posted..
It also extends beyond the frame in all of them so I'd tend towards it being a fault or scratch...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Is that the best you got DJ?
Hiding behind a photo and a question that has nothing to do with Apollo.
As I said before, I had my say about the "stars" issue until new evidence is presented.
Why do you insist on spamming the thread?

Come up with your own ideas for once. An original thought. An original post, either debunking JW or supporting his evidence.
For once.


*Ahem!* It seems you are starting to have memory lapses as well as problems with spatial perception and attention span difficulties. As I recall, when I provided positive proof that Jarrah lied when he claimed Kovalev's research contradicted NASA's, you never actually refuted it; you simply came up with a silly story in your head about Phil Plaitt time travelling or something, then posted a James Bond video and filled the rest of the page with LOLs. That's when you suddenly decided the stars were an issue. What exactly was your conclusion about the "stars issue," and what further information do you expect can be possibly be provided?

Moving along, do you still maintain that the astronaut in the photo you posted could not have taken the photograph? Am I correct in thinking that you believe a camera must be pointed directly at its own reflection? Or if the reflection of a camera is seen in a photo, the lens must be seen pointing directly towards itself? Would you please clarify this point for me?


jra

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
1. The far left side the image is correctly exposed, as you head towards the center you see a vertical line of light causing some over-exposure of the image (orange rectangle). Though it appears to be more light reflecting or refracting off a pane of glass

What is causing that effect?


I'd place my bets on the Reseau plate that was in the camera.


2. There are double exposed cross hairs (orange circles).
How does that happen, and why did it happen in this particular photo?


They're not double exposed, it's merely a shadow of the cross hairs being cast onto the film due to the angle of the Sunlight. I've seen other photos of internal shadows being cast from the cross hairs onto the film.


3. In the visor of the astronaut you see a reflection of the astronaut taking the picture. In this case the astronaut seems to be correctly facing his subject. In an earlier case I presented:
www.hq.nasa.gov... and the one you brought up in regards to a PPK post history.nasa.gov... they dont.
Whats the difference between them?


In this photo the astronaut is almost in the center of the frame, in 20488 the astronaut is on the extreme edge of the frame. That's the difference.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Around 1960 the Discoverer satellites were launched. (to be known as the 'Corona' spy satellites)

Everyone working on them was told they were for peaceful purposes. This was not the case.
At the last moment the cargo of mice and various peaceful experiments were replaced with high resolution imaging equipment. i.e. Basically It became a spy satellite.

This was not known to the thousands and thousands of workers that put them together. When the public were told the canisters returning to earth contained mice, they in fact contained the film of the spy cameras.

Everyone involved with the design, construction, testing, launching, guidance, etc. etc. had no idea of it's true purpose. edit: Nearly everyone, obviously.

original post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by DJW001

Everyone involved in the design, construction, etc. knew exactly what its purpose was. The contractors didn't need to know what the satellite was for


DJW, in your hasty response to my post, you unfortunately missed one key word that I posted ... 'True'
As in 'everyone involved in the project had no idea of it's TRUE purpose.'

So if we now look at this in regards to the Apollo moon landings ...

Each of the contractors for a supposed moon landing would have received their detailed specifications from NASA. They did not need to know if the whole plan was going to work, nor whether what they were bulding would actually perform what it was supposed to.

To receive their vast payments all the contractors had to do was to fulfil the brief. Deliver the LM, Rover, Experiments, Rockets exactly to NASA specs.

I doubt one of the contractors would have questioned NASA on their specs. They would say 'thank you for your $2 billion, and here is the Lunar Module you asked for'


The men who built a dozen lunar modules at a Long Island defense plant better known for making jet fighters were somewhat bashful about their place in history.

"We didn't realize the significance at the time," says Devaney, now 74. "We knew it was important, blah blah blah, but later on it became more important."

After winning a contract in 1962, nearly 3,000 engineers and more than 7,000 people in all created more than a dozen hand-built lunar modules at a cost of about $2 billion, keeping President John F. Kennedy's vow to put a man on the lunar surface by the end of the decade.

Sandler believes Grumman, now a part of Northrop Grumman Aerospace Industries, was chosen to build the lunar module because of its expertise making planes to land on aircraft carriers. The F-14 of "Top Gun" movie fame was a Grumman aircraft.

"We were learning as we were building," recalls Dick Dunne, Grumman's public affairs director, now 73. "We were pushing the technology envelope. Windshields were cracking and engines weren't working."

"They knew how to build small structures and landing gear that got knocked around and that was what was needed to land on the moon,"
Sandler says.


Read the full article from USA TODAY here ... www.usatoday.com...

For reference this is what NASA's $2b bought them



So if we take the LM in isolation, involving 7,000 workers, they did not need to know whether it would actually work, or whether it would ever even attempt a landing on the moon. All they did was build it to NASA specs.

With 20,000 reported spacecraft malfunctions in December, 1966, It really does seem unlikely that everything was resolved for the first manned testing on Apollo 9, just 4 months before the alleged moon landing.

edit: and doesn't 2 months between the first test of this contraption around the moon and the alleged lunar landing seem just a little too short. How does that give them any time at all to sort out the many problems it had. 2 months ??

The shuttle fuel tank problems alone have resulted in delays of 4 months and counting.
edit on 6-2-2011 by ppk55 because: edit: shuttle fuel tank problems



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
1. The far left side the image is correctly exposed, as you head towards the center you see a vertical line of light .... What is causing that effect?


I'd place my bets on the Reseau plate that was in the camera.

And you would not lose that bet. In hindsight, and given our current vastly improved ability to analyse images very easily using digital technology thus removing the need for those little crosses, I think even NASA would agree it wasn't the best idea. The Lunar Hasselblads were exceptionally prone to flare (and I can assure you from years of using them for wedding photography that the normal ones without that extra lump of glass were not nearly so flare-prone). Anything shot into the light, be it the Sun, the foil clad LM, even the astronauts themselves and sometimes just the bright ground, was at risk of some awful flare effects from that final double bounce the light made just before striking the film.

It's a little strange that foo didn't even mention that when he posted this a little while back. It was only when the flare got that vertical 'edge' (from the light bouncing off the edge of the camera's light box/film gate) that he suddenly saw something he couldn't quite follow...


They're not double exposed, it's merely a shadow of the cross hairs being cast onto the film due to the angle of the Sunlight. I've seen other photos of internal shadows being cast from the cross hairs onto the film.

Yes, and again, the reseau plate strikes... A quite simple ray-trace can show why this happens - it's the same double/triple.. image you can get when viewing things through double-glazed windows, and exactly the same principle.



3. In the visor of the astronaut you see a reflection of the astronaut taking the picture. In this case the astronaut seems to be correctly facing his subject. In an earlier case I presented:
www.hq.nasa.gov... and the one you brought up in regards to a PPK post history.nasa.gov... they dont.
Whats the difference between them?

In this photo the astronaut is almost in the center of the frame, in 20488 the astronaut is on the extreme edge of the frame. That's the difference.

Of course it is. I find it quite astounding (yet strangely unsurprising) that foo would thus re-inforce his lack of reading comprehension/observation - all the way through it has been made clear that the visor reflection in the earlier picture was well off to the side of the image. But hey, we can't repeat things enough for some people, so:

A reflective surface that is off to the side of centre in an image, will not provide a perpendicular and centralised reflection.

....
edit on 6-2-2011 by CHRLZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
DJW, in your hasty response to my post, you unfortunately missed one key word that I posted ... 'True'

Yes, he did. You didn't.


They did not need to know if the whole plan was going to work, nor whether what they were bulding would actually perform what it was supposed to.

ppk, it is quite clear and understandable why YOU think that competent engineers and project managers might be fooled by some half-assed plot. But, had you ever been any of those things, you might think differently.

And your postings now are concentrating on your ill-informed opinions, rather than any facts - again, it is pretty obvious why.

So your points really go nowhere. Indeed, I have a challenge for you. Despite the silly claims of deniers, most of the blueprints, and almost every single specification regarding fuel loads, instrument operations, orbital calculations.... ad infinitum is freely available.

So point out one example of something that was below spec, and couldn't have performed it's task properly.

Just one will do. But you had better make it a good one, with all your calculations and reasoning supplied. That sort of thing hasn't been your best suit so far..

If you can't do that, then stop raising fantasy claims. And perhaps comment on how foo is going
- I see you weren't all that supportive of his latest disasters. Some increasing wisdom..?

By the way, I see you still haven't worked out that the LM was only ever operated in a VACUUM and in 1/6 gravity...


As I said before, deniers have an extraordinary inability to actually imagine anything they haven't personally encountered.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ


Gday CHIRLZ, good to see you are kicking around in this thread still. I havent looked at this post in a few months. Did much happen in the last 50-100 pages?



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by pezza

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Gday CHIRLZ, good to see you are kicking around in this thread still. I havent looked at this post in a few months. Did much happen in the last 50-100 pages?

Hey, pezz - I remember you! Nice to see you.

But Nope. Nothing important that I'm aware of, and no new recruits to the 'Far Side' that I can see..


I'm only here as I don't want to be forgotten..
and am about to post some pages on the radiation issue.

Other than that, my contributions (to ats anyway) are at a low ebb...

cheers, mate - keep up the good fight!



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Dereks commented like he knew what he was talking about


And I did, as the line turns out to be nothing, certainly not the stupid idea of a front screen - Whenever poor Foosm brings something up it is quickly shown he has no clue at all what he is on about!



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by backinblack
Dereks commented like he knew what he was talking about


And I did, as the line turns out to be nothing, certainly not the stupid idea of a front screen - Whenever poor Foosm brings something up it is quickly shown he has no clue at all what he is on about!


Yeah but others used FACT to show why..
Sorry but mere opinions don't cut it..
But keep trying..



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by pezza

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Gday CHIRLZ, good to see you are kicking around in this thread still. I havent looked at this post in a few months. Did much happen in the last 50-100 pages?

Hey, pezz - I remember you! Nice to see you.

But Nope. Nothing important that I'm aware of, and no new recruits to the 'Far Side' that I can see..


I'm only here as I don't want to be forgotten..
and am about to post some pages on the radiation issue.

Other than that, my contributions (to ats anyway) are at a low ebb...

cheers, mate - keep up the good fight!


cheers, you too

I will let you in on a secret (hidden in plain view of everyone), you are the only ATS contributer that I have come across that (in my opinion) completely understands what I have said in the few serious posts I have made. That concerns me deeply!, particularly because a large proportion of topics on ATS are entirely scientific at a fundamental level. There maybe other people out there but they havent attempted to engage in discussion yet.

(mods: i know there is no content directly related to this topic. Please allow just this one)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Thanks... (I think..!)



Originally posted by pezza
....particularly because a large proportion of topics on ATS are entirely scientific at a fundamental level.

Allow me to put on my fullyskeptical hat.. - *everything* is entirely scientific at a fundamental level.

But if you are looking for regulated, considered, serious, subject-focused discussion of science, you are at the wrong forum, I suspect.


There maybe other people out there but they havent attempted to engage in discussion yet.

Nah, I think most of them left long ago (only jokin!!)..



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Sorry, but it's eye-roll time, again.....



The shuttle fuel tank problems alone have resulted in delays of 4 months and counting.


Specious.

The Boeing 787 is several YEARS behind schedule. Many, many unanticipated problems and hitches have cropped up, in its development. Happens in ALL design and construction and engineering of complex machines. Do you think the Boeing 787 is "fake", simply on the basis of those facts??

But, this was the gist of your point, in the full post....more inept hand-waving and inane "what ifs"....
Look....it's really simple. The Apollo spacecraft were all experimental, and cutting-edge, in many ways. Even as, in some places, they used certain normal, well-tested off-the-shelf hardware too. It is called the "aerospace industry" for a reason...



I am sorry, but it seems that lacking the level of worldly experience in many things technical is an impediment to understanding, for some people......



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I think it's probably about time we just admitted that eventually every single photo in the history of the Apollo missions is going to be questioned in this thread; that way Foosm and co could go through them one by one in order, and everything would be less random.

And I don't think you've ever actually lost me, Pezza. You just have a tendency to make simple things sound more complex than they actually are.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 350  351  352    354  355  356 >>

log in

join