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: 354
377
<< 351  352  353    355  356  357 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
1. The far left side the image is correctly exposed, as you . 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.


Possibly, but whats your proof?





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.


Possibly, but how do cross hair end up casting shadows on the film?
The light is always coming in from one direction. Through the lens.
And why when they do, do we only see some parts of the photo being effected?

Let me ask this, when the Astronauts change their magazines, are the
plates exposed?






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.


Is that problem? Have you considered how close the astronaut is when taking the photo?
And what the astronaut is taking a photo of?

Lets take a close look at the photo.


Cutting the photo in half we can see that the photographer is facing the ladder but a bit on the right side.
The side of the astronaut in the picture.
We can see that because we can see the inside of the left part of the ladder (arrows)
and, the right side is basically flat or flush (rectangle)

But when we compare this to the video:
history.nasa.gov...

The cameraman appears to be on the left side of the ladder pointing toward the ladder and astronaut.
He would then have a photo where we would be able to see the inside of the right side of the ladder.
I wouldn't know how he would get the FLAG .

Also, in the video footage you can see that the photographer has to bring his arms up to take the picture. In the photo his arms are comparably low:





posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Brother, you will step off with your left foot one full step, and bring the heel of your right in the hollow of your left foot; now step off with your right foot, and bring the heel of your left in the hollow of your right foot; now step off with your left foot, and bring both heels together.”


Now for something a bit... esoteric?

Something strange I noticed while going through Apollo photos.
For Apollo 11 and 12 there is a series of six
photos showing an astronaut egressing from the LM.

What are the chances of that?

Apollo 11
www.lpi.usra.edu...
1 5862 doorway
2 5863 porch
3 5866 Both feet not on top rung
4 5867 left foot in air
5 5668 left foot in air
6 5869 both feet on the ground

Apollo 12
www.lpi.usra.edu...
1 6724 doorway
2 6735 porch
3 6726 Both feet on top rung
4 6727 left foot in air
5 6728 left foot in air
6 6729 both feet on the ground

But whats even more strange, in both cases the astronaut leads with his left foot.
which is suspended in the air. And in both cases the hatch is pulled in.

Coincidence or something more to it?

As you may or may not know, there have been rumors about the Masonic
connections with NASA, and the Apollo Astronauts. Or maybe we should say by now
its fact:

www.freemasonry.bcy.ca...
en.wikipedia.org...

Major Matt "Mason"



In Freemasonry, as in the military, members lead with the left foot.
Something to do with trampling evil so your heart can go forward.




Besides this, when you look at individual photos you will notice some other strange anomalies.
But I will look into that in a follow up post.


www.aboutfreemasons.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Are you seriously saying that because the astronauts used their left foots to come out they must've filmed it in studio??? You can't be serious.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
So now, apart from not acknowledging his error with the reflection angle, foo also:
- doesn't understand that putting an extra glass filter into a camera increases flare
- thinks the light rays in a camera travel in perfectly straight lines to the film, and are not refracted or reflected by the many elements and filters within the lens, not to mention the lens barrel, the internal sides of the film chamber, the film gate....

Like I said, *I* don't post at neurosurgery forums.

If anyone else finds this in any way interesting, please let me know. Personally I think that foo is now officially a completely lost cause, and is doing nothing but time wasting. With this level of ignorance, he could question every Apollo image ever taken, simply because he doesn't have a clue.



Just for you to 'research', foosm, why do they 'multicoat' lenses? Why do camera lenses normally have several elements? Why don't photographers slap lots of filters onto their lenses at once? Why do cameras have light baffling, flocking, matted internal surfaces?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Cutting the photo in half we can see that the photographer is facing the ladder but a bit on the right side.
The side of the astronaut in the picture.
We can see that because we can see the inside of the left part of the ladder (arrows)
and, the right side is basically flat or flush (rectangle)


What are you on about now? You haven't answered one single question that has been asked of you, and now you're introducing a completely nonsensical tangent! Please clarify: are you claiming that the reflection of a camera must be turned towards the viewer, or what?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

SEVA the last dance for me



According to "Apollo by the Numbers"

The only SEVA conducted during an Apollo mission was Apollo 15.
Conducted by SCOTT and it lasted for about 33 minutes:
history.nasa.gov...

What is a SEVA?

A "Stand-up" EVA (SEVA) is where the astronaut does not fully exit a spacecraft, but is completely reliant on the spacesuit for environmental support.[1] Its name derives from the astronaut "standing up" in the open hatch, usually to film or assist a spacewalking astronaut.




To fill out landing day, Scott and Irwin gave the scientists back in Houston a thorough description of the surrounding countryside. Rather than restrict themselves to the views out the forward-facing windows, they donned their helmets and gloves for what was billed as a "Stand-up EVA". (Scott now wishes that they had called it a "Site Survey".) Two hours after the landing they were ready. They bled all the air out of the cabin; and then Scott opened the over. hatch. With that done and the docking hardware out of the way (a daunting task in the tight confines of the LM, Scott stood on the ascent engine cover with his . and arms outside the spacecraft, bracing himself in the opening as he took pictures with a 70-mm camera equipped with a long, 500-millimeter lens. By standing up in the hatch, Scott had a clear view all the way around the horizon.

www.solarviews.com...

Well that SEVA is pretty well documented isn't it?
But do you think it would be as important if it wasnt the first SEVA conducted on the moon?
I mean, what if Apollo 11 did it, or Apollo 12, you would expect to find information about it right?

Wrong.

For some strange reason during Apollo 12 a SEVA was conducted but we the public never heard about it. Why? Did they see a UFO? Did they confuse it with Apollo 15? Maybe It wasnt in the script and got edited out?


Well according to NASA, they did it because of... billowing dust.



SURFACE OBSCURATION DURING DESCENT
During Apollo landings, crews experienced regolith entrainment during the final maneuvers forlanding. This obscured fine scale topography during the final touchdown and required landing the LM into a cloud of regolith


Now wait a minute... who here claimed no billowing dust caused by landings?

I know what you all are thinking.
"Wait a minute Foo, its one thing to say that dust was billowing after the landings, which would in turn should of collected in the feet of the landers... whats your proof that a SEVA occurred on Apollo 12?"


Surface obscuration during descent varied for each LM landing. For Apollo 11, visibility was degraded; During Apollo 12 and 15 the surface was completely obscured;


There is our Apollo 12 and 15 link.


The blowing dust caused by the Apollo 12 LM landing appears to have been worse than that ofApollo 11. In fact, a standup extravehicular activity (EVA) was performed by the crew to assess the site prior to performing lunar surface EVAs because blowing dust completely obscured theview during landing


Say what!?!?!?

So... so... why was this not public knowledge until recently? And whats up with all this dust?


Pete Conrad described the blowing dust in the Apollo 12 Technical Debrief: “I’ve already commented on the blowing dust. I felt it was very bad. It looked a lot worse to me than it did in the movies I saw of Neil’s landing. I’m going to have to wait and see our movies to determine if itdoesn’t show up as badly in the movies as it does to the eye. Maybe we landed in an area that had more surface dust and we actually got more dust at landing. It seemed to me that we got the dust much higher than Neil indicated. It could be because we were in a hover, higher up coming down; I don’t know. But we had dust from – I think I called it around 300 feet.”


Yeah but when we look at the photos and videos....


a. The height at which erosion first occurred was essentially the same on the two missions. TheApollo 11 sequence camera photographs indicate the first signs of dust at about 120 feetaltitude about 65 seconds before landing.

b. Photographs taken during the extravehicular activity in the general area of the lunar modulerevealed that the soil disturbances cause by the descent engine exhaust produced about thesame effects on the two missions.

c. Photographs of the crewmen’s boot prints indicate that the soil behaved about the same atthe two sites. Although there were local variations in bootprint penetrations, such variations were observed at both sites.

d. Analysis of the returned core tube samples indicates that the lunar soil had about the samedensity and the same particle size distribution at both sites.



Hmmmm.... why would the visual evidence not correspond with eyewitness testimony?


So... if this SEVA actually occurred during Apollo 12, who here can let us know when it happened? The times, and the length of time it took. Did they take photos like during Apollo 15?


The Apollo Experience Lessons Learned for Constellation Lunar Dust Management:
spirit.as.utexas.edu...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   


Bart Sibrel is the film-maker of "A Funny Thing Happened on The Way to the Moon." In this films Bart claims that the footage that was shown world-wide on national TV was fake and that none of the six Apollo moon landings ever took place, something also referred to as the moon landing hoax. Meet the filmmaker in this installment of UFONAUT News.



*Grabs popcorn and waits for the vitriol*

www.gifflix.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Sorry, but you are lying here:


Well according to NASA, they did it because of... billowing dust.


NOT "billowing".

This has been pointed out ad nauseum to you!!


The words, CLEARLY, in the citations are "blowing". BIG difference!!!


NOW....Apollo 12's SEVA has already been discussed to death here on ATS. Member LunaCognita uncovered it, and posted here (and on his YouTube Channel as well).


Reason, back THEN, for it not being publicly acknowledged was, they did wish to keep any hint of "uncertainty" out of public view. After the success of Apollo 11, it was like a deflated balloon, in terms of continued enthusiasm to keep spending money on the "race" to the Moon. Only the reality of the pipeline of contractors, already paid, and the hardware that was on the production lines, kept the wolves in Congress from pulling the plug, and cutting off funds.

AS IT IS, we know the cancellations that were handed down, and these happened VERY early post-Apollo 11.

SO, I'm afraid that all of your research, on this...is for naught, in terms of your intent.

But, props for finally learning something. Might be hope for you, yet.

(Of course, I say this, knowing full well the GARBAGE you posted shortly after this post that I'm replying to).

:shk:

Just when it almost looked like a step forward, you stumbled and retreated about sixteen steps backwards....what a crying shame. Most people are NOT this difficult to teach....they tend to absorb information, rather than having a Teflon surface, where nothing seems to stick.....

edit on 7 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Thanx for the video Foosm.

It's nice to hear from Bart Sibrel again

6413 viewers already...70 in favor and 10 don't like it !
edit on 7-2-2011 by webstra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by webstra
 


"nice"???


If you think listening to a delusional bible-thumper is "nice", well....

Only the first ten minutes, and he's off on his SAME drivel, no changes, in all these years. Anyone else want to bite the bullet, and see if he brings anything new???


Does confirm, though, what I've written many times. Mentioned it above....Sibrel is a religious fanatic, and that is his primary drive, in this delusional quest.

His little "backstory"? Same as before, the "kid who believed" and had his dreams shattered....ostensibly, he claims, because of "reflections in their visors" in some photos. Seems to me, yet another who was terribly ill-informed, as to the types of equipment that was set up, during the Lunar EVAs, and that could then appear in the visor reflections....to confuse the young lad.

A youngster who, BTW, didn't have the benefit of such vast volumes of information at the virtual tips of his fingers....as we do today, so effortlessly. No way for that false impression of a "set backdrop reflection" that got planted in his tiny brain from taking hold, and getting the proper explanation.

He, true to form, cites Jesus @5:40, and the bible, with a gratuitous "tower of babel" reference, @ 7:40.

More blathering, and the most simple-minded comment, up until that point....the assertion that it was "easier" to make a movie about the Apollo missions (aka, "fake" it) than to actually fly the missions. (@9:20).

What utter twaddle, and crockery.

Anyone who knows anything about actual filmmaking (and not his style of "mock"umentary, where you just slap stock footage together, in an editing room....maybe have a few filmed "interviews", set ups....) knows that to create a full-length (and, just talking here, about a typical TWO-hour) film, is very, very complicated and requires months of effort.

AND.....many, many separate scenes, all shot in different sequence.....takes, for the scenes that inevitably will include errors and flubs, technical mistakes, forgotten lines, etc. If FILM cameras are used, each camera can only hold a finite amount of film, for a finite number of minutes' of footage.

After ALL of that complexity, and chaos....then the various bits have to be assembled, and edited together later. Which is yet ANOTHER technical, and time-consuming process.....One need only take a few minutes to learn about the craft of making a film, to begin to understand.....


To assert that ALL of the Apollo missions, start-to-finish, for seven, eight DAYS continuously was "easier" than actually flying???

Sorry....the man has no marbles. No clue. No relevance, anymore....especially NOWADAYS, with the undeniable photographic evidence of the Apollo landing sites. And, his insignificance will continue to diminish, with each passing moment.....






edit on 7 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Sorry, FoosM. but your latest posts are all "new business." We haven't concluded "old business" yet. I asked you to confirm the following statement:


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

(Edited for brevity.)

You did say that, didn't you? If you are correct, how do you explain the following photograph?



Knowing that you are too intellectually lazy to actually perform any of the experiments that were suggested to you, and unable or unwilling to consider the numerous explanations or diagrams, I decided to arrange a demonstration. In order to illustrate how a reflecting surface can rotate the image of a photographer, I enlisted the help of this highly eflective surface:



By positioning myself at a 45 degree angle to the, er, structure, I was able to take the following photograph:



You may examine a full sized version of the photo and its accompanying EXIF data here:



In the real world, the image of a camera's reflection will point not towards the viewer, but towards the center of the photograph:



Any questions?
edit on 8-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.

edit on 8-2-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


What is this pic meant to prove.??
Did you take that DJW.??




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


Sorry, FoosM. but your latest posts are all "new business." We haven't concluded "old business" yet. I asked you to confirm the following statement:


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

(Edited for brevity.)

You did say that, didn't you? If you are correct, how do you explain the following photograph?



Knowing that you are too intellectually lazy to actually perform any of the experiments that were suggested to you, and unable or unwilling to consider the numerous explanations or diagrams, I decided to arrange a demonstration. In order to illustrate how a reflecting surface can rotate the image of a photographer, I enlisted the help of this highly eflective surface:



By positioning myself at a 45 degree angle to the, er, structure, I was able to take the following photograph:



How is this the same as the Apollo photograph?
Are you relatively the same distance away as the Astronaut was?
Is the structure the subject of your photograph?

You have one astronaut taking a picture of another astronaut.
Your set-up does not fit that scenario.

What you are trying to prove is that you can aim away from a reflective surface and still be in the reflection.
Fine, nobody says you cant do that. I am saying, if you are aiming at the reflective surface you should see yourself doing so.
That simple.

In every other photograph of Apollo, we see that the astronaut is pointing his camera toward the other astronaut:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Even if the photographer was aiming at his hand, at something next to him, we should see clearly that the photographer would be aiming at his direction.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



What is this pic meant to prove.??


That FoosM doesn't know what he's talking about. When the astronaut took a photograph of the plaque, his reflection in the other astronaut's helmet showed the camera rotated towards the center of the photo. You will note that I am not only rotated horizontally, but because the structure is even taller than I am, I am rotated vertically as well.


Did you take that DJW.??


Yes. That's me. Unlike some people, I'm not afraid of people knowing who I am.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



How is this the same as the Apollo photograph?
Are you relatively the same distance away as the Astronaut was?
Is the structure the subject of your photograph?


What difference do you believe that would make? The radius of curvature is the more germane point. Was the astronaut the subject of your picture, or the plaque?


You have one astronaut taking a picture of another astronaut.
Your set-up does not fit that scenario.


Would it help if I were wearing a space suit? In the picture in question, the astronaut is taking a picture of the plaque, the other astronaut is to one side.




What you are trying to prove is that you can aim away from a reflective surface and still be in the reflection.
Fine, nobody says you cant do that. I am saying, if you are aiming at the reflective surface you should see yourself doing so.
That simple.


So what you're saying is that there's nothing wrong with the photo. So why did you bring it up?


In every other photograph of Apollo, we see that the astronaut is pointing his camera toward the other astronaut:


Simply wrong. Often the other astronaut is not the subject of the photograph, and is therefore not at the center of the frame. When that is the case, the photographers reflection appears rotated towards the center of the photograph.


Even if the photographer was aiming at his hand, at something next to him, we should see clearly that the photographer would be aiming at his direction.


Whose direction? What don't you understand about this photograph, and the lines I've drawn to assist comprehension?





edit on 8-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.

edit on 8-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
In the real world, the image of a camera's reflection will point not towards the viewer, but towards the center of the photograph:


It doesn't seem so.

I like to source my evidence from an anonymous and unrelated third party. In this image, also of Cloud Gate, Chicago, you can quite clearly see the person on the mobility vehicle aiming off centre, and yet ... the lens is pointing at the camera in the reflection. (quite a bit different to your picture)




edit on 8-2-2011 by ppk55 because: edit: added (quite a bit different to your picture)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



I like to source my evidence from an anonymous and unrelated third party. In this image, also of Cloud Gate, Chicago, you can quite clearly see the person on the mobility vehicle aiming off centre, and yet ... the lens is pointing at the camera in the reflection.


So the photographer was aiming at himself. Incidentally, do you know if this photo was cropped? Unless you can provide a link to the un-cropped photo, you have made no point.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


If you look at the economy of america and russia today, you will see that all the money are spent on war and not space. Even if they wanted to go to the moon, and stop funding the military, it would still be to little money for the missions.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

when I provided positive proof that Jarrah lied when he claimed Kovalev's research contradicted NASA's


You see, this is where you are wrong, and also guilty of misleading people.
I have already shown that Jarrah did not lie. Which you have conveniently brushed under the carpet.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why do you continue this pursuit, pretending that you caught him out, when if fact it's you who have been caught out.

DJW, you were caught out with about 20 pages of posts accusing JW of being a liar, and now you've been caught out with your 'photo.' Enough is enough.


edit on 8-2-2011 by ppk55 because: correct original link



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



You see, this is where you are wrong, and also guilty of misleading people.
I have already shown that Jarrah did not lie. Which you have conveniently brushed under the carpet.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why do you continue this pursuit, pretending that you caught him out, when if fact it's you who have been caught out.

DJW, you were caught out with about 20 pages of posts accusing JW of being a liar, and now you've been caught out with your 'photo.' Enough is enough.


This is the post you've linked to:


Why do they call what radiation shielding? Why do they call a window shade a shade, when anything opaque can block sunlight?

I would say that, like air, a net would make a very poor shield against shotgun shot. That doesn't mean you can't make a stack of nets several meters thick that might be able to stop a shotgun blast.

Simple point is, everything provides some amount of shielding from radiation.


It was made by nataylor. How does that prove I'm a liar?

Now, please explain why you find my picture misleading? And where is that link to the original photo and EXIF data of your "counter example?"

Edit to add: Sorry, when I first tried your link, it took me to nat's post. It now takes me to this post:


To everyone saying Jarrah lied about not mentioning that the figures he presented were based on no shielding, may I direct you to Part 8 of his Radioactive Anomaly II series.

Here he clearly states at 1.16 in ...

"According to Russia's E. E. Kovalev, WITH NO SHIELDING the radiation could be anywhere from 11,666 rad per hour to 312.5 rad per hour."

He states, NO SHIELDING and also shows the table of figures in question at the same time.

I think some apologies might be in order.


I was not referring to part 8, which I still haven't seen. The simple fact is that Jarrah claimed that Kovalev's data contradicted NASA. It did not. That was a lie on Jarrah's part. Furthermore, Jarrah continuously claims the spacecraft was unshielded, drawing attention away from the fact that the spacecraft itself was shielding!


edit on 8-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 351  352  353    355  356  357 >>

log in

join