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: 36
377
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


You need to buy them....of course!!




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
By the way, for those lamenting the quality of some of the Youtube stuff, and incapable of finding the higher-res versions, may I recommend a look at the DVD "In the Shadow of the Moon" - you should be able to find that VERY easily, even at a standard dvd rental outlet.

A lot of astronaut interviews (even a little fodder for apollo denier's to try to latch onto!), but also some very beautiful, awe-inspiring footage.

There are better sources for high quality transcriptions, but I think that one would appeal to an Apollo denier the most
, and it's probably the most easy to find. And it does a pretty good job of taking you back to better understand the nature of mankind at that time, where NASA fitted in, and the type of test pilots that became astronauts.


Just tryin' to help...

[edit on 8-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by max2m
what about the dust?,
shouldn't it stay in the atmosphere because of low gravity?
also as far as i can see the rover's moving preety slow, if it was on earth ,the dust would have reacted almost the same



Any vehicle going over a surface such as that would have left a dust cloud behind it.

How did they manage this:


Google Video Link


edit: Just click the link, I can't get the video to run.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM




Dont mix two different scenes.




You see, that's the problem with "argument by Youtube". You only see 10 minute clips of things and can only think of them in that way. These videos are sometimes hours long, and the video was transmitted live with no cuts.

You are arguing a Youtube clip, I'm arguing Apollo in its entirety.




Scene 1: you see the rover run around in circles from a stationary camera.

Scene 2: Another scene you see the POV of the rover running along what appears to be a large landscape.


Scene 1: Could have been filmed in a vacuum chamber if necessary. Notice the rover runs around a limited location.
I would go as far as to say... imagine they used minatures and that rover was simply remote controlled. It ran on batteries after all



Scene 2: would have to be filmed in another way. I doubt this was filmed in a vacuum chamber because it wasnt necessary, what did your really see?

How did they fake it? I can speculate they also used front screen projection. Any other number of tricks. Just look at Star Wars the trench scenes:



Yep, Star Wars looks real.

The best CGI we have now can't give a realist lunar scene.

But you just toss some speculation against the wall and hope it sticks.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

And you posted a lot about satellites, but ignored my relpy.

I'm anxious to see how NASA faked the transmissions with satellites in LEO or GSO.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
I don't want to see selected scenes provided to a video distributor, I want the original source footage from NASA in HD, just like they do with their stills photos.

Oh wait, those 35mm photos they provide aren't even close to HD, they're lower res than my mobile phones camera.


Really?

The terms "out of your depth" seem to apply here.

First of all, all the footage *is* available, at whatever happens to be the highest resolution that it was scanned at. Given the recent advances in scanning and noise reduction technologies, new versions have been done/are being done right now.

But why the heck should NASA have to supply all these files free - providing such huge files requires enormous amounts of bandwidth - why should taxpayers have to support that, just because some denier can't afford to go the authorised resellers (SpaceCraft Films), and buy them on DVD? You can always rent the dvd's, or ask your library to get them in.

Get off your backside.

As for 35mm film scans, that is getting embarrassing... EVERY person with a clue who has researched any part of Apollo would know about this site - here's a direct example of a rather well known image:
Buzz Aldrin Image

Now, what image would you like? - just type in the code correctly, and there it will be.

Instead, would you prefer to browse the low-res versions in thumbnail galleries of each film magazine, to help you identify which one and when it was taken? Then go here:
Apollo Image Atlas
and then use that information to get the high-res version from the site above. Every still image is there, verifiable against the journals. Do I have to show you where *they* are, too?

I find it astonishing that these so called 'researchers' haven't managed to blindly stumble over these.

Or do they KNOW about them and deliberately pretend not to, to string out the argument as long as possible?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Here is another issue.
Landing LM.

Now watch these videos of the landers skidding, the legs spreading as it lands, and then look at the various photos and point out where you see similar occurrences.
The landing was too clean. No crater (slight crater on one later mission), no skid marks (from what I could find), no burn marks on the ground (from what I could find), etc, etc.



Now whats really funny is the near the end of the video where they add sand, and then see what happens to the lander!

And this model looks 10x more stable than the top heavy monstrosity they claimed to have landed on the moon without a hitch!

Dont forget, although in apollo footage we see engines being cut-off after landing, the Astronots have claimed they shut engines down before landing... in order to not fall into a crater created by the engine!

Speaking of which... lets take a look at what size crater they should have made if they actually landed with engine blazing:



But, ok, even if they did shut off their engine off before landing... Imagine thousands of pounds of LM dropping onto the moon, it should have left some kind of distinct mark on the ground! But no, ground was as pristine as penta-lawn.

Here are some later tests...
Man check the smooooth slide, if that thing hit a nice solid rock it would have catapulted!

Where's the sand!? LOL, they were scared of results with sand. Lets hope the moon is made out of flat metal or wood!

Anyway, either way, dropping it or soft landing it with an engine, there should have been a major mark on the ground.




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Really?
The terms "out of your depth" seem to apply here.
Get off your backside.
As for 35mm film scans, that is getting embarrassing...


What a rude person you are.

I've posted many times with references to the NASA image sites.
So, yes I know about them and have included them in my posts.

The Apollo images are 1 - 2 MB crappy jpegs ... they're low res.

In contrast to many of the 100M raw tiff and tga files you can get these days.

And yes, those 35mm are extremely high res, they just need to scanned that way.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Here is another issue.



Of course, when you can't answer a question, you just post something else that you don't understand, hoping to change the subject.

Please address the satellite issue.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by hateeternal
...you can check out their recording of the lunar landing here.:


Wait a minute...

That's an obvious breach of the FCC rules! I'm DOBBING!!!


Seriously, listening to that gives me goosebumps, and takes me back to when I heard it actually happening (well, a couple seconds later)..


Oh, you don't know the half of it!
I personally have a tape from a KGB bug in the Kremlin. Of course posting it would get me killed, but here is a transcript:

RUS1: Dowarisch Breshnev, we have picked up signals from Apollo 11. It's actually in LEO, and we have recorded armstrong saying "Those silly russians, they actually believe we are going to the moon!"
Breshnev: Ha! I knew it! Nobody can hit something as small as the moon from the earth! Inform Pravda and TAZ!
RUS1: Sorry dowarisch, we can't
Breshnev: Why not?
RUS1: ... that would violate FCC regulations

... and thats where the tape suddenly ends.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Jarrah White vs Spacecraft films



All I got to say, the tax payers paid for it, they should have free access to it.

But this takes us to the following new video from Jarrah W.

the definitive moving flag video:


I cant wait for the explanations for this one

For me, case closed, exit STAGE left.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by max2m
what about the dust?,
shouldn't it stay in the atmosphere because of low gravity?
also as far as i can see the rover's moving preety slow, if it was on earth ,the dust would have reacted almost the same



Any vehicle going over a surface such as that would have left a dust cloud behind it.

How did they manage this:


Google Video Link


edit: Just click the link, I can't get the video to run.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]


Sand, animation, again use your imagination



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


I cant wait for the explanations for this one

For me, case closed, exit STAGE left.


No, you aren't going to close a case when there are still issues you've ignored.

You aren't going to change the subject:

How do you fake a statellite signal, either in LEO or GSO, as coming from the moon, or somewhere in between?

Your answer awaits.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Sand, animation, again use your imagination


I've NEVER seen a vehicle drive over the sand anywhere without leaving a dust cloud.

And I don't have to "use my imagination", you have to explain how it was done.

Please be specific.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Here is another issue.

Of course. You can't answer the previous ones, so you bait and switch. Don't worry, nobody is spotting it.

But just remember, I WILL be posting a summary of all your claims and refusals to debate later. Looking forward to that.


Landing LM.

Do you mean the real one, or a tinny little model used in full earth gravity, in atmosphere, and without any attempt at regolith simulation (not that it would be of any use - 6x the lunar gravity plus air means you cannot simulate that in any useful way..)

But anyway...


Now watch these videos

Well, I would have, but that cowardly Youtuber is one of the "comments disabled" losers. Bzzzt.


The landing was too clean. No crater (slight crater on one later mission)

Q1 - What thrust pressure (the numbers are pretty easy to find) did the LM use? Hint - it is magnitudes less than say, a Harrier. Ever seen scorch marks and craters beneath a Harrier?

Q2 - How is it that you couldn't find the marks on the ground under the LM, in each mission? You didn't look very hard.


no skid marks (from what I could find)

Skid marks? You thought the LM was traveling sideways at quite a rate? On what basis, and what missions?


no burn marks on the ground (from what I could find), etc, etc.

BURN MARKS? It's ROCK DUST!! The temperatures of the (very diffuse) thruster was nowhere near sufficient to burn anything. Did you think they were landing in dry grass?


Astronots have claimed they shut engines down before landing... in order to not fall into a crater created by the engine!

1. The term 'astronots' is quite childish.

2. Please CITE this claim.


Imagine thousands of pounds of LM dropping onto the moon, it should have left some kind of distinct mark on the ground!

It's 1/6 gravity, remember, and the dust was quite heavily compacted (as you would expect in a VACUUM.

Now, getting back to the claim about satellites pretending to be Apollo missions, would you now care to WITHDRAW that silly claim, or would you rather continue to pretend you never said it?

It is good for the soul to admit your errors, you know.

Go on, be brave, try it!



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Speaking of which... lets take a look at what size crater they should have made if they actually landed with engine blazing...



This whole thing. Not only did they not land with engines blazing they also weren't exactly at the same spot. There's a certain amount of drift there. Also the part that makes contact with the surface isn't the whole widht of the vehicle. There were legs on that thing.
for logic failure.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

You see, that's the problem with "argument by Youtube". You only see 10 minute clips of things and can only think of them in that way. These videos are sometimes hours long, and the video was transmitted live with no cuts.

You are arguing a Youtube clip, I'm arguing Apollo in its entirety.

Yep, Star Wars looks real.

The best CGI we have now can't give a realist lunar scene.

But you just toss some speculation against the wall and hope it sticks.


What hours long footage?
Show me were we can get hours of footage UNCUT.

CGI, why do you keep bringing up CGI?
CGI cant compare to actual sets, matte paintings, etc.
Thats why Empire Strikes Back blows all three new CGI infested Star Wars films out of the water. CGI is poor substitute for using actual materials. So dont come bothering me by pretending CGI is high on some SFX pedestal.

The actual Apollo moon sets are not comparable to the real moon.

The point of using Star Wars as an example was that if was a meager budgeted SFX film from the 70s. It would be like comparing Avatar (NASA) to Blair Witch Project (Star Wars) yet you can see in Star Wars elements that could have been used in the NASA productions. Or is that to difficult for you to understand?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Well too bad for you, go out and experience the world a little more.

Anyway, after all the explanations offered, you still lack the
imagination to put it together. Its like magic tricks, no matter how many times
people get explained how they work, they still get dazzled by them.

We established the following:
NASA made all kinds of FAKE SAND & DIRT
NASA had vacuum chambers large enough to fit a fake sun and lunar landscape.
In science fiction and fantasy productions miniatures are often used with great success.


Now sleep on all that information, let your brain percolate overnight, and then you might get a clue.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by FoosM]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

You see, that's the problem with "argument by Youtube". You only see 10 minute clips of things and can only think of them in that way. These videos are sometimes hours long, and the video was transmitted live with no cuts.

You are arguing a Youtube clip, I'm arguing Apollo in its entirety.

Yep, Star Wars looks real.

The best CGI we have now can't give a realist lunar scene.

But you just toss some speculation against the wall and hope it sticks.


What hours long footage?
Show me were we can get hours of footage UNCUT.

CGI, why do you keep bringing up CGI?
CGI cant compare to actual sets, matte paintings, etc.
Thats why Empire Strikes Back blows all three new CGI infested Star Wars films out of the water. CGI is poor substitute for using actual materials. So dont come bothering me by pretending CGI is high on some SFX pedestal.

The actual Apollo moon sets are not comparable to the real moon.

The point of using Star Wars as an example was that if was a meager budgeted SFX film from the 70s. It would be like comparing Avatar (NASA) to Blair Witch Project (Star Wars) yet you can see in Star Wars elements that could have been used in the NASA productions. Or is that to difficult for you to understand?



You have yet to give any possible way that the Apollo excursions, in their entirety, were faked. All you keep doing is obfuscating and attempting to change the subject.

Now please answer the satellite question and give us how they faked the excursions.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by FoosM

Speaking of which... lets take a look at what size crater they should have made if they actually landed with engine blazing...



This whole thing. Not only did they not land with engines blazing they also weren't exactly at the same spot. There's a certain amount of drift there. Also the part that makes contact with the surface isn't the whole widht of the vehicle. There were legs on that thing.
for logic failure.


Ummm.... what?

Make a choice:
Did they land with their engines on
or did they turn the engine off before touchdown

And if they turned their engine off before landing, tell me why they did so.




top topics



 
377
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join