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: 364
377
<< 361  362  363    365  366  367 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
My eye sight must be bad..I see no tracks continuing on..


Look slightly above the video camera and you'll see them in the distance. Here's a crop to help.




What I do see, thanks to your HD pic
is the tracks look like they maybe doubles..
ie: the rover may have gone forward a few feet then reversed in the same tracks...


I don't think that is the case. This photo is one in a series of 70 photos (AS16-117-18731 to AS16-117-18800) that were taken during their drive from geology station 13 to geology station 10. They were driving back over their same original tracks they made when they went to GS 13.




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


I played with that and blew it up..
I don't think they are tracks and there isn't tracks leading to them anyway..



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jra
 


I played with that and blew it up..

Well, that's a start... why didn't you do that .. first?


I don't think they are tracks

Based upon WHAT????


.. and there isn't tracks leading to them anyway..

So you can't see the top of the crest??? Look about halfway between the bottom of where the tracks are almost vertical, and the top of the camera. Can you not see the change in focus? Do I really need to post another crop? Why is everyone else doing all the work for you and foo? Have you perhaps checked out the mission traverse maps, and working it out in detail? Can't be bothered? Ask yourself why that is...

Do you realise how many 'anomalies' you will find if you examine these images without having at least a basic understanding of things like perspective, hyperfocal distances, the ability of a film to resolve detail in out-of- focus, low contrast areas? And other tiny details like what effect would be caused by the rover going over a more compacted area, or an area that is slightly angled so that there are no visible shadows within the tracks?

Why is it that deniers have such difficulty thinking laterally and comprehensively???

Welcome to foo's world. And Jarrah's. Just by jumping from image to image and applying this lack of perception, this can go on forever.

And I note you have also joined foo's world in another way, by running away from questions/debate, like this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Despite me answering all your questions, you haven't responded or conceded the point. Instead you make flippant dismissals about trolling. Personally I think that is really poor form. You'll note that when I point out YOUR errors, I deal with everything you say, point by point. Why can't you do that to mine? If I'm wrong, SHOW WHERE. Or admit you are in error. That's what a decent person would do, and of course you will gain great respect by showing up my mistakes. All you have to do is point them out.

Surely there is one really obvious one that you would like to point out, in all those posts you summarily dismissed?

Before criticising others for their approach, I think you need to start checking the mirror... Are you really here for the truth?

Or shall we just leap over to the next image now...



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Tell ya what CHRLZ, how about you simply ignore everything I post and I'll do the same with you??

Frankly your tone annoys me and obviously you feel the same..
So lets simply agree to ignore..



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Tell ya what CHRLZ, how about you simply ignore everything I post and I'll do the same with you??

Frankly your tone annoys me and obviously you feel the same..
So lets simply agree to ignore..


What a lame copout. Not even a glimmer of an attempt to admit you were wrong on those issues I linked back to, no acknowledgement of how much effort i put into putting facts before you. Your agenda is VERY CLEAR.

And no, I (and others) won't be ignoring your errors. Sorry about that. And it's not your tone that annoys me, it's the sad fact that you won't admit when you are wrong, let alone even engage in a debate on facts.

Feel free to ignore me, though.

Does anyone else want to see where the crest is, and how it is easily identified, if you have reasonable vision?

Anyone else wish to take up the questions and facts that bib (and foo and ppk) ignored, about imaging stars in a vacuum versus here on earth? Anyone else think they avoided those questions because they know better and could prove me wrong... but just.. don't want to...?




edit on 22-2-2011 by CHRLZ because: my grammar told me to..



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Does anyone else want to see where the crest is, and how it is easily identified, if you have reasonable vision?

Anyone else wish to take up the questions and facts that bib (and foo and ppk) ignored, about imaging stars in a vacuum versus here on earth? Anyone else think they avoided those questions because they know better and could prove me wrong... but just.. don't want to...?


Exactly what I mean...
I agreed with the no stars stuff but you insist on lumping me in with others..
Though I don't see where a vacuum fits in with photography..

And yes, I still don't see tracks leading away from that rover though I thought it looked like double tracks and thus the rover had merely reversed..

How you think that puts me in the JW fan club I hafe NFI....

But again, the tone of your post is that of someone that believes they are better than I and I don't appreciate that..



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I agreed with the no stars stuff

And yet you didn't reply to ANY of the post I linked to. Here it is again:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It was a response to you claiming that I had misled. And I didn't appreciate that, funnily enough... I went into great detail to explain what I said and prove that there was nothing misleading whatsoever...

... and YOU ignored it. Is that because you haven't got the guts to actually back up such comments? If that was me, I would be either apologising for the insulting remark, OR ARGUING THE POINTS IN DETAIL

But YOU did nothing.


but you insist on lumping me in with others..

Which others? Whose words are these, bib?


...any uneducated fool can fly a plane
...Do you guys not understand english??
...it does seem like a gang mentality in this thread..
..I've been attacked with childish attacks and you guys staring [sic] eachother

Good to see you don't lump folks into groups...



Though I don't see where a vacuum fits in with photography..

???? Ummm... you didn't spot the black sky in all those lunar images taken in daytime? What colour is the sky on earth in daytime? That comment you made earlier about your eyesight seems to be quite valid...

Gee, maybe some folks DO know a little more than you on some topics. Funnily enough, I know LOTS of folks who know more than me on various topics, and you know what? It doesn't hurt my feelings at all. Why? Because I don't pretend to know stuff and shoot my mouth off. And on the occasions I am wrong, I admit it, in detail, with an apology. That's something you don't see much around here, from the deniers. Nor from you.


And yes, I still don't see tracks leading away from that rover though I thought it looked like double tracks and thus the rover had merely reversed..

So, AGAIN, you completely ignore the points I made about the crest, the low contrast, the out of focus issues, the other points made, eg about the astronauts walking over the tracks?

Do you really not get this?


But again, the tone of your post is that of someone that believes they are better than I and I don't appreciate that..

Well, that's truly sad (and too bad)... Perhaps you might like to think that through, and ask yourself WHY you would be upset that someone might be more informed than you on a topic. Don't you think you might be better than me on other topics? I'm sure you are. Congratulations. But I don't think space sciences, engineering or photography are amongst them, just at a wild guess, and judging by your complete lack of response to facts and examples.

On these topics, if you can't debate, if you can't accept your errors, if you happily tag along with every idiotic "ohmygodlookatthismoreproof" foopost, if you simply ignore every point that people make, like the crest/low contrast/oof/scuffing issues... then maybe you need to take a look at what you are adding (or subtracting) from this thread.

Prove me wrong. Go back to that post you ignored and ANSWER IT, point by point - show me where I'm wrong.
Or skip that one (I'm easy to get along with) and now give us your take on exactly why the crest, low contrast, oof, scuffing issues *aren't* important. I'll be happy to explain, with examples, why they ARE very important... That's called ... D E B A T E. Give it whirl.

Or throw another couple insults, tell us how you dislike my tone, and run from actual debate. That's the best way to retain credibility at ATS...



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental
 


Do you consider yourself a "pea brain?" I don't. Jarrah does. If you like Jarrah, you have no respect for human dignity.


So you say I have no repect for human dignity?

You don't know me sir, so please keep your hateful personal comments to yourself.

You sir are proving yourself to be quite an ass.

I believe you are jealous of Jarrah.

Now why don't you go annoy priests over their beliefs?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



So you say I have no repect for human dignity?
You don't know me sir, so please keep your hateful personal comments to yourself.
You sir are proving yourself to be quite an ass.
I believe you are jealous of Jarrah.
Now why don't you go annoy priests over their beliefs?


I would never annoy a sincere priest over his or her beliefs, because beliefs are highly personal and not necessarily subject to objective proof. In any event, that would simply be rude. In case you missed it, here is a sampling of Jarrah's loving prose:


Mr. Windley, I call you Mister because I doubt you are even qualified to be a garbage truck driver...I recorded it (Just so I could laugh at your and Jim Oberg's ignorance "... Sometimes I think NASA picks its employees off the street...if I were a teacher and you were one of my students I'd instantly stamp your report with an F and tell you to go home and be more thorough.... Am I going too fast for your pea brain? Let me go slower. ...Until you can conduct a proper experiment Windley, your results are[vile language deleted]. What next? Are you going to go round insisting that the moon is made of cheese? My IQ is above 150 and I eat Swiss cheese minded propagandists like you Mr Windley for breakfast. You know what I find most ironic about that disgraceful documentary? "If we look very closely, we can see the LEM did in fact disturb a fair bit of dust, just not enough to cover the landing pads" BWAAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!!!! And there the propagandists go, contradicting the very words from the astronaut's mouth "We're picking up somedust!"..."We're picking up some dust!" [repeated 15 times!--DJW001]...Sigh. I wish the pro-NASA morons could go off to their fantasy world and leave us intelligent people in peace. In the words of my late grandfather, you might as well believe in Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs. In the end its just scientific vandalism, pathetic really.

Jarrah White

Slightly edited, emphasis mine.

So, who do you feel is making hateful personal comments? Have I ever called anyone a pea brain? Have I ever called anyone a moron? Why on Earth would I be jealous of Jarrah? His language betrays his envy, insecurity and contempt. I do consider him a vandal, however, as he is seeking to tarnish one of humanity's greatest accomplishments. Jarrah and his ilk want you to believe that human beings are stupid and venal, that they are incapable of working together to solve seemingly insurmountable problems. Because he, personally, finds it easier to lie than to achieve anything of value, he would have you believe that everyone would rather lie than achieve something monumental. You are welcome to admire Jarrah and his philosophy, but try to understand why I would assume you share his cynical and anti-human beliefs.

edit on 22-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Well I think you should have a look a this thread from the START because everyone of JW's hairbrain theories has been DEBUNKED more than once! in this thread.

The guy is a TWAT! (google that) look at his moon footprint video to see how deluded he is!!



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Yeah, a genius who can't do math intended for intended for nine-year-olds.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
To illustrate the sheer idiocy of these Apollo "hoax" claims (not that this is necessary for 99.9% of Humans, but it is meant for that tiny fraction reading here)......THIS trailer for an upcoming film...Third in what is (now) a Trilogy of "Transformers". Not exactly Oscar-potential or quality in terms of story...and (IMO) not even worth the ticket price ... unless you enjoy being visually and aurally assaulted ... in "3-D"....

...would like the resident "hoax" believers to note all of the mistakes, based on the font of knowledge that has been offered in this very thread, over the months of its existence. The mistakes that are applicable just in the sequences selected for this trailer...as they purport to depict an "event" (that we all know never happened....RIGHT??) during Apollo 11.

Bearing in mind that this is a modern, big budget motion picture!!

And, they can't get even the most basic accuracy points correct!! Just as Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" failed, in many of the same ways. (They had an "excuse", though --- they had to guess at visual conditions on the Moon. This movie's producers have no such excuse...).

Pay note to the close-up, dramatic boot "stepping"....and see if you can also see what I'm talking about. Pay note of the schlocky set design, that is attempting to depict the Lunar surface...compare to what we KNOW the Moon actually looks like, from the REAL videos, films and photos. Pay note to the movements of the actors playing the "Astronauts", and the complete lack of authenticity.....I could go on and on ......

Point being....if they can't "fake" it, even in this modern era, then how can you "hoax" believers still make these inane claims??






posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Pay note to the close-up, dramatic boot "stepping"....and see if you can also see what I'm talking about.





Pay note of the schlocky set design, that is attempting to depict the Lunar surface...compare to what we KNOW the Moon actually looks like, from the REAL videos, films and photos. Pay note to the movements of the actors playing the "Astronauts", and the complete lack of authenticity.....I could go on and on ......




Young, in the background, is beside the Lunar Surface Magnetometer. Nearer the camera, Duke bends down and picks the rammer-jammer up off the ground. He feeds it into the core hole bored into the ground earlier and releases it - it falls smoothly into the hole. Next, he spots a pretty rock on the ground and picks it up and examines it. CapCom Tony England tells him to “Blow on it” to remove the dust. It is a 3-centimetre sphere of black glass.




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


So, no attempt to defend Jarrah's howlers in the post I quoted? So you agree, then, that Jarrah doesn't know what he's talking about and insults people without reason.

Do you honestly not notice any difference between the way the dust behaves in the video you posted and the one Weed posted? Look closely at both.


CapCom Tony England tells him to “Blow on it” to remove the dust.


You have no sense of humor, do you?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental
 


Do you consider yourself a "pea brain?" I don't. Jarrah does. If you like Jarrah, you have no respect for human dignity.


Enough DJ. Admittedly I have only skimmed pages 1-101 and reading almost every day pages 250-364 but you have GOT to take a break... sincerely dude I mean this in the nicest way... TAKE A F####NG BREAK
We know this is the greatest troll thread of all-time ALL TIME but you should seriously check out these legs and that smile...


ats media is down at the present time, hopefully it will return shortly and you will get a super SURPRISE pic



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


ATS, is currently glitched. Here is an alt link to the same photo I posted above from ats media...

www.newscientist.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   


Put me DOWN!




(for those who don't know, my *usual* avatar is Snoopy..)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
manmental, I started going through your posts here, and was going to point out quite a few issues, but then I noticed something quite fascinating... But it's ok, I won't tell anyone. I'll leave it to you..

Anyway, I still do have one point and one question (well, sorta two, but one is just to clarify a quote of yours).

First, the point... You have, many times, in your posts at ATS, expressed your open mindedness. Do you like Carl Sagan's quote on that topic? (it's in my sig..)


Second..
On many occasions, you have said that you are quite the whiz with After Effects and know a lot about image/video fakery. Was that true, or one of your white lies?

You also said, and I quote:

I was 100% convinced NASA had faked photographs on the lunar surface for PR purposes.

It seems obvious that you are inferring that they didn't just post-process the images a bit for publicity and aesthetics, but you are claiming that the *scene* was faked. Is that correct?

If so, what was the most compelling image that made you 100% sure, and why?


That will do for now....




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



I was 100% convinced NASA had faked photographs on the lunar surface for PR purposes.


What, do you deny that CHRLZ.??
I've personally seen quite a few pics on NASA's site that were obvious fakes..
Some have been shown in this thread...

People trust that what is posted on NASA is real, yet many times they have posted images that are anything but real..


edit on 23-2-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I was 100% convinced NASA had faked photographs on the lunar surface for PR purposes.

What, do you deny that CHRLZ.??

First up, why are you MISLEADING by removing the sentence that immediately followed that, namely:

It seems obvious that you are inferring that they didn't just post-process the images a bit for publicity and aesthetics, but you are claiming that the *scene* was faked. Is that correct?


That sort of changes the context a little - DO YA THINK????? Of course NASA post processes and touches up images for PR.


I've personally seen quite a few pics on NASA's site that were obvious fakes..
Some have been shown in this thread...

Ah, back to familiar tactics - yes, 'quite a few'[... but we should juts take your word for that - you don't want to be specific, of course. You are consistent with your avoidance, I'll give you that - I note you are avoiding my last post to you as well - what a surprise..

POST THE IMAGES.

BE SPECIFIC.

STOP HANDWAVING.


You tell me which image is deliberately and DECEPTIVELY faked (ie with intention to mislead), and then let's debate. Step up to the plate, bib.


And please try to remember what the thread is about, would you?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 361  362  363    365  366  367 >>

log in

join