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: 365
377
<< 362  363  364    366  367  368 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



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.


lol, funny mate..
Are you saying NASA never altered pics and put them on the NASA site with no explanation??

BTW, your other questions? Crap...You just mislead..

Edit: Lets try one..
The pic on the NASA site where they photoshopped the appolo 8 moon rise pic in with a pic of astronauts..
Care to show that?
The NASA site did NOT tell the public it was a fake...


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




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



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.


lol, funny mate..
Are you saying NASA never altered pics and put them on the NASA site with no explanation??

BTW, your other questions? Crap...You just mislead..



Translation:
I won't post any such images, because I just made it all up.
And I won't debate you point by point, as I know I'll get shredded.


But thanks for coming....



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Translation:
I won't post any such images, because I just made it all up.
And I won't debate you point by point, as I know I'll get shredded.

But thanks for coming....


Ahh, the joys of posting half a quote..


The rest clearly mention but one pic NASA posted to decieve..

Care to discuss it, or would you rather just quote half my post again??



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Edit: Lets try one..
The pic on the NASA site where they photoshopped the appolo 8 moon rise pic in with a pic of astronauts..
Care to show that?
The NASA site did NOT tell the public it was a fake...


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


Did you know, bib, that substantial post editing is poor netiquette? Maybe next time, use a new post, or hey, better yet, THINK for a while before you post - whaddya reckon?

And then, will you get off your lazy behind and BE SPECIFIC.
WHICH IMAGE? Am I supposed to mind-read from that vague description?
LINK to it.


Then I'll happily chase up the history of the image, and we can discuss whether there was any deception involved.

BTW, do images of Donald Duck have a statement explaining that he isn't a real duck? Do they.. er.. need one? Who would it be that requires such a statement?

But don't worry, I'm sure this image of yours *was* a devilishly clever attempt at deception, so please go ahead and post it. After all, we do want this thread to be educational, don't we.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Translation:
I won't post any such images, because I just made it all up.
And I won't debate you point by point, as I know I'll get shredded.

But thanks for coming....


Ahh, the joys of posting half a quote..


The rest clearly mention but one pic NASA posted to decieve..

Care to discuss it, or would you rather just quote half my post again??


OH, I LOVE THIS!! BackInBlack edits his quote to add the additional text, and then criticises me for replying to the original quote, UNEDITED!!!

PRICELESS!

And I'm still waiting - which image, bib?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



BTW, do images of Donald Duck have a statement explaining that he isn't a real duck? Do they.. er.. need one? Who would it be that requires such a statement?

But don't worry, I'm sure this image of yours *was* a devilishly clever attempt at deception, so please go ahead and post it. After all, we do want this thread to be educational, don't we.


So you equate cartoons to NASA??
Hmmm, probably a fair assumption...

I sent you the pic in a u2u ages ago..
T&C forbids me from posting it...

But do carry on the long winded posts..
Long posts on ATS seem to be all the rage..

Personally I'd rather short posts of interest..



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



OH, I LOVE THIS!! BackInBlack edits his quote to add the additional text, and then criticises me for replying to the original quote, UNEDITED!!!

PRICELESS!


PRICELESS is that you responded WELL after the edit..



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



OH, I LOVE THIS!! BackInBlack edits his quote to add the additional text, and then criticises me for replying to the original quote, UNEDITED!!!

PRICELESS!


PRICELESS is that you responded WELL after the edit..


Now, I did suggest you think before you post, so what comes now may be a little unpleasant. You really should have taken that advice...

First up, when one looks at a post, and then goes into 'reply' mode, it take a little while to compose the reply - did you factor that in? No, clearly not. And ATS, being a bit behind in technology, does NOT warn you if someone has substantially edited their post, when you do finally press REPLY. That's why it's bad form to substantially edit posts. It is used to deceive and mislead.

But, MORE IMPORTANTLY - about that image...

YOU just said that this image:

(I'm trying not to laugh..)
..was supposedly presented by NASA on their website in an attempt to deceive...

BULL.

First up, the 'link' bib provided to this composite image was completely invalid. If anyone CAN find where it comes from, let me know. Personally I have my suspicions... Anyway, it didn't take me long to find where the pasted top half came from, here - 'Solar Eclipse from the Moon':
apod.nasa.gov...
It is, as is patently flamin obvious, a CGI image partly based on a rather famous real nasa image. It's an APOD (Astronomy Picture Of the Day), is clearly labelled as an ILLUSTRATION and a CGI creation. It is also credited to its author, who is not from NASA.

(And if anyone here thinks that looks totally real... I should post a pic of the real Donald Duck!)

Anyway, someone has pasted it very crudely onto an Apollo shot, and bib claims he 'came across it somewhere', claiming that the 'somewhere' was NASA, but he provided a bad link and now just can't remember....


Notably, when he first posted it, he didn't make much of a case about NASA using it to deceive - that has now come up, conveniently just when he was desperate for an image...

Well, I'll let the audience put 2 and 2 together.


Remember, this is how bib described it:

The pic on the NASA site where they photoshopped the appolo 8 moon rise pic in with a pic of astronauts....
The NASA site did NOT tell the public it was a fake...
...one pic NASA posted to decieve [sic]...


If it was me, I'd be apologising right now, or desperately finding that supposed NASA link.


In the meantime, any questions about who is doing the deceiving?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

YOU just said that this image:



Cool!

Now that is something people expected to see.
A large Earth.



I mean, why would the Earth look much smaller just because they were on the moon vs from orbit?


But anyway does re-using images for different missions count?



The 20th installment of Jarrah White's MoonFaker series. In this film, he investigates and reinvestigates the usage of the same images used twice and purported to be from two separate events.





posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I mean, why would the Earth look much smaller just because they were on the moon vs from orbit?


Do you think it might possibly have something to do with the magnification of the camera lens? Or, in the case of the famous Apollo 8 image, the framing and cropping of the photo for editorial release? Once again, you seem to be vague on photographic principles.

Edit to add: There's a much better version of that photograph here. You can read more about the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project here.
edit on 23-2-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Just for the heck of it, let's compare this famous photo from Apollo 8:



With this famous photograph from Lunar Orbiter:


LOIRP/NASA

And compare them both with a chart that NASA worked up to explain the geometry of the situation:


NASA

Do you see any inconsistencies here? I don't. Remember, most of the images you have seen in the popular press and on-line have been cropped to make them appear more dramatic.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Are they stars or just errors on that first pic?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



It is, as is patently flamin obvious, a CGI image partly based on a rather famous real nasa image. It's an APOD (Astronomy Picture Of the Day), is clearly labelled as an ILLUSTRATION and a CGI creation. It is also credited to its author, who is not from NASA.


I know that but do all the others, especialy children that go to that "official" Government site know that?
Here's what the site headline is.

Each day a different image or photograph of our fascinating universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer

apod.nasa.gov...

Is apod.NASA.GOV not an official site??



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Are they stars or just errors on that first pic?


I'm guessing it's dust on the scanner bed. I'm not sure exactly where this copy comes from, although it was part of a NASA Earth Day release.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Now that is something people expected to see.
A large Earth.


Yes me too..
I certainly didn't expect the pics we got of the LM where the Earth looks about the size the moon does from here..
Optical illusion but I still expected it to be much bigger given it's well over 10 X bigger than the moon..



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



Are they stars or just errors on that first pic?


I'm guessing it's dust on the scanner bed. I'm not sure exactly where this copy comes from, although it was part of a NASA Earth Day release.


Yeah, I thought as much...
Could,'t see how they would get stars in what was probably a shortish exposure..


edit: That's an apollo 8 pic from the CM...The HD copy I have shows no marks/stars....
edit on 23-2-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You wrote, regarding the Earth:


...given it's well over 10 X bigger than the moon..


TEN times bigger?



The diameter of the Moon is 3,474 km. Now, let’s compare this to the Earth. The diameter of the Earth is 12,742 km. This means that the Moon is approximately 27% the size of the Earth.


www.universetoday.com...




Where does "10X bigger" come from? Visually, we are talking here. Not comparing volume. Of course, if you want to talk about volume, then that's very different. In that case, the Moon is about 1/50th the volume of the Earth.

Earth is 1.083 X 10 exponent 12 cubic km.
Moon is 2.196 X 10 exponent 10 cubic km.

E = 1,083,000,000,000 km3
M = 21,960,000,000 km3

Divide.....= 49.3 (Of course, I rounded greatly, there. Lost a lot of integers in the exponents, by making them equal to "zero"....so, this is just an easier-to-read approximation.

Math...it's fun!

(Something a bloke like "Jarrah White" should put some of his "genius" towards actually learning, for a change).

Along with logic, reasoning and critical thinking skills. OH! And based on that illuminating information and evidence of his exchanges with Jay Windley....maybe an attitude and personality transplant...


edit on 23 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 

You wrote, regarding the Earth:

...given it's well over 10 X bigger than the moon..

TEN times bigger?


The diameter of the Moon is 3,474 km. Now, let’s compare this to the Earth. The diameter of the Earth is 12,742 km. This means that the Moon is approximately 27% the size of the Earth.

www.universetoday.com...

Where does "10X bigger" come from? Visually, we are talking here. Not comparing volume. Of course, if you want to talk about volume, then that's very different. In that case, the Moon is about 1/50th the volume of the Earth.

Earth is 1.083 X 10 exponent 12 cubic km.
Moon is 2.196 X 10 exponent 10 cubic km.

E = 1,083,000,000,000 km3
M = 21,960,000,000 km3

Divide.....= 49.3 (Of course, I rounded greatly, there. Lost a lot of integers in the exponents, by making them equal to "zero"....so, this is just an easier-to-read approximation.
Math...it's fun!
(Something a bloke like "Jarrah White" should put some of his "genius" towards actually learning, for a change).
Along with logic, reasoning and critical thinking skills. OH! And based on that illuminating information and evidence of his exchanges with Jay Windley....maybe an attitude and personality transplant...

edit on 23 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Yeah Weed, Math is fun...
Lets say we have a simple square 1cm x 1cm..
Then we have another square 4 x that diameter, 4cm x 4cm..
(being the earth is 4 x the diameter of the moon)

Basic math tells me the first is 1 square cm, the second is 16 squared cm's..

Gee gosh golly Weed, It's frikin 16 times BIGGER...........

Yep, math is fun..Maybe learn some..


Edit: I can't believe anyone would star your post given your obvious lack of knowledge when it comes to simple math..

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



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

And compare them both with a chart that NASA worked up to explain the geometry of the situation:


NASA

Do you see any inconsistencies here? I don't. Remember, most of the images you have seen in the popular press and on-line have been cropped to make them appear more dramatic.


Wow DJ, nice find!
According to that website that chart was made in 1966.
This means that NASA had all the info and images they needed to fake any "apollo" images.
So of course the orbit photos would all match up.

What most of us are wondering about are photos like these:




Think about it, you are on the moon, a once in a lifetime experience and opportunity.
The Earth is above you and you only take two photos of it ?
You would risk such a chance with only two photos?
You wouldn't you at least bracket the shots?

And what setting would allow both the Earth and LM to be in focus?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


It is, as is patently flamin obvious, a CGI image partly based on a rather famous real nasa image. It's an APOD (Astronomy Picture Of the Day), is clearly labelled as an ILLUSTRATION and a CGI creation. It is also credited to its author, who is not from NASA.

I know that but do all the others, especialy children that go to that "official" Government site know that?
Here's what the site headline is.

Each day a different image or photograph of our fascinating universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer

apod.nasa.gov...

Is apod.NASA.GOV not an official site??

It's a site that showcases ALL sorts of images from numerous sources, and the images are FULLY explained and cited as that one was.

BUT, you seem to be conveniently 'FORGETTING' (again) that the image at APOD is NOT the image that you made the claim about???

The image you made the claim about was a very clumsy composite of that illustration and a real Apollo shot.

And YET you claimed that image came from NASA (it didn't), AND that it was falsely represented (IT WASN'T).

But I see no sign of you apologising. And you wonder why I have a 'tone'?


By the way, as for your '10x' bigger comment, UNLESS you are specifically talking about area and mention that fact, LINEAR ratios are always used in relation to enlargement. Maybe YOU need to become a little familiar with the topics, or do a little research:
en.mimi.hu...
en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 362  363  364    366  367  368 >>

log in

join