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: 367
377
<< 364  365  366    368  369  370 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


This is just amazing:


At any rate, one gets the distinct feeling like the Earth would not be the size of a pea, marble, or pearl.
Or that it would take more than a thumb to blot it out of the sky... more like a fist.


Already we've seen no sense of humor, no sense of perspective in interpreting two-dimensional photos into three-dimensional experience and understanding....and now this??

Perspective again....another topic that seems to have you stumped?

Look:



Now can you see how perspective can alter the relative size of two objects, depending on their distance from your eye??

(Or......is this just one more of your "innocent" games? Remember, what you put on the Internet, stays on the Internet.....):

"Internet Danger"




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Hmm...last I checked a while back this thread proved he had inconsistencies in his videos so how has it got to this many pages?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So what you are saying is that if the astronauts on the moon had used a 250mm lens, then the Earth would have appeared larger in the photos?
Yes, an item of fixed size will take up more of the frame the longer the focal length of lens used.

But of course that would make getting anything on the surface and the earth in the same frame even harder. Instead of this,



this,



and this:



You'd get this,



this,



and this:




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Nice work Nat..
Easy to see..



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
So what you are saying is that if the astronauts on the moon had used a 250mm lens, then the Earth would have appeared larger in the photos?
Yes, an item of fixed size will take up more of the frame the longer the focal length of lens used.

But of course that would make getting anything on the surface and the earth in the same frame even harder. Instead of this,



this,



and this:




Ok, that makes sense,
Can you now place next to the Earth, in the examples above, the moon so we can understand the difference in size. In other words, if we had the same camera equipment here on Earth, and we took a picture of the moon, how large would it appear in the photo?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by curious7
Hmm...last I checked a while back this thread proved he had inconsistencies in his videos so how has it got to this many pages?


Well, I dont know what inconsistencies you are talking about, but I guess it wasnt all that inconsistent was it



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Yes foosm thats how it works on a 35mm SLR FILM camera standard lens is usually 50mm sometimes 55mm depends on make. If you put on a 500mm telephoto its 10x magnification compared to the standard lens.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Well, I dont know what inconsistencies you are talking about, but I guess it wasnt all that inconsistent was it


Allow me to refresh your memory:

He lied when he claimed Kovalev's data contradicted NASA.
He lied when he characterized a water color instructor as an "expert" in photo interpretation.
He does not understand perspective.
He does not understand how terrain distorts shadows.
He does not understand how exposure works.
He does not understand the difference between a controlled experiment and a demonstration.
He does not understand the difference between weight and mass.
He does not understand basic mathematics.

Shall I go on?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Well, I dont know what inconsistencies you are talking about, but I guess it wasnt all that inconsistent was it


Allow me to refresh your memory:

He lied when he claimed Kovalev's data contradicted NASA.
He lied when he characterized a water color instructor as an "expert" in photo interpretation.
He does not understand perspective.
He does not understand how terrain distorts shadows....

Shall I go on?


Dont bother, after reading the first few on the list,
I knew you were just rehashing nonsense.

At any rate, nothing you have listed either supports the landings or
debunks Jarrah.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Dont bother, after reading the first few on the list,
I knew you were just rehashing nonsense.


If you mean that Jarrah's claims are nonsense, I agree. On the other hand, there are a few points you might want to look at:
Jarah lies about Kovalev's data.
Jarrah boasts about lying to cover his tracks.
Jarrah lies about his "expert."

Jarrah's wilful deception concerning HAM radio.
Jarrah's ignorance of light and shadow, from Page 2!

I could go on and on.


At any rate, nothing you have listed either supports the landings or
debunks Jarrah.


When have I ever said that it was my job to "prove the landings?" The title of this thread is "Young aussie genius," and I'm pretty sure Jarrah has been totally debunked and shown to be the misanthropic fraud he is.

edit on 24-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Oh, my aching sides, from laughing so hard!!



At any rate, nothing you have listed .....debunks Jarrah.


Oh, my my my.....

"Jarrah White" has been thoroughly and utterly trounced.

And, with his inane ramblings, and videos, he debunks himself!!!


edit on 24 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, that makes sense,
Can you now place next to the Earth, in the examples above, the moon so we can understand the difference in size. In other words, if we had the same camera equipment here on Earth, and we took a picture of the moon, how large would it appear in the photo?


They'd look something like this:







For comparison, here's a picture from Starry Night Pro showing the moon with a 53 degree field of view:



As you can see, with a 53 degree field of view, the moon is pretty tiny.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
This Just In:

New LROC images, from January 25 2011 are now available.

Apollo 14 landing site:

lroc.sese.asu.edu...


Full strip in mosaic, at 0.50 meters/pixel:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

LROC Image Browser.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, that makes sense,
Can you now place next to the Earth, in the examples above, the moon so we can understand the difference in size. In other words, if we had the same camera equipment here on Earth, and we took a picture of the moon, how large would it appear in the photo?


They'd look something like this:

As you can see, with a 53 degree field of view, the moon is pretty tiny.


Yes indeed, that did help put it all into "perspective"




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

edit on 24-2-2011 by FoosM because: dblpost



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

This Just In:

New LROC images, from January 25 2011 are now available.

Apollo 14 landing site:

lroc.sese.asu.edu...


Full strip in mosaic, at 0.50 meters/pixel:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

LROC Image Browser.



Would you be so kind to inform us which direction the sun is shining?
edit on 24-2-2011 by FoosM because: spelling



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Is our question RE: the Sun's "direction" intentionally vague??

Put another way, and just focusing on one image (since YOU didn't specify which of those three links you were referring):

First one, the close-up of Apollo 14. Another image (we've seen the previous ones). Why don't you use all of the new-found knowledge imparted to you in this thread, look at the image, and tell us what you think, there, about the Sun and its angle of illumination.

Hint: You may wish to study some Google Map images on Earth, for an added learning boost......



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Well, I dont know what inconsistencies you are talking about, but I guess it wasnt all that inconsistent was it


Allow me to refresh your memory:

He lied when he claimed Kovalev's data contradicted NASA.
He lied when he characterized a water color instructor as an "expert" in photo interpretation.
He does not understand perspective.
He does not understand how terrain distorts shadows....

Shall I go on?


Dont bother, after reading the first few on the list,
I knew you were just rehashing nonsense.

At any rate, nothing you have listed either supports the landings or
debunks Jarrah.


What part of Jarrah LIED about his "teacher" being a relevant expert do you not understand?

There is A HUGE, almost overwhelming amount of evidence that man went to the moon. There is also a very large amount of evidence showing Jarrah White has no idea what he's talking about. Jarrah's videos are nothing more than is own, speculative opinion.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
The Drawing of the Three
Part 1 of the Dark Moon series: The Sand Clock Magician


The U.S. Geological Survey Photographic Library

describes the following photo as follows:

Jack Schmitt jumping into LRV at station 9


Lunar Surface Journal describes it as:

The second of three photos Gene took of Jack jumping into the LMP Rover seat.


AS17-134-20453


A photo that conspiracy theorist claim to see a coke bottle, or claim that there are missing LRV tracks. We are not going to discuss those aspects of the photo in this series. No, not at all.

So we have an astronaut jumping into the LMP rover.
Lets take a look at some examples of astronauts jumping:

Showing off:


How long did those big jumps take?
About two seconds?
Smaller jumps about one?

Here we can see an astronaut jumping into a rover:


How long did that take? Less then a second?

Now anybody here know how fast the magazine could advance the film?
Would approximately ONE second sound about accurate?

Which means for any action that takes a second, you could only be able to capture it once.
Correct?

Now what did we read from NASA:


Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping in his seat. The three pictures are AS17-134- 20452, 20453, and 20454.


The first question:
How was that possible?
Three photos for a 1 second event?



Cernan - "It was sort of a target of opportunity. It was just one of those (unplanned) things you do. And it's a pretty good picture."


unplanned or unexplained?


168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.


Between "Ready" and "I got three of them"
there are only 4 seconds.
The photos only show the landing sequence of the event.
Not the take-off.
So thats 3 photos for just the landing in the seat portion.


168:47:15 Schmitt: (Laughs)


Yeah, me too!



168:47:16 Parker: 17, Houston. Do you read me through the LM?
168:47:20 Schmitt: You're loud and clear.
168:47:22 Parker: Roger. Thank you.
168:47:25 Cernan: I hope they (the pictures) came out.


Oh you know they will!




libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov...|NASA;start=125
next.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
edit on 24-2-2011 by FoosM because: spelling



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst


What part of Jarrah LIED about his "teacher" being a relevant expert do you not understand?


He didnt lie, and when I challenged you all on it you could find no proof of this lie.
You want to take up this challenge?
Or are you just a parrot repeating what you hear on the forums?
Prove that he lied, go right ahead, or retract your accusation.
Ill be waiting.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 364  365  366    368  369  370 >>

log in

join