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: 368
377
<< 365  366  367    369  370  371 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



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?


I already have. Earlier, I proved that Jarrah went back and edited the original "Moonfaker" video after the following e-mail was published online.


You should take into consideration the background to Jarrah’s work, he made this documentary as one of his class assignments, as such students have to create a piece with little or no resources at their disposal. Jarrah is particularly interested in things technical, and based most of his works that particular year, around the concept that the lunar landing was faked. He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line he wished to persue, and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment. I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’. The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer, the interesting thing is that when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher).

educati onforum
edit on 24-2-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add link.




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
The Drawing of the Three
Part 2 of the Dark Moon series: The King's Staff Prestige


We have established that supposedly 3 photos were taken within a 4 second time span.


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.

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

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Lets take a closer look at these photos.

in 20453
Jack has the LRV sampler in his right hand



What is a LRV sampler?


Jack is examining his LRV Sampler

www.hq.nasa.gov...



Note the tempa-label on the handle of the LRV sampler just below Jack's left palm.

www.hq.nasa.gov...



Jack Schmitt (left) collects a sample with the LRV sampler during training at the Cape. He is leaning slightly to his right and has a grip on the accessory staff with his left hand for stability. He probably has turned his head inside the helmet so he can see what he is getting although, as he notes in a 2000 e-mail message: "The sampler was mainly just for collecting representative samples of regolith fines along the traverse route, so seeing what you grabbed was not critical most of the time."

www.hq.nasa.gov...


So lets get back to
next.nasa.gov...


Just like in the examples, we see it, The Sampler, in Jack's right hand as he is LANDING in his seat.
However, it doesnt start in in right hand.

No, not according to
history.nasa.gov...

It starts in his left, then its transferred to his right, and by the time of the last photo, it has disappeared.
apolloanomalies.com...






Question: How did Jack managed to pull out, change hands and hide the LRV sampler while he jumped into his seat in ONE second?




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



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
The Drawing of the Three
Part 3 of the Dark Moon series: The Prince's Penniless Purse


This is "Jack Schmitt jumping into LRV at station 9"
next.nasa.gov...

There is a strange red artifact running through the photo.
Yet its not the first or last photo of the magazine.
What caused the discoloration?

Who knows, but Jack should be more concerned that somebody robbed him of his precious rocks
but then returned them!

Pick-pocket Alien with a guilty conscious?

Take a look:

files.abovetopsecret.com...


Question: What could cause a puffy pocket to flatten and wrinkle then reinflate again in the span of a second?

edit on 24-2-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I don't see what any of this has to do with Jarrah White. Sometime this evening I will steer this thread back on topic with my critique of "Moonfaker: Double Shot parts 1 and 2" In the meantime, contemplate the crucial differences between primary sources and secondary sources. Jarrah, like most hoax propagandists favors one over the other. Guess which one and why?].



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The Drawing of the Three
Part 4 of the Dark Moon series: Square Dancer in the Queen's Ballroom


Im curious, what is actually being reflected? Shouldn't it just be black space?



Im also curious what did they use to stick the flag on the fender?
Scotch tape? Glue?
And what is the flag made of? Paper? See the wrinkles
And how could, the paper and tape, perform going from boiling to freezing to boiling to freezing temperatures, etc.



Gene took a series of 3 photos within 4 seconds of Jack jumping into the LRV


In 4 seconds, how much could Gene have moved?


It appears that Gene managed to step back, then forward with a curtsey



It also appears that he stepped side to side

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Question: How did Gene manage to change his position and take 3 photos in ONE second? And without causing any type of motion blur in the photos?
edit on 24-2-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Mods, is FOOS EVER going to be held to the rules???


Originally posted by FoosM
Im curious, what is actually being reflected? Shouldn't it just be black space?

CITE the image. ADMIT you have cropped the image to get rid of the perspective that clearly shows what it would be reflecting...

NOW.

A decent researcher who actually wasn't spamming for JW, would have looked at the FULL image, and worked out the reflection angles, and also determined whether it really was a reflection instead of a part of the object - where is the text explaining how foo did that?

Much easier of course to just wander over to ATS, post it blindly without a cite, and expect others to do the work.

Is it just unbelievable laziness? Or is it deliberate and deceitful misuse of this forum?


Im also curious what did they use to stick the flag on the fender?
Scotch tape? Glue?

What does it *look* like? Do you think it's ordinary cheap sticky tape?


And what is the flag made of? Paper? See the wrinkles

It was minor decoration on a curved fender, that had to last a few days - why would they spend a fortune perfecting it?


And how could, the paper and tape, perform going from boiling to freezing to boiling to freezing temperatures, etc.

Still don't get a VACUUM, hey foo? There was no air to get it hot or cold, it was a vacuum, so YOU would have to present your heat transfer calculations to show the actual temperatures it would have reached. Once you had done that, you could try it out on an ordinary piece of paper (with the same thoroughness that JW applies!), and chuck it in an oven for while, then a freezer.

How long do you reckon it would last? This would be such a useful experiment!!



In 4 seconds, how much could Gene have moved?

Using the journal, you tell us.


Foo can go on forever like this, applying complete ignorance to every image ever taken. Really worthwhile stuff, if all you want to do is give the deniers a free ride - any publicity is good, hey foo?

I see foo's research abilities have remained consistent since the commencement of the thread...



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Mods, is FOOS EVER going to be held to the rules???



Originally posted by FoosM
Im curious, what is actually being reflected? Shouldn't it just be black space?

CITE the image. ADMIT you have cropped the image to get rid of the perspective that clearly shows what it would be reflecting...

NOW.




Dont pop a blood vessel.

All three of the photos that in discussion show a reflection.
The close up is to draw you to that fact.
If you want to know which photo I used as an example:
history.nasa.gov...

Now while you sit there racking your brain on that one, I'll still be waiting for the other anomalies to be addressed. In particular:



Question: How did Jack managed to pull out, change hands and hide the LRV sampler while he jumped into his seat in ONE second?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lets see how many of you are intellectually honest.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


I don't see what any of this has to do with Jarrah White.


Well thats funny.

They provide evidence that the Apollo missions were faked.
Thats what JW has been claiming in his videos.
Clear?




Sometime this evening I will steer this thread back on topic with my critique of "Moonfaker: Double Shot parts 1 and 2" In the meantime, contemplate the crucial differences between primary sources and secondary sources. Jarrah, like most hoax propagandists favors one over the other. Guess which one and why?].


Oh ok, why dont you just include the following in your upcoming post:


The following photographs were scanned from my personal collection of vintage manned space exploration photographs. These photos
were taken during the period of the "Golden Age" of manned space exploration covering the Mercury, Gemini & Apollo programs.
These are NOT modern reproductions, copies or reprints.


The infamous "C" Rock photo



Which came first? The "C"hicken or the "E"gg?

LOL



stellar-views.com...



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh ok, why dont you just include the following in your upcoming post:


You don't know what primary and secondary sources means, do you?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



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?


I already have. Earlier, I proved that Jarrah went back and edited the original "Moonfaker" video after the following e-mail was published online.


Bzzzz wrong answer
You didnt prove anything.

All you guys have shown is how you manipulate facts:


JH: "Im Jenny Heller and Im a VISUAL ARTS TEACHER..."
JW: "You TEACH perspective?"
JH: "Yes"

Thats comes directly out of THEIR mouths.
There is no voice over, no blocks of text.
You have been debunked and slam dunked on this issue.

Now since you are such an expert in photography,
I challenge you to inform us how these three photos were possible to make in one second:




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Was it one second after all its you thats saying it Foosm so prove that first!!!



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



JH: "Im Jenny Heller and Im a VISUAL ARTS TEACHER..."
JW: "You TEACH perspective?"
JH: "Yes"

Thats comes directly out of THEIR mouths.
There is no voice over, no blocks of text.
You have been debunked and slam dunked on this issue.


Yes, on the revised video. I've shown evidence that Jarrah altered the original after his deception was made public. Incidentally, you continue to prove that my assertion that you never question or disagree with Jarrah. You definitely owe me an apology.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM
 


Was it one second after all its you thats saying it Foosm so prove that first!!!


No, it probably took less. Im offering you guys a little leeway.

But I did provide evidence that jumping in a Rover only takes but a second.
And we are not even talking about the take-off, what we see in the photos is the landing.

Go ahead, take your modern DSLR and shoot someone jumping onto a couch.
And tell that person while they are doing that to pick up a pipe with one hand, pass it to the other hand, and make the pipe disappear.

How many photos will you get?

Now, be intellectually honest and tell us thats possible. And if its not possible, man up and admit these photos would have to be FAKES.




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



JH: "Im Jenny Heller and Im a VISUAL ARTS TEACHER..."
JW: "You TEACH perspective?"
JH: "Yes"

Thats comes directly out of THEIR mouths.
There is no voice over, no blocks of text.
You have been debunked and slam dunked on this issue.


Yes, on the revised video. I've shown evidence that Jarrah altered the original after his deception was made public. Incidentally, you continue to prove that my assertion that you never question or disagree with Jarrah. You definitely owe me an apology.


Provide the original video as evidence.
When it was it taken down?
When it was it made public that Jarrah lied about Ms Hellers credentials.
Otherwise you are just speculating.

Even if there was an original video, you still dont have evidence that he lied in that video.
So, you better just apologize to JW for accusing him of lying without any evidence.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
JH: "Im Jenny Heller and Im a VISUAL ARTS TEACHER..."
JW: "You TEACH perspective?"
JH: "Yes"

Thats comes directly out of THEIR mouths.


And HERE, directly from Jenny Heller's mouth (or rather her keyboard), is what she said (emphasis mine) in an email she gave permission to post after realising she was being misrepresented (full sad story may be found towards the bottom of this page):



You should take into consideration the background to Jarrah’s work...
he made this documentary as one of his class assignments, as such ...

students have to create a piece with little or no resources at their disposal.

Jarrah is particularly interested in things technical, and based most of his works that particular year, around the concept that the lunar landing was faked...

He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line he wished to persue...

...and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment.

I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’.

The reality is that...

I am not even a professional photographer...

...the interesting thing is that...

when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher).


Does anyone want think music? ANY questions? TOTALLY BUSTED. Refer back to page 58 of this thread where this was all covered in deatil. AGAIN Foo recycles... But his garbage stays as garbage, sadly.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   

And tell that person while they are doing that to pick up a pipe with one hand, pass it to the other hand, and make the pipe disappear.


No one tackling the disappearing wand bit?

Hmm, guess it must be true then cause worrying about an arts teacher is far more relevant..



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
BTW, I think it's time to turn the tables, point out more of JW's ridiculous errors and lies, and for FOO, ppk and friends to answer some questions...

In the Jarrah White video: "Moonfaker: Exhibit B. PART 1" Jarrah claims (FALSELY) that the "West Australian" newspaper published a article about Apollo before it had happened.

He bases this on...? His complete inability to ADD UP or COUNT.

He thinks that the 198th day of 1969 was July 18.. It isn't, wasn't, never has been. The 198th day of 1969 is JULY 17. Any idiot with a calendar or even a spreadsheet (if anyone needs the calculation method, let me know, but it's VERY BASIC) can see it is the 17th July. Yes, January 1, 1969 is day 1 (not day zero, Jarrah, you idiot). January 2 is day 2... and so on to July 17, 1969 - day 198.

July 17. 17th July. So, that paper had almost a full half day before their deadline, to publish that news after it happened...

His whole point is based on his inability to COUNT. ANYONE can check this.

So Foo, here are my questions.

1. How could JW possibly get such a basic COUNT wrong?

2. Does he not get anyone to check his work first?

3. Given that this ridiculous error was pointed out to him (publicly), 3 years ago, why is that video still there, promoting a LIE?

4. Given that this ridiculous error was pointed out to him (publicly), 3 years ago, why is there nothing in the 'addendum' video he made?


Can anyone imagine for a moment, any recognised scientist/researcher/investigator firstly making such a ludicrous error, then spending some time making a pretty video about it, then LEAVING THE VIDEO UP FOR 3 THREE YEARS AFTER THE ERROR WAS POINTED OUT?

I find it all pretty funny. Pity JW didn't choose comedy or parody as his profession. Or maybe he did, and then was surprised to note that some (adjective deleted) people actually took this tripe seriously, and he finally found his audience, and his fifteen minutes of ridicule fame..



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

And tell that person while they are doing that to pick up a pipe with one hand, pass it to the other hand, and make the pipe disappear.


No one tackling the disappearing wand bit?

Hmm, guess it must be true then cause worrying about an arts teacher is far more relevant..


So why don't YOU do it? Have you researched foo's claim in detail? If not WHY NOT?

Rather spend your life as a cheerleader, I guess..?

For me, the reason I won't be doing it is precisely because of the time I waste following up on ridiculous claims like the one about that highly real looking image of the 'eclipse' over the lunar surface, which some people (no wait, it was only one..) falsely claimed was being used by NASA to deceive. I get truly sick of dealing with that sort of stuff.

And it's even worse when those who post it, NEVER admit they were wrong, that they wasted the forum's time, or used wording that was deceptive and misleading.

But that's just me. I'm sure someone will spend their valuable time refuting foo's claim. And how will they be thanked, before foo moves onto his next ignorant claim?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

1. How could JW possibly get such a basic COUNT wrong?


Its a research error. Happens all the time to the best of us.
You know how many times Accountants make mistakes?
And its their to keep the count correct?

But it pales in comparison to:







2. Does he not get anyone to check his work first?


He does now.



Can anyone imagine for a moment, any recognised scientist/researcher/investigator firstly making such a ludicrous error, then spending some time making a pretty video about it, then LEAVING THE VIDEO UP FOR 3 THREE YEARS AFTER THE ERROR WAS POINTED OUT?


I believe Youtube makes it difficult to pull videos. But Im not sure about that, in any case are you 100% positive JW did not make a follow up video addressing this issue? At any rate, you are throwing up a non issue unless you can tell us what was JW's response to the whole affair?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by backinblack

And tell that person while they are doing that to pick up a pipe with one hand, pass it to the other hand, and make the pipe disappear.


No one tackling the disappearing wand bit?

Hmm, guess it must be true then cause worrying about an arts teacher is far more relevant..


So why don't YOU do it? Have you researched foo's claim in detail? If not WHY NOT?

Rather spend your life as a cheerleader, I guess..?


Wow... check out the


Why are you here CHRLZ if not to refute claims that the moonlanding was faked? Or cheerlead those that you agree with?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 365  366  367    369  370  371 >>

log in

join