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: 369
377
<< 366  367  368    370  371  372 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



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:


There you go again. It was "a research error," rather than a blatant attempt at a lie. The title of this thread is "Young aussie genius...." Does a genius really make errors that fundamental? As for your current game, there is absolutely no way that it is relevant. All we know is that the three photos were taken in sequence. We do not know how long the astronaut took to "settle in." He may have shifted his position several times over the course of five or six seconds. In any event, it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

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?


Log into your youtube acc,click on the arrow next to your user name (next to sign out top RHS) click my videos in drop down menu,select video then click delete,video gone,easy as pie,

I'm not going buy into the moon landing debate,but,just because some people believe it was a hoax doesn't mean JW is whipping NASA,
Pick a conspiracy...............say 9/11 Many believe it was a set-up,If i made a vid containing flawed logic,poorly conducted experiments and fake experts as evidence to prove it was a US government set-up,have i whipped the US government,hell no,but many people who believe it was a set-up will defend me because I'm arguing on their side,
But the does not make my video factually correct,it makes me a liar who uses dodgy means to support my position,
Now before all the pro moon hoaxers,start frothing at the mouth,i'm not arguing the moon landings one way or the other,ok? I'm just pointing out that using JW as evidence that the moon landings were a hoax is prolly not helping your argument ,Foosm pics raise some interesting points, but this thread is titled Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!, he aint whipping # and he aint a genius he's just a naughty little boy,What part of Oz does this lil tossa live in? he needs a slapping,
,



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

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?

Oh, yes, they make an error in their adding up, and then try to bring down the entire company by producing a video! yes, it happens all the time.. in fooworld.


I believe Youtube makes it difficult to pull videos.

READ THE COMMENTS - Jarrah danced around the error, and then vanished. And oh yes, it's so hard to push that DELETE button on your 'My Uploaded Videos' page... or change the description, or add the apology to the comments..., or...

You just make stuff up as you go along, don't you, foo...


But Im not sure about that

Oh? that's never stopped you putting your foot in your mouth before, so do carry on...


.. in any case are you 100% positive JW did not make a follow up video addressing this issue?

Well, YOU show me it. Or withdraw that claim. You want everyone else to do your work, now how about YOU getting off your backside and back up that new claim. Where is this follow up, that addresses the error?


At any rate, you are throwing up a non issue unless you can tell us what was JW's response to the whole affair?

READ THE YOUTUBE COMMENTS FOR YOURSELF, and you can watch how he danced around.. Is that too difficult for you? He can't claim he doesn't know he made that RIDICULOUS error, as he has REPLIED to the comments pointing it out!!!!

A perfect testament to stupidity and DECEPTION.

By the way, my CAPITALS are not from ANGER, they are because you seem to only read stuff that has LOTS OF EMPHASIS.

I'm actually finding this little section fabulously amusing!

As I've said before, I'm only here at ATS on this one thread, leading up to my radiation page posting. I'm currently just sorting out a new provider, and working out where I'll post it.. Stay tuned. I'll expect a point by point response from you and ppk, and I will of course be referring back to some of your strident early comments on this thread. It's a pity everything is recorded in black and white, isn't it, foo? No delete button here for your old posts, like there is for Youtube videos...

That's why Jarrah isn't here (under his real name), and has to hide at youtube, where he can deceive with relative freedom from his little walled and censored castle.. the funny part is his incompetence at leaving those comments on those date error videos, for all to see how he KNEW that he made the error. He must believe that others are as unobservant, ill-informed and gullible as he is - and maybe he's right...

Or maybe he still thinks day 198 is July 18..

Or maybe he's just laughing at how his troll has hooked in people like foo and ppk.

What do YOU think, foo?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



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


Not sure but I'm still waiting for you to answer a simple math question remember??

How many times bigger is a 1cm X 4cm object compared to a 1cm x 1cm object..

Pretty simple equation...



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


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

Not sure but I'm still waiting for you to answer a simple math question remember??
How many times bigger is a 1cm X 4cm object compared to a 1cm x 1cm object..
Pretty simple equation...


Yes, extremely easy, although the answer comes in two parts - can you guess WHY?

And here's the simple deal. I'll answer your question WHEN you go back and answer MINE, that were a little more ontopic than your lack of understanding about the difference between area and length, and which of those units are always used to express magnification or enlargement. Go check those links I handed you...

And why do you keep deleting the parts about how you claimed that the image you 'found' was on a NASA site and that they used it for deception? Don't want to talk about that anymore? I'll be repeating this in some detail until you acknowledge that the image you 'found' and then gave as your best example WAS NOT, at any time or in any form, used by NASA in a way that was deceptive. In fact i think we all know that bloody awful composite did not come from any site associated with NASA at all.

ADMIT IT. It'll do you good, and you'll feel less guilty about making me go to all that work tracking down where the different parts of the image came from.


(This just keeps getting better...)


Added PS (seeing you like late edits..)
Why did you pick a rectangular object, with one of its dimensions as unitary? Wasn't this discussion about circular objects? Why not try that again, with some circular objects, then you'll only need one dimension...

I'm sure our avid readers understand only too well what bib is attempting.. but it will all fall down like a house of un-sticky-taped cards in front of a fan (just like his 'NASA' image).
edit on 25-2-2011 by CHRLZ because: to emulate bib who thinks editing posts is fun!



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



I'm sure our avid readers understand only too well what bib is attempting.. but it will all fall down like a house of un-sticky-taped cards in front of a fan (just like his 'NASA' image).


Ahh, usual attacking the poster crap chrlz..

It was a simple question..grade 2 at worst..
I'll give you a hint, magnification was never mentioned..

But if your believe waht you do could you please build me a house..
I'll pay you per square meter..



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



I'll be repeating this in some detail until you acknowledge that the image you 'found' and then gave as your best example WAS NOT, at any time or in any form, used by NASA in a way that was deceptive.


Why would I tell a lie just to please you??
It came from a NASA site..

Regardless of if the fine print states it is a composite I still find it misleading and should NOT be done by NASA..



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



I'll be repeating this in some detail until you acknowledge that the image you 'found' and then gave as your best example WAS NOT, at any time or in any form, used by NASA in a way that was deceptive.


Why would I tell a lie just to please you??
It came from a NASA site..


YOU JUST DID.

THIS is the image you CLAIMED to have found at NASA:

but you provided a BROKEN LINK. It didn't come from NASA, and you know it. (Prove me wrong by posting a valid link..)

The image at APOD is ONLY the top half of the image!!!!! Here it is:

and here's the link:
apod.nasa.gov...
Which includes all the information about THAT image. It is absolutely truthfully explained.

AND THAT image is NOT the one you posted. You posted the composite.

Can you now not spot the difference? Get a grip, mate..

THE IMAGE YOU POSTED (that would be the COMPOSITE) did NOT come from NASA, and they did NOT misrepresent it. Even the bottom one was clearly labelled as an ILLUSTRATION. There are LOTS of illustrations on APOD.


Regardless of if the fine print states it is a composite I still find it misleading and should NOT be done by NASA..

That truly is utter gibberish, given you can't even identify the image you made the claim about.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Mate, accusing someone of lying is a little beyond you..
Both pics came from the same site..
Obviously different APOD's..

Pretty pathetic....



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Travlla

I'm not going buy into the moon landing debate,but,just because some people believe it was a hoax doesn't mean JW is whipping NASA,
,


The whipping part is the fact that he has been able to put together an impressive series of videos looking into many aspects of the moon landing that is attracting attention. His viewership is increasing, not decreasing.
Whether you believe in the conspiracy or not, JW is bringing the issue to people's attention on an increasing scale.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 

As for your current game, there is absolutely no way that it is relevant. All we know is that the three photos were taken in sequence. We do not know how long the astronaut took to "settle in." He may have shifted his position several times over the course of five or six seconds. In any event, it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.


We know the entire event too no longer than 4 seconds.
The three photos would have to be taken within those 4 seconds.
The camera takes one second to wind the roll for the next shot.
That does not include the time it takes for the photographer to press the trigger for each photo.

The photos however do not show the astronaut jumping up, hovering, and landing in his seat.
All three photos are after the initial jump. So basically you would have to say it took 3 seconds to land!



Still think its a non-issue? Are you being intellectually honest?
In those 3 seconds, the astronaut managed to pull out the LRV sampler, change hands, and made it disappear.
All this with no motion blur in the photos.

Its MAGIC look!




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Ahh, I think I know why the link didn't work..
It's a NASA site that you must log onto..

Here is the URL for the search I used.."apollo earth sun corona"

The first image is the one you said I LIED about....
It's from the NASA image site...
It will take you to the site but then you need to be registered...

But to accuse me of lying over a frikin website thread??
Well that is just pathetic to the extreme mate..


www.google.com.au...



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

READ THE YOUTUBE COMMENTS FOR YOURSELF, and you can watch how he danced around.. Is that too difficult for you?


Not at all CHRLZ, Im watching you and DJ, and others dance around the 4 recent posts I made.
This will be classic.


How did that pocket, deflate and inflate in a vacuum?

I tell you what, JW made a mistake.
Good that you caught him.
And you are saying that he never addressed the issue, not in this video?


But you know what, I dont care about his mistake. It doesnt tarnish the wealth of information he has brought forward. So, so sad too bad for you.


Now its your turn, or do you plan to disappear to go work on you radiation bible?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Ahh, I think I know why the link didn't work..
It's a NASA site that you must log onto..

Here is the URL for the search I used.."apollo earth sun corona"



Let me get this straight, is NASA saying that this image is proportionally correct?





For a moon-based observer's view, graphic artist Hana Gartstein (Haifa, Israel) offers this composite illustration. In the cropped version of her picture, an Apollo 17 image of Earth is surrounded with a red-tinted haze as sunlight streams through the planet's dusty atmosphere. Earth's night side remains faintly visible, still illuminated by the dark, reddened Moon, but the disk of the Earth would appear almost four times the size of the Sun's disk, so the faint corona surrounding the Sun would be largely obscured. At the upper left, the Sun itself is just emerging from behind the Earth's limb.


So the Earth should look 4 times bigger than the Sun...
Do you we have any pictures of the Sun (I know we do) in the Apollo photos, and can somebody superimpose the Earth on it to see the differences in size?

living-creatures.blogspot.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I just want to add the question... why would APOD crop the image?

apod.nasa.gov...


Were they afraid people would start asking questions?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



We know the entire event too no longer than 4 seconds.
The three photos would have to be taken within those 4 seconds.
The camera takes one second to wind the roll for the next shot.
That does not include the time it takes for the photographer to press the trigger for each photo.


Really? Do you have a source for that 1 second figure for the frame advance? A citation is necessary if you expect to do a valid calculation. The shutter speed was probably 1/250 second, so I could argue that they could have taken a thousand photos in that time. Get actual facts before you start to speculate.


The photos however do not show the astronaut jumping up, hovering, and landing in his seat.
All three photos are after the initial jump. So basically you would have to say it took 3 seconds to land!


Or three seconds to land, bounce, and shift his position. What exactly is the point of this exercise in photo mis-interpretation? I'm not at all certain what you think the issue here is, and the lines you are drawing all over the picture don't make any sense, as usual. It is perfectly clear that there is a slight vertical movement of the camera, which makes sense if the photographer has been tracking the subject as it falls.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I just want to add the question... why would APOD crop the image?
apod.nasa.gov...
Were they afraid people would start asking questions?


As usual, if they post the un-cropped photo they are lying, but if they post the cropped photo they are hiding something. Give it a break.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Let me get this straight, is NASA saying that this image is proportionally correct?


Nobody is saying that but you. NASA is saying that it's the work of a graphic artist.



So the Earth should look 4 times bigger than the Sun...
Do you we have any pictures of the Sun (I know we do) in the Apollo photos, and can somebody superimpose the Earth on it to see the differences in size?


No, we don't have pictures of the Sun from the Apollo missions; we have lens flares and burnt out patches of film. This is one misunderstanding the hoax propagandists love to run with.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


No Foosm..The pic was on the NASA site but listed as a composite..
I still think all NASA pics especially displayed as APODs should be real..
IMO it's decieving because kids go to the NASA site and believe everything they see..

CHRLZ called me a LIAR and said it didn't..

Now he has the link so I wonder what he has to say..



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Let me get this straight, is NASA saying that this image is proportionally correct?


Nobody is saying that but you. NASA is saying that it's the work of a graphic artist.



Where did I say that liar.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 366  367  368    370  371  372 >>

log in

join