Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by DJW001

Provide an example. One would suffice.

Well I've seen vids where JW has corrected his errors..
Can't believe you haven't seen any...

reply to post by backinblack

Well I've seen vids where JW has corrected his errors..
Can't believe you haven't seen any...

By all means, link to one.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

Well I've seen vids where JW has corrected his errors..
Can't believe you haven't seen any...

By all means, link to one.

I'll find one but I can't remember which ones so it will take time..

But I'm curious to know if this footprint vid was debunked and how..

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental

Now mister DJ... do think it's possible that NASA faked some of the lunar photos? (As opposed to going to the moon.)

Possible, although far more expensive than actually going to the Moon.

Hey look, its cracking....

But seriously, you think it costs more to take fake photos, then to send people to the moon?

Please explain how.

Or does it require magic to make photos like these:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/53b331ce7bce.gif[/atsimg]

Its over people, I haven't heard one single plausible explanation for this series of photos.
Not one.

If these photos are fake, and they are, all of them are fake.
And for those who have been sitting on the fence, or are staunch supporters, its now time
to make a choice and wake up to another possibility, another way of thinking about the world.
Because I'm telling you, HIStory is a lie.




For you disinfo agents, I guess you will keep doing what you are doing because its a job.
But remember, only pathetic people would do what you do.

Joe Rogan also went against this guy not because he whole heartedly believes it but because he had questions and schooled him also. If scientists want someone to defend the moon landing they need to find someone a hell of a lot better then this idiot who simply has opinions, and no facts or solid proof to back it up. I don't have an opinion on the moon landing itself as I'm not interested in it, but I certainly have reason to question it and they need a better representative.

reply to post by FoosM

Its over people, I haven't heard one single plausible explanation for this series of photos.
Not one.

I agree and I have raised the question..

I'm also very very tired of being called a liar by an obvious fool that can't even answer a simple math question..

It's pretty obvious that this thread is being trolled IMO...

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

Well I've seen vids where JW has corrected his errors..
Can't believe you haven't seen any...

By all means, link to one.

I'll find one but I can't remember which ones so it will take time..

But I'm curious to know if this footprint vid was debunked and how..

Did he create his footprint in a vacuum, were the Astronauts footsteps like his (LOOK HOW HE SLAMS HIS FOOT DOWN) was his Moon soil a good match for the real thing HAVE YOU not learned yet LIKE FOR LIKE!!!
Do you people actually LOOK at what you SEE!!!!

Was wondering if anyone noticed this Red Bull commercial LOL

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM

 

Its over people, I haven't heard one single plausible explanation for this series of photos.
Not one.

I agree and I have raised the question..

I'm also very very tired of being called a liar by an obvious fool that can't even answer a simple math question..

It's pretty obvious that this thread is being trolled IMO...

Yes exactly conTROLLED

You will notice that those who are on the fence get punished for not being in-line with one side or the other. They force you to make a choice, even though you might be holding out for more evidence either way.

In this way science and technology does not advance, because you only get two opposing forces in an endless tug-of-war. We all need to be skeptical regardless our personal beliefs.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Did he create his footprint in a vacuum,

Did you watch AND listen to the video?
You are either revealing your ignorance or being intellectually dishonest.

were the Astronauts footsteps like his (LOOK HOW HE SLAMS HIS FOOT DOWN)

Did you watch AND listen to the video?
Did the astronauts tip-toe on the moon?

was his Moon soil a good match for the real thing HAVE YOU not learned yet LIKE FOR LIKE!!!
Do you people actually LOOK at what you SEE!!!!

Did you watch AND listen to the video?
What is the simulant based on?
I guess you dont trust NASA after all!

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM

 

Its over people, I haven't heard one single plausible explanation for this series of photos.
Not one.

I agree and I have raised the question..

I'm also very very tired of being called a liar by an obvious fool that can't even answer a simple math question..

It's pretty obvious that this thread is being trolled IMO...

Yes exactly conTROLLED

You will notice that those who are on the fence get punished for not being in-line with one side or the other. They force you to make a choice, even though you might be holding out for more evidence either way.

In this way science and technology does not advance, because you only get two opposing forces in an endless tug-of-war. We all need to be skeptical regardless our personal beliefs.

Off topic, but you know in all fairness, you should probably wait and debate him when he's online and can defend himself. I think it would just be the gentlemen thing to do

Originally posted by maybee

Off topic, but you know in all fairness, you should probably wait and debate him when he's online and can defend himself. I think it would just be the gentlemen thing to do

With whom should I debate with?
I didn't realize my post was directed to a particular person.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM

 

Its over people, I haven't heard one single plausible explanation for this series of photos.
Not one.

I agree and I have raised the question..

I'm also very very tired of being called a liar by an obvious fool that can't even answer a simple math question..

It's pretty obvious that this thread is being trolled IMO...

Bib ... The reason no one is responding regarding these photographs is likely because people stopped caring about proving FoosM and PPK wrong about 50 pages ago.

Repeatedly random pictures are posted with ... why is this that way? Why is this this big? Why is this that color? What is this line? What is this lens flare? How did he do this? How did he do that?

And everyone knows that any explanations offered won't be accepted or even commented on, so why bother?

If the contest is a game of who can be bothered the longest ... Well FoosM wins.

And really you should just ignore any of the comments that are bothering you (or mod report them). Shovel through the poop and and just read the information. Getting in a back and forth isn't going to help you. (Or winding up persons that aren't going to change for you in this thread) Sure CHRLZ and whacker can be a bit angry at times, but they provide good solid information, and have put up with a lot of back and forth poop in this thread.

Regarding the whole Jarrah thing ... with the art teacher ... I believe he lead the questioning to make it sound like something it wasn't ie ... asking if she was an expert on 'perspective'. That's called leading where I come from. Wording a question to an unfamiliar recipient to shape the answer. Even if he wasn't it makes him a really poor researcher.

While you claim this isn't important ... The thread is about Jarrah. Personally I think the rest of the moon hoax stuff should be in a new thread. I believe better persons than Jarrah have presented this case. Debating the whole moon landing thing is kind of on topic, but I think there's enough holes in the case that even supporters of the hoax theory should want a better representative.

Oh and ja Jarrah White *has* corrected various errors, but also completely ignored some others. He has had some debate videos with persons who pointed out errors and sort of apologized or at least corrected. Though I think his 'integrity' in this area is over stated, he's no worse than most other folks on the net.

reply to post by FoosM

Hey look, its cracking....

I would agree with you, but Jarrah's nonsense never really held together in the first place. Since you have been unable to find one single example of the cover art for "Carrying The Fire" being represented as an actual photo of Collins' perilous space walk by anyone but Ralph Rene and his plagiarists, I assume you agree that this lie has been busted. Jarrah not only repeats this lie in "Double Shots," he defends it elsewhere.

But seriously, you think it costs more to take fake photos, then to send people to the moon?
Please explain how.

Because the photos would be meaningless without the proper context. Anyone can photoshop themselves into a picture of Anne Hathaway and claim she is their girlfriend. To make the photo plausible, you would need supporting evidence, eg; calling her on your mobile phone and letting your friend talk to her. In order to make a "moon landing" photo credible, you would need to construct a gigantic rocket, launch it into space, transmit signals that could be monitored from Earth, and so forth. If you are going to exert that sort of effort, you might as well go to the Moon.

Or does it require magic to make photos like these
[Edit for brevity-- DJW001]

Its over people, I haven't heard one single plausible explanation for this series of photos.
Not one.

You still haven't explained what your issue with these photos actually is. Is it a question of timing? That seemed to be your original problem. Rather than work it out for yourself, you crowed as though your unstated opinion proved something. You did not even bother to look up the advance time in the camera until I challenged you. Knowing that, we can work out the timing. There are three factors that determine this:

1) The astronaut's reaction time, this is how long it would take him to trigger the shutter.

2) The shutter speed. This is how long it would take the camera to expose the film.

3) The film advance speed. This would determine the time between the exposure and the reaction of the photographer, allowing him to take the next photograph.

Now that we know all this, we can work out the timing of the sequence, Let us assume that Gene's reaction time is 0.25 seconds. In reality, it was probably better than this. Here's how the sequence would go:

t=0 seconds Jack starts to jump into the LRV
t=0.25 sec. Gene reacts to this and squeezes the shutter release
t=0.254 sec. Shutter captures first photo (1/250 = 0.004)
t=1.254 sec. Film advances
t=2.00 4sec. Gene squeezes the shutter release
t=2.008 sec. Shutter captures second photo
t=3.008 sec. Film advances
t=3.258 sec. Gene squeezes the shutter release
t=3.262 sec. Shutter captures final photo.

Total elapsed time: 3.262 seconds. What does the transcript say?

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.

Four seconds? Oh, of course. It took Gene 0.25 seconds to realize Jack had stopped moving and decide to boast to him how many shots he got in that time. It is rather odd that he mentioned it, don't you think? It's almost as though the two astronauts were playing some sort of game. This might explain why Jack was doing his little juggling trick, to see if Gene could catch the rake in mid-air, er, vacuum. Why else would Jack ask if Gene were ready?

I know 3.262 seconds doesn't sound like a very long time, but if you count it out: "one hippopotamus, two hippopotamus, three hippopotamus..." it actually seems much longer. I've taken the liberty of creating a gif animation that shows these photos in their proper time sequence:

The animation cycles over three seconds. Sure seems like it takes forever, doesn't it? Since you seem to be confused because the camera bobs up and down from frame to frame, I've created another animation that keeps Jack centered. Notice the position of his hands. In the first photo, his right hand is starting to angle towards his left. In the second photo, it has rotated further to catch the rake, while his left hand is raised, as though he has just tossed something to his right. In the final photograph, his right hand is palm down, as though he has just dropped something. Any questions?

Now, where are those links to NASA and Collins claiming there were any photos taken during the Gemini X space walk?

Originally posted by Pinke


Bib ... The reason no one is responding regarding these photographs is likely because people stopped caring about proving FoosM and PPK wrong about 50 pages ago.

Well you cared enough to keep following this thread.

Didnt you say you worked in visual effects?
And you shy away from offering an explanation?

Wow.

reply to post by DJW001


You dont have to be that elobrate. A simple fact is that the video and photoevidence was impossible to fake. If it cannot be faked then only explanation left is that they went there and they're real.

Come on, I never seen people try so hard to not see the facts facing them!
Anybody can see that the photographer did not simply move his camera up and down when taking the photos.
He took steps! And taking steps take time!

reply to post by FoosM

Come on, I never seen people try so hard to not see the facts facing them!

Try looking in the mirror.

Anybody can see that the photographer did not simply move his camera up and down when taking the photos.
He took steps! And taking steps take time!

If he were taking steps as he shot, that would explain why the camera bobs up and down. How many steps do you think you could take in three seconds?

I think it is time to post this video again, as it completely blows the entire hoax argument out of the water. Any reasonably intelligent person can discover how the process of deconvolution works and how this video was made.
I will provide some links explaining this process, but detail would be wasted on the prejudiced and willfully ignorant. Those who are interested will undoubtedly be able to discover much more on the repository of human knowledge known as the Internetz.

Take a look...



Deconvolution: (Optics)
From Wikipedia

In optics and imaging, the term "deconvolution" is specifically used to refer to the process of reversing the optical distortion that takes place in an optical microscope, electron microscope, telescope, or other imaging instrument, thus creating clearer images. It is usually done in the digital domain by a software algorithm, as part of a suite of microscope image processing techniques. Deconvolution is also practical to sharpen images that suffer from fast motion or jiggles during capturing. Early Hubble Space Telescope images were distorted by a flawed mirror and could be sharpened by deconvolution — (emphasis mine).

Deconvolution: (Math)
From Wolfram math search engine: mathworld.wolfram.com... —

Deconvolution (Photography)
From DirtySkies.com (amateur astronomy)

"Deconvolution: An algorithm-based method for eliminating noise and improving the resolution of digital data. For example, deconvolution algorithms are used to remove out-of-focus haze from confocal microscope images.

From the YouTube Author's video:

All images were initially aligned relative to LRO photo M116161085R since this particular photo featured the least amount of distortion. In other words, the LRO was basically looking nearly straight down at the Apollo 11 landing site when photo M116161085R was taken and the landing site is close to the vertical axis of the image. All photos were then registered with M116161085R by aligning the LM's +Y footpad (the north footpad) in each photo atop of the +Y footpad in photo M116161085R. Next, all photos were rotated as necessary about the +Y footpad in order to achieve rotational alignment using small features located west of the +Y footpad. This type of rotational alignment method is necessary since some photos may be slightly skewed depending on the look-down angles of the LRO when it photographed the landing site. Next, the images were independently scaled in the horizontal and vertical axes in order to get the image scales to exactly match photo M116161085R. This was necessary due to the somewhat varying look-down angles as mentioned above. A second iteration of the above procedures was done in order to fine tweak the registration of all photos relative to photo M116161085R. Finally, north-up orientation was calibrated based on the azimuth bearing of the setting sun as seen in the final sunset photo M117338434R. The setting sun, at the moment photo M117338434R was taken, was on a bearing of 269°47' relative to the LM. It was then easy to measure the bearing of the plume deflector shadows in photo M117338434R and then adjust the rotation of all of the stacked photos such that lunar north is straight up." — GoneToPlaid