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: 373
377
<< 370  371  372    374  375  376 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



You do wonder why they played around like that in such dangerous conditions..
I mean one knee into a jagged rock would rupture their suit in the vacuum of space..
Not a pretty thought..here's a new thread on just that..
www.abovetopsecret.com...


This is what the A7LB suits looked like under the white thermal and micrometeorite covering:



The helmet was made of Lexan, a strong polycarbonate plastic used in jet canopies and football helmets. The suits were not fragile.

More info here and here.




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Prove that he has KNOWINGLY lied.
Done.


I read your post... hmmm... you say at the end "I have presented strong evidence that Jarrah White has willfully presented material that he knew beforehand was simply false"

You have presented material that suggests a mistake or error. I believe he has addressed this point. How do you know that he willfully presented material that he knew was false? That is my point.
Unless you are psychic I can't work out how you KNOW what is going on in his head.


Jarrah has, time and time again, corrected and apologised for his HONEST errors of judgement which you call lies.

Provide an example. One would suffice.


So you admit to not watching his latest videos. Seeing as the thread kind of assumes one would watch Jarrah's videos before trying to call him a hoaxer.
Next time I have the time to watch Jarrah's videos I will indeed make a note of the moments you want to see.

It is unfortunate you have decided to base your thoughts on Jarrah on his first videos only.

Glad to know you do entertain the theory that NASA may have faked the lunar photos.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



I read your post... hmmm... you say at the end "I have presented strong evidence that Jarrah White has willfully presented material that he knew beforehand was simply false"

You have presented material that suggests a mistake or error. I believe he has addressed this point. How do you know that he willfully presented material that he knew was false? That is my point.
Unless you are psychic I can't work out how you KNOW what is going on in his head.


Because he had Kovalev's data in front of him, therefore he knew that Kovalev was in agreement with NASA. He claimed otherwise; that is not a mistake, that is a lie. Please provide a link that confirms your belief that he addressed this "mistake."



So you admit to not watching his latest videos. Seeing as the thread kind of assumes one would watch Jarrah's videos before trying to call him a hoaxer.
Next time I have the time to watch Jarrah's videos I will indeed make a note of the moments you want to see.


So you admit you haven't been able to think of a single example. Not one.


It is unfortunate you have decided to base your thoughts on Jarrah on his first videos only.


In his latest video, he claims his next round is being held up because they're being "peer reviewed." He claims he would never post anything that hadn't been peer reviewed. How do so many "innocent mistakes" get past his peers?


Glad to know you do entertain the theory that NASA may have faked the lunar photos.


Why? And where did you get that impression?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

So what exactly are you asking here? How long does it take to get into the LRV? How long did the sequence take? Is something that is unplanned somehow unexplainable? You must admit that your point is a muddle, but I answered all your questions in my reply. (Incidentally, one thing that is so confusing is that you seem to think all of these photos were taken with the astronaut in mid-jump. In fact, they all seem to take place after he has landed, as your own rhetorical questions suggest.


DJ, what do you assume that all the photos were taken after Jack landed?
If that was the case, why would they label the second photo (AS17-134-20453) as:



Jack Schmitt jumping into LRV at station 9
?

Anybody who took the time to review my posts would know this is the first thing I pointed out:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If in fact I used two sources.
If the photo was of Jack simply sitting in the LRV, NASA would not go through the trouble of stating he was jumping into the LRV. It would make no sense. The man is already sitting. The action of mounting the LRV is over. I doubt DJ you want to challenge NASA on their labeling of the photo. Or do you?

The second clue is that under normal examination of the photos you can see that Jack's posterior is not touching the seat.

As you can see in the second photo, light is shining on his seat.


By the third photo this light is gone, due to the fact Jack has landed is sitting on his seat.


This leaves the first photo where we can see that Jack is also in mid-air on his way to his seat:


Therefore, there should be no question that Jack is still in mid-air in the second photo.






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.


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?


Again, your point is unclear because you do not present all the photos in a chronological fashion, but keep linking to sources that make your line of reasoning unclear. You also collapse the time frame, which you claim as already established. Despite the confusion you have tried to create, I believe I answered all your questions in this post.

Now may we please return to the question of Jarrah's lie aout the Gemini X photo?




I understand you wish to have this subject dropped because its a hot potato.
But sorry, this series of photos are the lynchpin. These three photos are the undeniable proof of fakery, and if these are faked they call in question all the photos of this mission. And if they could fake the photos of this mission, they could have faked the photos of all other missions. And if they faked the photos of all the missions, it challenges the whole ascertain that they went to the moon at all. Because, why fake photos if you can land men on the moon?




Again, your point is unclear because you do not present all the photos in a chronological fashion,


Wrong! Thats either an outright lie DJ, or this information that I have presented is so damaging to your
psyche that its tying your logic into knots.

I mean how can it not be clear with such examples:




The photos are presented in order.




I believe I answered all your questions in this post.


Again, incorrect. I have a feeling you dont actually read posts, or you do and blocks of text somehow slip by you. The only question you tried to answer using flights fancy was the missing LRV Sampler. But it was unsupported by any facts.


Im quite confident in doing the research of these three photos that they provide undeniable proof of fakery. If anybody would ever ask me again, what I thought was the biggest issue, well these photos are it. Unless somebody can come up with logical explanations for all the anomalies.

1. The impossibility of transferring the LRV Sampler from one hand to another while in the process of jumping into a seat.

2. The disappearance of the LRV Sampler, though no mention of it disappearing is noticed in the transcripts.
As a matter of fact, the sampler can be seen here after
at around 122:32:24
Note the length, not something you can easily pass from hand to hand.

3. The strange inflation and deflation of the leg pocket between the three photos.

4. The impossibility of taking three photos (takes at least three seconds) from a portion of a jump that should not take more than a second.

5. The unlikely hood of taking three photos of a jump that would last no longer than a second and a half while changing your position and not causing any motion blur whatsoever.

6. The strange reflections on top the video camera that should be reflecting the black of space.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Dear manmental, I have a question for you. In another Forum on this Board, different thread topic (but related, in a way) you wrote:


Originally posted by manmental

You have no idea about special effects.

The theory is idiotic.

>[edit for brevity, byWW]



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



You do wonder why they played around like that in such dangerous conditions..
I mean one knee into a jagged rock would rupture their suit in the vacuum of space..
Not a pretty thought..here's a new thread on just that..
www.abovetopsecret.com...


This is what the A7LB suits looked like under the white thermal and micrometeorite covering:



The helmet was made of Lexan, a strong polycarbonate plastic used in jet canopies and football helmets. The suits were not fragile.

More info here and here.


And we are to believe that they managed to take off and put on these suits, sleep, eat, weigh rocks, etc in a space of this size:






posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Man!! You did it again!! Great job!!


And we are to believe that they managed to take off and put on these suits, sleep, eat, weigh rocks, etc in a space of this size:


Those FIRST TWO VIDEOS? That is the EMU!!! (Might want to do some more research)....

Nice try, but zero points, I'm afraid.....

Oh, and the image you linked is deceptive. Quite the bad habit. Also, you conveniently forgot about the COMMAND MODULE too???


Your incredulity, and its extreme depths, has been noted.....it is incorrect, in each and every aspect....as has been shown time and again,in this thread. But still noted.....
edit on 28 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



DJ, what do you assume that all the photos were taken after Jack landed?
If that was the case, why would they label the second photo (AS17-134-20453) as:


Jack Schmitt jumping into LRV at station 9
?

[Anybody who took the time to review my posts would know this is the first thing I pointed out:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If in fact I used two sources.
If the photo was of Jack simply sitting in the LRV, NASA would not go through the trouble of stating he was jumping into the LRV. It would make no sense. The man is already sitting. The action of mounting the LRV is over. I doubt DJ you want to challenge NASA on their labeling of the photo. Or do you?
The second clue is that under normal examination of the photos you can see that Jack's posterior is not touching the seat.
As you can see in the second photo, light is shining on his seat.
By the third photo this light is gone, due to the fact Jack has landed is sitting on his seat.
This leaves the first photo where we can see that Jack is also in mid-air on his way to his seat:
Therefore, there should be no question that Jack is still in mid-air in the second photo.


And anyone who took the time to review my posts would have read this:


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.



I understand you wish to have this subject dropped because its a hot potato.
But sorry, this series of photos are the lynchpin. These three photos are the undeniable proof of fakery, and if these are faked they call in question all the photos of this mission. And if they could fake the photos of this mission, they could have faked the photos of all other missions. And if they faked the photos of all the missions, it challenges the whole ascertain that they went to the moon at all. Because, why fake photos if you can land men on the moon?


And I understand you want to keep flogging this dead horse because you don't want people to realize you haven't even tried to defend Jarrah's lying about the Gemini X photo. I seem to have missed the part where you proved they were evidence of "fakery". Correct me if I'm wrong, but at one point you claimed that they were all taken within one second of each other. Do you still believe that? Why? Can you prove that assertion? No. I demonstrated That the timing of the sequence of photos jibes perfectly with the LSJ transcript timing.


Wrong! Thats either an outright lie DJ, or this information that I have presented is so damaging to your
psyche that its tying your logic into knots.
I mean how can it not be clear with such examples:
The photos are presented in order.


Here is your first post, in which you present AS17-134-20453 , the second in the series, followed by outside links. It is only in your next post that you include the other two photographs in the series, reduced in size and scribbled upon. At no point did you animate them as a gif so that their temporal, rather than apparent spatial, relationship could be understood. You persistently claim that they were all taken within the space of one second, even though you proved otherwise yourself.


Again, incorrect. I have a feeling you dont actually read posts, or you do and blocks of text somehow slip by you. The only question you tried to answer using flights fancy was the missing LRV Sampler. But it was unsupported by any facts.


Which question haven't I answered? I'm never sure whether your questions are real or rhetorical.


Im quite confident in doing the research of these three photos that they provide undeniable proof of fakery. If anybody would ever ask me again, what I thought was the biggest issue, well these photos are it. Unless somebody can come up with logical explanations for all the anomalies.


So if I account for the anomalies will you admit the moon landings were real? Thought not.


1. The impossibility of transferring the LRV Sampler from one hand to another while in the process of jumping into a seat.


Just because you lack the manual dexterity to toss a stick from one hand to the other while you settle into your seat doesn't make it impossible. Since there was a full second between each exposure he may have simply handed it, but the position oh his left hand in the second exposure suggests a toss. What would be your explanation of this pose?


2. The disappearance of the LRV Sampler, though no mention of it disappearing is noticed in the transcripts.
As a matter of fact, the sampler can be seen here after at around 122:32:24
Note the length, not something you can easily pass from hand to hand.


There is no visual record of what transpired other than the three photographs. The audio record indicates laughter and small talk. It is possible no one thought to mention they were picking the tool up and stowing it in the rack in back of the LRV.


3. The strange inflation and deflation of the leg pocket between the three photos.


The contents of the pocket possess inertia and momentum. They would cause the fabric to puff out as they were disturbed.


4. The impossibility of taking three photos (takes at least three seconds) from a portion of a jump that should not take more than a second.


That you estimate should not take more than one second. As I have pointed out, he was probably shifting his position after "landing."


5. The unlikely hood of taking three photos of a jump that would last no longer than a second and a half while changing your position and not causing any motion blur whatsoever.


So you haven't looked too closely at the third photo, then. It is slightly blurry. With an exposure of 1/250 second, there is no motion blur to be expected.


6. The strange reflections on top the video camera that should be reflecting the black of space.


Hmmm... I wonder what that big round reflection on the solar panels could possibly be... The high gain antenna perhaps?


edit on 28-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.

edit on 28-2-2011 by DJW001 because: ditto



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


Man!! You did it again!! Great job!!


And we are to believe that they managed to take off and put on these suits, sleep, eat, weigh rocks, etc in a space of this size:


Those FIRST TWO VIDEOS? That is the EMU!!! (Might want to do some more research)....

Nice try, but zero points, I'm afraid.....

Oh, and the image you linked is deceptive. Quite the bad habit. Also, you conveniently forgot about the COMMAND MODULE too???


Your incredulity, and its extreme depths, has been noted.....it is incorrect, in each and every aspect....as has been shown time and again,in this thread. But still noted.....
edit on 28 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Im quite aware those videos are of the EMU.
I was looking for apollo astronauts managing to don their space suits by themselves.
This I did not find. All I could find were videos with many technicians helping them out.
This does not help your case whatsoever.


But you can see, even with modern suits how difficult it is to put them on.

And for somebody who has studied about Apollo, I have no idea why you brought up the Command Module.
Did or didnt Apollo 17 astronauts take off their suits when they were on the moon and then put them back on for the EVAs?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Reflection high gain antenna?
No.

Astronaut shifting in seat?
No.

You have failed to explain the anomalies in the photos DJ.
Fantasy and wishful thinking does not count.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You labor under many misconceptions:


And for somebody who has studied about Apollo, I have no idea why you brought up the Command Module.


Well...because I understand how that was relevant. I didn't think I had to explain the obvious...but this question indicates that it was necessary, after all:


Did or didnt Apollo 17 astronauts take off their suits when they were on the moon and then put them back on for the EVAs?


NO. Neither did any of the other missions that involved more than one EVA. They slept in the suits. Really, it is quite simple to comprehend.

Also, donning the EVA suits, while the LM and CSM were docked, and in Zero-G is much easier than on Earth, in One-G!


edit on 28 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


You labor under many misconceptions:


And for somebody who has studied about Apollo, I have no idea why you brought up the Command Module.


Well...because I understand how that was relevant. I didn't think I had to explain the obvious...but this question indicates that it was necessary, after all:


Did or didnt Apollo 17 astronauts take off their suits when they were on the moon and then put them back on for the EVAs?


NO. Neither did any of the other missions that involved more than one EVA. They slept in the suits. Really, it is quite simple to comprehend.

Also, donning the EVA suits, while the LM and CSM were docked, and in Zero-G is much easier than on Earth, in One-G!


edit on 28 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Weed oh Weed. WoW. What happened, pride got in the way of checking before you posted?




NO. Neither did any of the other missions that involved more than one EVA. They slept in the suits. Really, it is quite simple to comprehend.



Apollo 15, the first mission on which the crew took off their suits for the rest period. After doffing their suits, Scott, Irwin, and the subsequent crews put the legs into jettison bags before stowing them on the engine cover for the night


BAM!

Weed, what is this:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

What are they wearing:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
&
www.lpi.usra.edu...

You want to retract your statement?
You see why the numbers of people who dont believe in the moonlanding is growing?









www.workingonthemoon.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Reflection high gain antenna?
No.


Because?


Astronaut shifting in seat?
No.


Of course, quite impossible.



You have failed to explain the anomalies in the photos DJ.


On the contrary, you have failed to prove there are any anomalies in the photos In fact, I can provide several alternative scenarios that explain the sequence of photos, but you would have to abandon your fantasy that the photos were all taken in one second.


Fantasy and wishful thinking does not count.


Neither does saying "no" without providing a reason, yet those are the only arguments you seem to be able to come up with.

Shall we return to Jarrah's lie about the Gemini X photograph?
edit on 28-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Way the go Foosm...

Please go on :-)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 



So, now that you are changing the subject, I can assume that you are assured of the possibility of the movements performed by the astronaut?


No, I just see you have a different opinion and I'm not going to change that..



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Reflection high gain antenna?
No.



Because?


The pics were taken from the front of the rover..
You only have to look at the angles to rule out the antenna..



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You were right that some missions, they felt comfortable enough (and, most likely, they came to these decisions after debriefings form the earlier flights) that they decided it was safe enough to improve their comfort, and get better rest ... especially for the more arduous EVAs, that were quite aggressive.

See? You are getting more and better educated, despite yourself!! AND< me too, along the way. I had the impression, based on what I'd seen of the first couple, and I assumed that the protocols and procedures would be the same. YOU have now taught me something I did not know. IN FACT, in looking into the rest of your claims, each and every time (and there are SO many) in order to refute them, I have learned a lot in that journey. Because of the slingshot method of picking up any disparate point, and attempting to make something out of it, that doesn't exist. Sent me down into different areas of study, and that was always interesting and educational. It also further illustrates the REALITY of Apollo, more and more you look into it, because of the sheer immense level of detail. Anyone with any life experience should be able to understand this simple fact.

So...let's see.....you have ONE great "gotcha" to your credit now. But, what about the dozens and dozens of failures that came before? NO, I can let you gloat on this one little pyrrich "victory", everyone needs to feel smug for a15 minutes or so....but, I don't think it erases any of your earlier boners.....

....it is important to point out the continuing propensity to flood this thread with irrelevance.

So, no.....this does NOT, as you implied, mean that "more and more" people are "questioning" Apollo!! LOL!
Quite the opposite.


BTW....despite this little "moment", it is still a bit sullied by what seemed an intentionally deceptive choice of videos, and that photo of ONE HALF of the LM interior!! Actually, it was a photo of the simulator mock-up. Had no reality to the true space within. PLUS, you seem to forget that each Astronaut was there to assist the other. They had plenty of practice, in training. Guess you really don't have a full comprehension (yet) of just how many hours were devoted to that....



edit on 28 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


A simple "I was wrong" would have done weed..
No one here is perfect though some think they are..



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 





Reflection high gain antenna?
No.


Because?


The pics were taken from the front of the rover..
You only have to look at the angles to rule out the antenna..


Would you care to be more specific?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Would you care to be more specific?


IMO the solar panel is angled in the wrong direction for that to be a reflection of the antenna given that we know the line of sight from the camera..
You can judge the angles more clearly in the pic where the wand is in his right hand..
Like I said DJ, just IMO...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 370  371  372    374  375  376 >>

log in

join