Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

For the thousandth time it seems UNLIKE UFO pictures we KNOW objects should be there we have records of positions relative to other objects and features on the surface DONT WE!

For the thousandths time, it does NOT alter the fact that the pics are HEAVILY ENHANCED.....
Well beyond what is considered mere cleaning up...

Odd how not long ago it was YOU arguing continually that satellite pics can NOT make out accurate details..
Now here you are arguing the exact opposite..

Guess what bib different satellites different optics can YOU still not grasp the concept of like for like DOH!

Oh and I dont remember YOU being an expert on what can or cannot be done with photography or even the BASICS from what I can remeber!

reply to post by backinblack

But if the posted pics are in correct sequence then we only see the wand in the middle pic..

Look closely at the first photo; it is already in his left hand:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ec0be0c7461e.jpg[/atsimg]
Apollo 17 Image Library

reply to post by DJW001


Well I said I couldn't see his left hand..
So he may have just held it in his left hand, passed it to his right and then placed it down or thrown it away?
I don't think it's a delicate instrument so that's no issue..

reply to post by wmd_2008

Guess what bib different satellites different optics can YOU still not grasp the concept of like for like DOH!

Oh and I dont remember YOU being an expert on what can or cannot be done with photography or even the BASICS from what I can remeber!

The LRO had a maximum resolution of 50cm/pixel..
The enhanced pics had a resolution of around 20cm/pixel..

Your posts are becoming less informed and more childish as you progress..
How about stick to facts instead of childish comments and insults..
Argue the information I just stated, not me personally...

reply to post by GoldenFleece


????

First time poster here.

?????????

Want me to go find YOUR post, in .....THIS thread, by the way, where you called the Lunar Module ascent stage made out of "construction paper"???



Hoo, boy.......

reply to post by weedwhacker

Wow Captain Weed, that's quite the memory! Must've been a few hundred pages back. I believe the phrase I used was "second grade papier-mâché project".

Here, I'll say it again just for you. Does anyone actually believe we went to the moon in this?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ab069f1de0ab.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3ed0033f0e03.jpg[/atsimg]

BTW Weed, just the fact that you're one of the prominent Official Story Defenders in this thread tells me all I need to know...

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Well it wouldn't get me top marks in Art Class but did it do the job ??

If you can argue that point I'll listen..
If you simply say it doesn't look pretty then I will not listen...

reply to post by backinblack

I dunno, thick boot prints in the lunar "regolith", but not so much as an indentation or misplaced pebble beneath the lunar lander rocket?

I'm not getting sucked into this mega-thread, but I've seen more than enough to conclude that at least parts of the Apollo missions were faked.

For what reason and which parts, if any were real, I have no idea.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

I dunno, thick boot prints in the lunar "regolith", but not so much as an indentation or misplaced pebble beneath the lunar lander rocket?

Well I can't say that point hasn't bothered me..
Also the little dust on the foot pads after landing...

reply to post by backinblack


Because both of you are are attempting to use earth-based experience "logic" to assess what is NOT a similar environment.

How many of any of you have experience in a vacuum? 1/6 G environments?

Your "incredulity" only comes about from a lack of proper science knowledge (possibly in combination with a lack of imagination), and the application of such knowledge to account for an environment that you are unfamiliar with.

You have a predetermined bias, based entirely on expectations from a point-of-view and experience in THIS environment. Being unable to equate a different set of "rules" means you will continue to fail in this understanding.

Takes an effort to comprehend, and then to think "outside-the-box"......since it is all a mind exercise, as you are stuck here on Earth.

BEST classroom would be for you to actually experience it, firsthand, for yourselves. Unlikely to happen, though.

What a shame......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

Because both of you are are attempting to use earth-based experience "logic" to assess what is NOT a similar environment.
How may of any of you have experience in a vacuum? 1/6 G environments?
Your "incredulity" only comes about from a lack of proper science knowledge, and the application of such knowledge to account for an environment that you are unfamiliar with.
You have a predetermined bias, based entirely on expectations from a point-of-view and experience in THIS environment. Being unable to equate a different set of "rules" means you will continue to fail in this understanding.
Takes an effort to comprehend, and then to think "outside-the-box"......since it is all a mind exercise, as you are stuck here on Earth.
BEST classroom would be for you to actually experience it, firsthand, for yourselves. Unlikely to happen, though.
What a shame......

Dust is dust Weed..Apart from the effects of zero atmosphere we see plenty of examples of it behaving reasonably similar to here on earth..
It's kicked up by the astronaut's feet and the rover's wheels just as we'd expect..
And didn't the astronauts mention the dust plumes on their descent??
What I'm really not comprehending is your incessant insulting tone..
This is a debate, so why not simply do that ??

reply to post by backinblack

Damn, I swore I'd stay out of this crazy mega-thread, but is Weed trying to say he's flown a lunar lander to the moon?

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by backinblack

 

Damn, I swore I'd stay out of this crazy mega-thread, but is Weed trying to say he's flown a lunar lander to the moon?

No, he's implying that because he says he was a pilot that we are not pilots and it gives him some "edge" to his NASA-by-the-book belief system.

I'm still stuck in 1968. The Apollo radiation data. The rocket problems. The unusual amount of original source material that "went missing". The fact that no human has been beyond the belts since supposedly 1972. The problem of radiation which modern NASA pundits admit as factual : IN 2011 WE CANT SEND MEN TO THE MOON.

So the NASA cheerleaders continue to star each other for making famous statements about something that none of them were personally involved with. They are getting all their data from NASA which controls every pixel of every picture on all of their nebulous websites they operate....

Multiple nebulous websites for the same basic information... a little here, a little there.
science.ksc.nasa.gov...
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
www.nasa.gov...

Apollo 7's achievement led to a rapid review of Apollo 8's options. The Apollo 7 astronauts went through six days of debriefing for the benefit of Apollo 8, and on Oct. 28, 1968, the Manned Space Flight Management Council chaired by George Mueller met at the Manned Spacecraft Center, investigating every phase of the forthcoming mission. The next day brought a lengthy systems review of Apollo 8's Spacecraft 103. Dr. Thomas O. Paine, NASA administrator, made the go/no-go review of lunar orbit on Nov. 11, 1968, at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. By this time, nearly all the skeptics had become converts. Source: www.nasa.gov...

Who were the skeptics and who were the converts here in 1968? The skeptics were inside NASA itself. Those skeptics changed their tune rather suddenly they went from pogo-problems to Lunar-Go in a very short time span.

Apollo 7 was a LEO mission. Based on the performance of A7's mission the go-ahead was given for a full mission outside the VAB. The very first NASA mission beyond the VAB using living animals, ie, A8 astronauts.

I challenge the NASA cheerleaders to NAME THE SKEPTICS of 1968! Not just James Webb because that's obvious. I don't believe James Webb would be the sole skeptic at NASA in 1968. There must have been quite a few of them. Who were they and why were they skeptical?

Apollo Program. 24 men up, 24 men down. That's a fantastic record of success. Some of those astronauts were playing around on the moon like it was a joke. A serious joke. Keep a straight face. Keep your gold visor down.

I think Jarrah White has done an expert and genius work by compiling so many questions about Apollo into his video series Moonfaker. There were skeptics in 1968. There are skeptics in 2011. NASA cheerleaders need to deal with that fact, too.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Apollo Program. 24 men up, 24 men down. That's a fantastic record of success. Some of those astronauts were playing around on the moon like it was a joke. A serious joke. Keep a straight face. Keep your gold visor down.

Have any country other than the US sent man outside Earth's orbit?
I don't recall any but best check..

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by backinblack

 

Damn, I swore I'd stay out of this crazy mega-thread, but is Weed trying to say he's flown a lunar lander to the moon?

I don't think so but this comment makes it sound like it..

BEST classroom would be for you to actually experience it, firsthand, for yourselves. Unlikely to happen, though.

What a shame......

Originally posted by wmd_2008

For the thousandth time it seems UNLIKE UFO pictures we KNOW objects should be there

we have records of
positions relative to other objects and features on the surface DONT WE!

Where are you running off to wmd?
You haven't answered the question, and no, neither did DJ

Where is the LRV Sampler?

It took just one second for the astronaut to jump into the rover.
In that one second he pulled out the sampler, passed it from one hand to the other (while still in the air!) and made it disappear. So where did it go?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001

 

Well I said I couldn't see his left hand..
So he may have just held it in his left hand, passed it to his right and then placed it down or thrown it away?
I don't think it's a delicate instrument so that's no issue..

BiB, dont let DJ confuse you.

take a look:
Sequence


The jump took about second. I established that. So keep that in mind.
In the first photo the astronaut is still in the air & holding on to the Sampler with his left hand.
In the second photo the astronaut is STILL in the air & but he has managed to pull out, and transfer the sampler to his right hand.
In the third photo the astronaut has landed in his seat, but the Sampler is gone.

Thats is the sequence of events.

If you review the transcripts, which I posted,
There was no mention of dropping it, or throwing it away because the sampler was being used later.

reply to post by FoosM

It took just one second for the astronaut to jump into the rover.
In that one second he pulled out the sampler, passed it from one hand to the other (while still in the air!) and made it disappear. So where did it go?

Between pics 1+2 he had enough time to swap it from his left to his right hand and spread his arms back out..
Surely that infers between pics 2+3 he had ample time to put it down or throw it to the side..

IMO there are better cases to be made than this one...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Guess what bib different satellites different optics can YOU still not grasp the concept of like for like DOH!

Oh and I dont remember YOU being an expert on what can or cannot be done with photography or even the BASICS from what I can remeber!

The LRO had a maximum resolution of 50cm/pixel..
The enhanced pics had a resolution of around 20cm/pixel..

Your posts are becoming less informed and more childish as you progress..
How about stick to facts instead of childish comments and insults..
Argue the information I just stated, not me personally...

Well I suggest YOU read up on how the enhancement is done before YOU make any assumptions!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Well I suggest YOU read up on how the enhancement is done before YOU make any assumptions!

Exactly WHAT assumptions did I make ?? Do tell..
I merely quoted facts in that post regarding the pics..