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: 385
377
<< 382  383  384    386  387  388 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I still dont understand the issue here. Are you saying once he jumps into the rover he cant move after that?




posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I still dont understand the issue here. Are you saying once he jumps into the rover he cant move after that?


Ok, try this first.
Get an umbrella or your remote and put it on your sofa or chair.
Stand next to your chair and jump into the seat.
Now, while you are still in the air, pick up your umbrella with your left hand and pass it to your right hand.

Is that possible?



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Ok, try this first.
Get an umbrella or your remote and put it on your sofa or chair.
Stand next to your chair and jump into the seat.
Now, while you are still in the air, pick up your umbrella with your left hand and pass it to your right hand.

Is that possible?


Not quite a proper statement of the scenario, is it? Holding a broom in your left hand, sit down on a chair, switch the broom to your right, turn around, drop the broom and face forward. If it takes you longer than three seconds, consult a neurologist.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

And you shouldn't butt into other conversations until you finish the other ones you are in.
There is an open question we are waiting for you to answer.


There are a plethora of unanswered questions YOU have not answered in this thread.

We're still waiting for your correct exposure times for lunar photography.

Don't be a hypocrite.... like Jarrah White.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


OH and how much have YOU added mate pot and kettle I think, lets see I have 30 + years in construction thats why I post on 9/11 threads and also as a keen amatuer photographer for the same time thats why I post on this and some UFO threads my other hobbies are martial arts for about 30 yrs various styles and messing around building and repairing computers ,my first camera was a Cosina CSM 35mm SLR a FULLY MANUAL CAMERA the best way to learn.

So I have quite a wide range of interests I know a fair amount about AND dont have to google the info


www.thecamerasite.net...



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
It makes sense to "fake" the moon landing, during those times we were in a race with Russia to see who can do it first, that would be a perfect tactic.

"OPE! we got there first, looks a video of it too, haha WE WIN!"

it makes me think about all the other things that NASA along side with the great american gov. might be lying to us about, ie. missions to mars, images of other stars and planets, etc.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by EL1A5
 


Not again.....
......


It makes sense to "fake" the moon landing...


No, it doesn't. The Soviet Union could not be "faked out"....they were just as intent on being "first" as NASA was.

They were watching....very intently. Because, unlike the USSR, the USA was very, very public and open.....



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well then if it was not faked, why doesn't NASA prove every skeptic out there wrong, yeah sure it'll cost money, lots of it, but instead of wasting money on fighting wars, and having troops being sent to places we have no business being, much like myself, spend the time and money to further research the moon, send some more people up with better technology, you have a space station, that just orbits, well the moon orbits put a space station there. They can send robots to Mars, send a human, or a monkey or a fish, something to prove us all wrong.
Instead of referring back to an out dated low quality black and white video.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by EL1A5
 



...why doesn't NASA prove every skeptic out there wrong (?)


You mean all six of them??


Normal adults (and even children) realize what is factual, and can recognize crackpots like Moon "hoax" believers when they encounter them.

Besides....the photographic evidence is now available, courtesy of the LCROSS mission, and the LROC --- its camera it carried that was tasked for other purposes. A side benefit was, since it was there on orbit anyway, could resolve better images in regular visual light spectrum than ever before.

OH, and BTW: You should pay attention to definitions. The few nutters that believe in the Moon "hoax" are not "skeptics". That is an insult to real skeptics. (...who use critical thinking, and reason to investigate and ascertain the facts).

The "hoax" believers are debunkers. Because, they come at it with ZERO actual evidence....just bad "science", lies and deception...all (apparently) based on "gut" feelings, or something. Oh, and a large dash splash of ignorance, on the side.....




The earliest pictures, from a higher orbit, in the summer of 2009!:




Apollo 12, Sunrise to Sunset:



Ultra Close-Up Apollo 11:



There are more, and more to come in future. Especially for those of you who are younger.....you will see much, much more proof in the coming decades........

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One more I just stumbled across....nice that someone made the effort ot put this together. The computer voice doing the narration sucks a bit, though (a real human voice would have given it a nicer touch):






edit on 12 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Gee weed, showing the heavily enhanced video again without mention that fact is a little misleading to say the least..
I actually just noticed parts are even more enhanced than I first thought..
Check at about 4:15, they state a resolution of 10cm/pixel..

Given that the BEST the original shows is 50/cm/pixel,
you'd have to admit that's quite a difference..

Showing 500% more detail than the original IMO is a bit hard to swallow and would not be accepted in any other thread by you or others..




posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Because you prefer to trot ignorance out, and strut it through this thread, time and again....rather than actually RESEARCHING the methods employed in that video example, to ascertain their validity.

Everyone can see the pathetic attempts to deflect from the fact that digital image enhancement is a real, and easily verifiable technology that has many, many applications in the modern world....and NOT just to shut up the handful of Moon "hoax" nutters out there.


I have no idea what the technique used in this image is, but it is an example I found just by using Google to search for "images" using the keywords "Image" + "enhancement". There are a plethora of articles, too, that ANYONE can also search for, find and then read and get themselves (you) educated:



Here, read the bleedin' article that came with that image.

A side-by-side comparison, showing some enhancement technique. WHAT is 'wrong' about that? The way you post, and hand-wave so violently (wrists hurt, yet?) one would think that maybe you had some expertise on the subject. ARE you an "expert"? At that? (....or anything....?).


HERE is a Google Search page for "image + enhancement + deconvolve".

"Deconvolution" is the exact technique used by YouTube member-name "GoneToPlaid" of Arizona State University, in Tempe, AZ, USA (suburb of Phoenix).

Use your "expertise" to show everyone where anything is not above-board in those techniques that were applied.

Or else, you just don't have a pot to pee in.......(or whatever quaint idiom is common in Australia to describe an empty claim ... something lacking substance, bereft of content or facts).








edit on 12 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it.
I said the jump took a second. You are the one stuck like a broken record player focused on how long it would take three photos. But thats just you using a red herring.
You are not fooling anybody DJWMD, you know those photos are faked, you are just hoping to get other people not to see it. Thats intellectual dishonesty.


What are you talking about? If the timing of the photos are a red herring, why did you bring it up in the first place? Why would anyone, least of all me, think for one moment that these photos are faked? You certainly haven't provided any indication. Could it be that you know that they're real, and if you keep making vague claims someone might believe you? As for intellectual dishonesty, Jarrah White has cornered the market on that.



See, thats what happens when you concern yourself with other conversations.
Well maybe you do it on purpose to run away from the tough questions, or buy some time, lol:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There you go.


I'll just quote the post you linked to:



Wait wait.... so you are claiming that you took a broom handle from this position:
Butt in the air (what did you do, hop in the seat?), arms and legs stretched straight in front, and twisted your torso to place the broom handle behind you and then quickly turned back to the front to pose for the following picture:
And you say it took how long?


Hmmm... and you seem to think I have difficulty with reading comprehension. Let's take a look at the post you were replying to:



Guys, I want you to picture this astronaut turning around while sitting in the rover to put that long LRV sampler right behind him... so that we cant see it in the subsequent photo:

And he did that in one second
I know most of us would have a hard time doing that in a normal car wearing loose clothing.

Try it in that chair you are sitting in right now.
Turn put something behind you with your right hand like an umbrella and say "One-one thousand"



I just did, using a convenient broom. Now you try it. Incidentally, I could not help but notice how I had to raise my buttocks off the seat as I twisted my upper body. This would probably be even more pronounced in a stiff space suit in 1/6 G.


Did I say that I was levitating? But at least now I understand your issue: you don't understand that the Moon's gravity is much less than the Earth's, so a tiny upward impulse can launch you out of your seat. In fact, I addressed that issue earlier, as you would have known were you paying attention:




You are now stating that the astronaut somehow managed to turn around and place the LRV sampler behind him from the seating position in the rover, or, while he managed to do so still in flight from his jump?



He was not in mid-jump. In fact, he is probably lifting off the seat as he shifts his position.


That was earlier in the same post. Reading comprehension, indeed. And don't think I didn't notice tthis little "embellishment":


The other issue is that during this jump, Schmitt manages to PULL OUT a LRV sampler with his left hand, transfer it to his right hand, and then somehow make it disappear before the 4 seconds are over.


It was already in his left hand, FoosM:



Here's a photo taken just a few minutes earlier:


Apollo Lunar Surface Journal

So, if the timing is a red herring, why did you bring it up again? How dare you bandy the expression "intellectual dishonesty" around when you do things like this?


edit on 12-3-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



And regards to Ralph Rene, he is old school.
He didnt have the information that we have today.
So I dont care about every issue he brought up about the moon landing.


But all the information you have today comes from Ralph Rene! That's why Jarrah uses Rene's "NASA claims" technique over and over and over again.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Is that really the same instrument in his left hand and then right hand?
It looks totally different in the two pics but I'm not familiar with how it works..



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 382  383  384    386  387  388 >>

log in

join