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: 388
377
<< 385  386  387    389  390  391 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Actually if everyone looks at this picture the Astronaut doesn't even have the handle in his hand!

AS17-134-20452

He grabs it with his left hand and pulls it over also if you read the journal re this event, the Astronaut that took the pictures actually had a lot of time to take the 3 pictures also look how much his position changes as he take the pictures, He couldn't move stop and take the pictures in only 4 secs could he Foosm!

From the site.


168:47:03 Cernan: Get on there one time. (Pause)
[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.] [Cernan - "It was sort of a target of opportunity. It was just one of those (unplanned) things you do. And it's a pretty good picture."]

168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)

168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.


Looks like 9 secs. You dont know the exact moment he took the pictures DO YOU Foosm !!!

edit on 15-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


I see 4 seconds from Schmitt saying "ready" till Cernan says "I got three of them that time."

Are you having trouble reading your own post WMD ???
See what happens when you have an original thought??
It's wrong..




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Sorry but YOU DONT KNOW when he took the picture from 47:03 to 47:12

He could have took one at 47:04 then another 2 at 47:08 to 47:12 or

2 between 47:03 and 47:08 and the last between 47:08 and 47:12.

All you know is at 47:12 it's was confirmed that 3 pictures had been taken

edit on 15-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Actually if everyone looks at this picture the Astronaut doesn't even have the handle in his hand!


So what is he holding with his left hand?




AS17-134-20452

He grabs it with his left hand and pulls it over also if you read the journal re this event,







the Astronaut that took the pictures actually had a lot of time to take the 3 pictures also look how much his position changes as he take the pictures, He couldn't move stop and take the pictures in only 4 secs could he Foosm!


Yes, that was one of my points. But DJW001 would disagree with you.




From the site.


168:47:03 Cernan: Get on there one time. (Pause)
[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.] [Cernan - "It was sort of a target of opportunity. It was just one of those (unplanned) things you do. And it's a pretty good picture."]

168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)

168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.


Looks like 9 secs. You dont know the exact moment he took the pictures DO YOU Foosm !!!


After Schmitt asked "Ready?" as in are you in position to take a photo of me getting into the Rover. It stops when Cernan says that he got three of them. Thats a 4 second span.

Its pretty straight forward.
I dont know where you think you are getting the extra time.

I know you want to count:


168:47:03 Cernan: Get on there one time.

But as you can read Cernan had to get in position first:


Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping in his seat.

There are your extra 5 seconds.
You would also consider time for adjustments to his camera as well (distance & light).

At any rate WMD, even if we said it took 9 seconds.
You still have an impossible photo sequence.
The photos show the astronaut in mid jump landing in his seat.
That does not take 9 seconds.
Thats takes about 1 second.
But the camera can only take 1 photo a second.

And even if we say the jump took 3 seconds, it doesnt explain how
Schmitt managed to pull out, hand over, and disappear his LRV Sampler in such
a short time and WHY!?

WHY would he TAKE OUT the SAMPLER in the first place!?
And WHERE did he put it after?

See that WMD, TIME doesn't really solve your problem.

These photos are as fake as three dollar bill.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
 


Sorry but YOU DONT KNOW when he took the picture from 47:03 to 47:12

He could have took one at 47:04 then another 2 at 47:08 to 47:12 or

2 between 47:03 and 47:08 and the last between 47:08 and 47:12.

All you know is at 47:12 it's was confirmed that 3 pictures had been taken

edit on 15-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


Ahh OK..
He just said "READY" in between shots..
No worries mate..


168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)

And even a pause ..
edit on 15-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Thats fine with me see we can actually get along mate we may not always agree but the banter is good!

Even gave you a star

edit on 15-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
 


Thats fine with me see we can actually get along mate we may not always agree but the banter is good!

Even gave you a star

edit on 15-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


I'm not here to make enemies, just debate..

But no one agrees with your 9 second scenario...



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You still have an impossible photo sequence.
The photos show the astronaut in mid jump landing in his seat.
That does not take 9 seconds.
Thats takes about 1 second.
But the camera can only take 1 photo a second.


Finally, you have stated your argument clearly. It is based on three things:

1. That the chronometry in the Lunar Surface Journal is both accurate and precise.
2. That the Journal's characterization of the astronaut's movement accurate.
3. That the action described in the Journal would take one second.

1. What are the timings in the Journal meant to represent? How were they determined? What was their intended function?

They are intended to help people find statements in the transcript and locate them on the corresponding audio or video tape. They are essentially page numbers. They do not need to be precise. We do not know if they were determined by consulting a meter that counts the revolutions of the reel or by a logarithmic scale etched on the reel itself. We do not know how frequently the transcriber actually consulted this timing device. It is probably safe to assume that the transcriber did not employ a stopwatch. The figures are not meant to be used for precise calculations. (My own overly precise calculation was simply to confirm that the time frame of the sequence is feasible. It is.)

2. Was the person who made the transcription actually present when the photographs were taken? No, he or she knows no more about the situation than you or I. Based on the awkward position of the astronaut's limbs, they guessed that he jumped. In reality, he may have flopped. He may have sidled. He may have slid. He may have crept. He may even have hopped up and down on one foot rubbing his stomach and patting his head. We just don't know, we don't have a continuous record. The transcriber took a reasonable guess.

3. How do we know that the action would take one second? You made that number up. You plucked it out of thin air, didn't you FoosM? (Okay, I'll be fair, I'm sure you believe that by observing a different astronaut mounting a different LRV under different circumstances, your "estimate" is reasonable.)

In other words, your entire argument is based on the belief that the Lunar Surface Journal is infallibly accurate, that someone's guess about the photo is an immutable fact, and that your randomly selected figure for the length of time that guessed at action would take is precise. Now I understand why you've been flogging this dead horse: for once you actually thought you were on to something!

Now, let's assume you are correct, and that these photos were "faked" at great expense. What purpose are they intended to serve? Why did Stanley Kubrick say: "We really need to take a series of stills that show Gene's limbs flailing around with a stick in his hands?"



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



You still have an impossible photo sequence.
The photos show the astronaut in mid jump landing in his seat.
That does not take 9 seconds.
Thats takes about 1 second.
But the camera can only take 1 photo a second.


Finally, you have stated your argument clearly. It is based on three things:

1. That the chronometry in the Lunar Surface Journal is both accurate and precise.
2. That the Journal's characterization of the astronaut's movement accurate.
3. That the action described in the Journal would take one second.

1. What are the timings in the Journal meant to represent? How were they determined? What was their intended function?

*snip*



Interesting attempt to frame the debate.
Let me ask you this, do you have evidence that the Journal transcripts has been wrong regarding anything?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Interesting attempt to frame the debate.
Let me ask you this, do you have evidence that the Journal transcripts has been wrong regarding anything?


You left out the most important part:

Now, let's assume you are correct, and that these photos were "faked" at great expense. What purpose are they intended to serve? Why did Stanley Kubrick say: "We really need to take a series of stills that show Gene's limbs flailing around with a stick in his hands?"



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



1. That the chronometry in the Lunar Surface Journal is both accurate and precise.
2. That the Journal's characterization of the astronaut's movement accurate.
3. That the action described in the Journal would take one second.


I would have thought the journal was taken straight from the recorded transmissions..
Therefore all the details would be accurate..

But I also see no way to resolve Foosm's issues with these pics one way or the other..
There's too many variables..
He could have simply thrown the sampler away..

Everyone should move on...



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001
 



1. That the chronometry in the Lunar Surface Journal is both accurate and precise.
2. That the Journal's characterization of the astronaut's movement accurate.
3. That the action described in the Journal would take one second.


I would have thought the journal was taken straight from the recorded transmissions..
Therefore all the details would be accurate..

But I also see no way to resolve Foosm's issues with these pics one way or the other..
There's too many variables..
He could have simply thrown the sampler away..

Everyone should move on...


These photos are equivalent to what Building 7 is to 9/11.
This issue is the line in the sand. I would say it is even stronger than JW's upcoming 8 hour expose on moon rocks. And for the entire pack of Apollo defenders to be quiet on this issue, save for DJW, speaks volumes.


And no, he didnt throw away the sampler. I provided proof in my original post.
But I have more new issues to bring up.
Lets see how they fare.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Interesting attempt to frame the debate.
Let me ask you this, do you have evidence that the Journal transcripts has been wrong regarding anything?


You left out the most important part:

Now, let's assume you are correct, and that these photos were "faked" at great expense. What purpose are they intended to serve? Why did Stanley Kubrick say: "We really need to take a series of stills that show Gene's limbs flailing around with a stick in his hands?"


Wasn't it Jack Schmitt?
But good point, why are those limbs flailing around with a stick in his hand?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



And no, he didnt throw away the sampler. I provided proof in my original post.
But I have more new issues to bring up.
Lets see how they fare.


I must of missed that bit Foosm..
Can you tell me again please?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosMrocks. And for the entire pack of Apollo defenders to be quiet on this issue, save for DJW, speaks volumes.


Some of us have lives.

The more and more I look into the NASA evidence.... I believe we landed men on the moon.

To think that a functional infrastructure of 400,000 people was nothing more than a ruse is laughable.

Someone out of those 400,000 involved with NASA would have fessed up by now.

The only consistent factor I can find with the HB believers is a lack of understanding of science, photography and basic physics.

Jarrah White has been disproved more times than I can count. (keep rubbing those balloons on your head Jarrah!)

I'm thoroughly convinced of the landings, out of this pathetic debate and in celebration of that, am going to take a tour of JPL (which just happens to be in my neighborhood)

Ciao moon hoax conspirators, wherever you are.....



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by FoosMrocks. And for the entire pack of Apollo defenders to be quiet on this issue, save for DJW, speaks volumes.


Some of us have lives.

The more and more I look into the NASA evidence.... I believe we landed men on the moon.

To think that a functional infrastructure of 400,000 people was nothing more than a ruse is laughable.

Someone out of those 400,000 involved with NASA would have fessed up by now.



We have covered this before.
Its called NEED TO KNOW & Compartmentalization.
In other words, 400,000 people were not aware of the scam and cover-up.
Apollo defenders keep wanting to bandy that figure around without any justification or proof of what that number really represents. It doesn't take 400,000 people to fake a movie or take pictures. It doesnt take 400,000 people to feed data from a simulation as the real thing.

And for those in the know, like the Astronauts... well:

(warning graphic)
Grissom
www.documentingreality.com...
White
www.documentingreality.com...
Chaffee
www.documentingreality.com...

This kept them in-line.



The only consistent factor I can find with the HB believers is a lack of understanding of science, photography and basic physics.



Not true. Its the contradiction in the science & visual evidence such as photography that raises flags.




Jarrah White has been disproved more times than I can count. (keep rubbing those balloons on your head Jarrah!)


Not true. Counter arguments =/= disproved.




I'm thoroughly convinced of the landings, out of this pathetic debate and in celebration of that, am going to take a tour of JPL (which just happens to be in my neighborhood)


I dont blame you, this series has been a stumper:


So to blockade any creeping doubts, it will be necessary to surround yourself with NASA propaganda to keep the fantasy alive in your mind.




Ciao moon hoax conspirators, wherever you are.....

Take care !



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Facefirst
 



Jarrah White has been disproved more times than I can count. (keep rubbing those balloons on your head Jarrah!)


Funny huh ??
And I recently posted a video where the NASA scientists were doing the same thing..
Rubbing a balloon on their head..
Maybe they are lying fools also then ???



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM
 



And no, he didnt throw away the sampler. I provided proof in my original post.
But I have more new issues to bring up.
Lets see how they fare.


I must of missed that bit Foosm..
Can you tell me again please?


My bad, you didnt miss it, I forgot to provide that info initially.

Well this is what I found:

at 168:47:03 we have the following photos were made:


at 169:23:44 (the end of the EVA)
we have

Schmitt: Yeah, why don't you get that scoop (means the LRV sampler) off (the Rover), and I'll put it (the core) over here in (SCB) 4. I mean in 7.


and

169:24:36 Cernan: Okay.

[They go around the ladder and then south of the LM, Jack carrying the LRV sampler and Gene the SESC can. They are both moving easily and rapidly. Jack is using a running walk; Gene is kangaroo-hopping.]


As a matter of fact, at the end of the EVA, all they had left was the LRV SAMPLER!


169:23:15 Schmitt: Okay. Let me get my scoop (off of the gate).

169:23:18 Cernan: Get your scoop. Let's get it over with.

[Fendell is looking at the pile of equipment at the ladder.]
169:23:22 Schmitt: Say again, Bob. You want that...(To Gene, having reached the gate) I don't have a scoop, I don't even have a rake.
169:23:28 Cernan: They're both gone, huh?

169:23:29 Schmitt: Yup.
169:23:32 Cernan: Use your Rover sampler.
169:23:34 Schmitt: Yeah.

169:23:36 Cernan: They both fell off when that thing (the gate) opened.

169:23:37 Schmitt: Yep.

169:23:38 Cernan: Here's a full core tube we can't forget.

169:23:41 Schmitt: Yeah. Oh, that goes in the...

169:23:43 Cernan: Is there room for it?

www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
 


Sorry but YOU DONT KNOW when he took the picture from 47:03 to 47:12

He could have took one at 47:04 then another 2 at 47:08 to 47:12 or

2 between 47:03 and 47:08 and the last between 47:08 and 47:12.

All you know is at 47:12 it's was confirmed that 3 pictures had been taken

edit on 15-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


Ahh OK..
He just said "READY" in between shots..
No worries mate..

Hmm. Smarm suits you.


So, he couldn't possibly have taken a shot (or two..), then said "Ready"? No, of course not - physically impossible, right? Newton's third law, i think it is...

(Funnily enough, that's a technique that candid shooters use all the time, taking shots before, during and after comments that draw attention to their supposed intention, in order to capture unguarded moments - but I digress... me bein' a real akchewal photographer an' all...)

To quote your good self - "See what happens when you have an original thought"? - what happens is that *you* just proved that you cannot think beyond your desired outcome. The scenario must fit your conspiracy, so.. it does. In your head.

Oh, and by the way, when you say "no one agrees with your 9 second scenario", may I ask who voted you spokesperson for the entire forum? You do know what that sounds like, and what type of people talk like that? If not, read it back to yourself a few times...



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Hmm. Smarm suits you.

So, he couldn't possibly have taken a shot (or two..), then said "Ready"? No, of course not - physically impossible, right? Newton's third law, i think it is...
(Funnily enough, that's a technique that candid shooters use all the time, taking shots before, during and after comments that draw attention to their supposed intention, in order to capture unguarded moments - but I digress... me bein' a real akchewal photographer an' all...)
To quote your good self - "See what happens when you have an original thought"? - what happens is that *you* just proved that you cannot think beyond your desired outcome. The scenario must fit your conspiracy, so.. it does. In your head.
Oh, and by the way, when you say "no one agrees with your 9 second scenario", may I ask who voted you spokesperson for the entire forum? You do know what that sounds like, and what type of people talk like that? If not, read it back to yourself a few times...


Now you're getting to the paranoid stage of simply attacking me for no reason...
WMD is the only one who has so far mentioned the 9 second scenario..

Me personally??
I have said the whole thing is a non issue and have said we should move on..

But I guess you simply feel the need to have a personal dig..

Well, give it your best shot CHRLZ..
So far IMO you look pretty silly.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
 


Sorry but YOU DONT KNOW when he took the picture from 47:03 to 47:12

He could have took one at 47:04 then another 2 at 47:08 to 47:12 or

2 between 47:03 and 47:08 and the last between 47:08 and 47:12.

All you know is at 47:12 it's was confirmed that 3 pictures had been taken

edit on 15-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


Ahh OK..
He just said "READY" in between shots..
No worries mate..

Hmm. Smarm suits you.


So, he couldn't possibly have taken a shot (or two..), then said "Ready"? No, of course not - physically impossible, right? Newton's third law, i think it is...

(Funnily enough, that's a technique that candid shooters use all the time, taking shots before, during and after comments that draw attention to their supposed intention, in order to capture unguarded moments - but I digress... me bein' a real akchewal photographer an' all...)

To quote your good self - "See what happens when you have an original thought"? - what happens is that *you* just proved that you cannot think beyond your desired outcome. The scenario must fit your conspiracy, so.. it does. In your head.

Oh, and by the way, when you say "no one agrees with your 9 second scenario", may I ask who voted you spokesperson for the entire forum? You do know what that sounds like, and what type of people talk like that? If not, read it back to yourself a few times...




You are not being intellectually honest.
In the sense you are not analyzing the actual information that has been given.
This is why I know that avid Apollo defenders are not interested in the truth, they are interested to preserve a childhood memory and/or the status quo. The photos and the transcript does not support the 9 seconds scenario. Otherwise you would have brought proof to counter what BiB said.




top topics



 
377
<< 385  386  387    389  390  391 >>

log in

join