Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by DJW001


I guess the question is,
If the pics are in correct sequence,
Pic 1, the sampler starts in the holder..
Pic 2. The astronaut must grab it with his left hand and pass it to his right..
Pic 3, The sampler is nowhere to be seen..

It does seem odd...

Originally posted by FoosM

Intellectual dishonesty PsykoOps. You could have checked to see if it was indeed curved:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ddba6792372.gif[/atsimg]

Its not... Not to any extent that is worth bringing up.

I never thought I'd say this but you are 100% correct. I completely misunderstood what you meant. That being said it does look like an arm on the reflection. So again it's nothing.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by FoosM

Intellectual dishonesty PsykoOps. You could have checked to see if it was indeed curved:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ddba6792372.gif[/atsimg]

Its not... Not to any extent that is worth bringing up.

I never thought I'd say this but you are 100% correct. I completely misunderstood what you meant. That being said it does look like an arm on the reflection. So again it's nothing.

Great, Im glad that we can all agree hat the surface is flat.
You and Bib both believe its an arm, which it could be... but should it be?

My question is, which astronaut's arm? The one that is mounting the rover, or the one that is taking the picture?

Second, do we all agree that the TV camera is horizontal (level) or do you (all) think its tilting, up or down?

Question for all you photographers.


Please take a look at this photo of the LM and in the background I believe its called the South Massif
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/04b80c6766c5.gif[/atsimg]
www.hq.nasa.gov...

If the Astronaut would walk up closer to the LM and take a picture,
would the South Massif get smaller or bigger?

If he walked away from the LM, much further than where he is presently standing,
would the South Massif get smaller or bigger?

reply to post by FoosM

How far is he walking? To make much of a difference he'd have to walk a good distance. The South Massif is about 10km away from the lander.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM

 

How far is he walking? To make much of a difference he'd have to walk a good distance. The South Massif is about 10km away from the lander.

Does it matter how far he walks when he is next to the lander?

But lets say away from the lander about 3 to 4 kilometers.

Originally posted by FoosM


Now lets draw some lines.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/356c7c044876.gif[/atsimg]

As you can see, the chest mounted hasselblad sits below the TV camera mounted on the rover.
So how high would the Astronaut have to be to capture the top of the TV camera?
That we see in these photos?

Did step on the Rover?
Was the TV camera pointing up?

And before you say he took the camera off his chest and raised it to take the photos...
you better find some back up for that.

The 3 "Dollar Bill" Photos.

WHAT fkn cheek YOU BETTER FIND SOME BACK UP JUST

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b9a4dbb6b612.gif[/atsimg]

Its obvious that the rover is elevated compared to the astronaut IS THAT ENOUGH BACK UP!!

Going to work now back later!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Its obvious that the rover is elevated compared to the astronaut IS THAT ENOUGH BACK UP!!

Going to work now back later!

I must have missed the point of your post..
Can you explain it please ?

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM


Now lets draw some lines.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/356c7c044876.gif[/atsimg]

As you can see, the chest mounted hasselblad sits below the TV camera mounted on the rover.
So how high would the Astronaut have to be to capture the top of the TV camera?
That we see in these photos?

Did step on the Rover?
Was the TV camera pointing up?

And before you say he took the camera off his chest and raised it to take the photos...
you better find some back up for that.

The 3 "Dollar Bill" Photos.

WHAT fkn cheek YOU BETTER FIND SOME BACK UP

JUST

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b9a4dbb6b612.gif[/atsimg]

Its obvious that the rover is elevated compared to the astronaut IS THAT ENOUGH BACK UP!!

Going to work now back later!

OK

Try this picture...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4a1abd6f5514.gif[/atsimg]

the Astronaut is right next to his seat, he is holding on to it.
(Strange enough, the seat is almost waist high). But anyway, look TV camera in relation to the his chest mount camera. The TV camera is higher even though the TV camera is sloped down!

Not only that, the photographer, is too low to take the picture of the top of the TV camera!

So, I ask again, how high would the astronaut have to be to take this photo:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/884a51b09379.gif[/atsimg]

And... get a reflection of the astronaut.

Ask your colleagues at work, if you are having problems figuring it out.

For all you engineers... I have to ask.

Is this not dangerous?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0d05e68d3f57.gif[/atsimg]

Those protruding "teeth" could they not cause rips and tears to the suits?
If the astronauts jumped in, or jumped out of their rovers?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

So whats the angle then ? Taken from the centre line through the lens what was the angle.

Mate, you can judge it roughly..Please don't play childish games..
I'm really over them and refuse to answer anymore silly posts..

IMO it's a reflection of his left arm..

What are we under different rules from YOU,Foosm,ppk55 etc when we post Foosm insists that NO DEMANDS proof then ignores it, SO if you make a statement like whats the angle then he should know or stfu!

Originally posted by FoosM
Question for all you photographers.


Please take a look at this photo of the LM and in the background I believe its called the South Massif
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/04b80c6766c5.gif[/atsimg]
www.hq.nasa.gov...

If the Astronaut would walk up closer to the LM and take a picture,
would the South Massif get smaller or bigger?

If he walked away from the LM, much further than where he is presently standing,
would the South Massif get smaller or bigger?

That depends of a few things is the lens used the same general direction you are pointing in,the difference distance between points etc so give us the details after all thats what YOU ask from us all the time!!!

Originally posted by FoosM


Try this picture...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4a1abd6f5514.gif[/atsimg]

the Astronaut is right next to his seat, he is holding on to it.
(Strange enough, the seat is almost waist high). But anyway, look TV camera in relation to the his chest mount camera. The TV camera is higher even though the TV camera is sloped down!

Not only that, the photographer, is too low to take the picture of the top of the TV camera!

So, I ask again, how high would the astronaut have to be to take this photo:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/884a51b09379.gif[/atsimg]

And... get a reflection of the astronaut.

Ask your colleagues at work, if you are having problems figuring it out.

edit on 18-3-2011 by FoosM because: added photo

Again Foosm its obvious the Astonauts feet are not at the same level as the rover in your first pic above

I really like this comment "Strange enough, the seat is almost waist high" WHAT A JOKE!

reply to post by wmd_2008


1. As far as the reflection is concerned, IF it is actually the astronaut, he would have to be standing on the slight platform on the front of the rover.
2. This may have nothing to do with anything but as I was looking at the images I noticed the dish is pointed a different direction as well. One thing is for sure the only way he could adjust it is IF he was standing on the rover. The suits limited astronauts ability to raise their arms above their heads. This is still the case with the current suits.
3. His chest mounted camera is at the same level as the TV camera, but you will notice he also is standing on the surface/ground. This supports the idea he would have to have been on the rover to take the other pic and it could be his reflection.
4. The first pic shows the dish pointed away from the man, in the third pic it is pointed more in his direction.

I noticed a couple other things too.
In the first pic the TV cam does not have the solar panel on it. The close up on the TV cam it does.
There is a shadow on the ground, at the bottom of the first pic, this could be a depression in the ground, or just the shadow of the rover, or both.
I'm not sure if these things say anything just some things I noticed.

reply to post by wmd_2008

What are we under different rules from YOU,Foosm,ppk55 etc when we post Foosm insists that NO DEMANDS proof then ignores it, SO if you make a statement like whats the angle then he should know or stfu!

We can't exactly measure all the heights and lengths to work out the angles..
Sometimes you just have to make a rough guess..
No one seems to have an issue with that but you..

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM
Question for all you photographers.


Please take a look at this photo of the LM and in the background I believe its called the South Massif
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/04b80c6766c5.gif[/atsimg]
www.hq.nasa.gov...

That depends of a few things is the lens used the same general direction you are pointing in,the difference distance between points etc so give us the details after all thats what YOU ask from us all the time!!!

Well I think I have been very clear.
And I dont know why you are trying to overcomplicate something very simple.
The Astronaut is using the same camera and lens. 60mm right?

If the astronaut would walk towards the LM taking pictures with the South Massif as a background.
Would the South Massif get smaller or bigger? We know the LM would get bigger in the picture, right?

And if he would walk away from the LM, with the South Massif as a background, would the South Massif become smaller or bigger as he is taking pictures? We know the LM would get smaller right?

I dont understand why this is difficult

reply to post by FoosM

If the astronaut would walk towards the LM taking pictures with the South Massif as a background.
Would the South Massif get smaller or bigger? We know the LM would get bigger in the picture, right?

And if he would walk away from the LM, with the South Massif as a background, would the South Massif become smaller or bigger as he is taking pictures? We know the LM would get smaller right?

Foosm, is this story going anywhere?
This is not a TV series, you don't have to wait till next week to progress..
Please get on with it, I'm not getting any younger.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

There are only 24 men who can attest to the reality of Apollo

The figure is slightly closer to 500,000.

500,000 people have not been to the moon. 500,000 have not even been beyond the VAB. 500,000 have not been in orbit! You knew what I was talking about [see page 383, I'm just catching up now] but instead you chose the outrageous figure anyway. Because you are a NASA defender and you will make up any fact "500,000" or ANY FIGURE out of THIN AIR!

There is a word which describes exactly what you are doing. It's called P.R.opaganda.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM

 

If the astronaut would walk towards the LM taking pictures with the South Massif as a background.
Would the South Massif get smaller or bigger? We know the LM would get bigger in the picture, right?

And if he would walk away from the LM, with the South Massif as a background, would the South Massif become smaller or bigger as he is taking pictures? We know the LM would get smaller right?

Foosm, is this story going anywhere?
This is not a TV series, you don't have to wait till next week to progress..
Please get on with it, I'm not getting any younger.

Hey I cant help it if the professional/hobbyist photographers who have practiced on foreign manual cameras have all become silent. I guess they assume that I am asking a trick question, I'm not, its a very straight forward question. But maybe they think if they answer the question I'll trap them with evidence to the contrary. How could I? If the Apollo photographs are real, than I cant possibly find any discrepancies to counter them... right? Im sure if I ask a question about stars though, the Ill be flooded with responses...

The stars were not visible because the sunlight reflecting from the bright lunar surface caused the irises of our eyes to contract, just as they do on Earth at night when standing on a brightly lit patio. As we looked up, the sky was a deep, shiny black. I guessed that deep, shiny black was the color one sees looking into infinity.

I guess Bean... I guess... *wipes tear*

More inspiration from Bean:

Google Video Link

Representing the World's Most Compelling Speakers Alan Bean, Astronaut and Fourth Man to Walk On the Moon As humans we are dreamers and we are doers. We were born that way. It is in our hearts. As an astronaut and the fourth person to walk on the moon, Alan Bean is dedicated to inspiring people to be the best they can be, so their families can be the best they can be, and their companies can be the best they can be. The Apollo program was an impossible dream come true. Sending humans from Planet Earth to explore the moon and return was a glamorous and newsworthy dream, but no more important than the dreams we all have in our hearts right now. With this conviction, Alan will take each person in the audience with him as Lunar Module Pilot on the flight of Apollo 12 and along the way present some thoughts and ideas that will help individuals and teams reach for their own professional and personal stars.

Stars that we cant see from the moon, right Bean?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

500,000 people have not been to the moon. 500,000 have not even been beyond the VAB. 500,000 have not been in orbit! You knew what I was talking about [see page 383, I'm just catching up now] but instead you chose the outrageous figure anyway.

You seem to have missed this post:

It's already been discussed how not everyone needs to know the true purpose of a NASA mission.

Here is the original post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There you go again, repeating yourself. Here was my response to your post:

Everyone involved with the design, construction, testing, launching, guidance, etc. etc. had no idea of it's true purpose. edit: Nearly everyone, obviously.

Everyone involved in the design, construction, etc. knew exactly what its purpose was: to loft 250 kilogram payloads into an orbit of about 200 km altitude. It didn't matter what the payload was. The clients could shoot mice into space for all they cared. Pretty sure no-one really thought it was mice after a while.

You can now extrapolate this to the Apollo program.

Exactly. Everyone involved in the Apollo program knew they were designing, building and launching a rocket capable of sending a massive payload to the Moon. They also knew they were developing manned spacecraft capable of travelling to the Moon, landing and returning.

No one is denying Discoverer, sorry, Corona was a spy satellite. The fascinating part is how everyone who had anything to do with it had no idea of it's true purpose.

Everyone involved in designing and operating the Corona satellite knew everything about its mission and operation, obviously. You seem to be confusing the contractors who built the boosters with the clients at DARPA. The contractors didn't need to know what the satellite was for; so long as it was under 250 kilos they could put it into orbit.

So when people say hundreds of thousands were involved with the Apollo missions. Well, yes they were. Did they know what would happen just after launch? Absolutely not.

Why not? They had all worked hard to build a spacecraft with a specific mission, unlike the Thor-Agena used in the Explorer/Corona programs.

Just like the mice were replaced by spy camera film on the Discoverer / Corona mission, perhaps the astronauts might have met a similar fate.

So are you saying the astronauts were replaced by a spy camera... or mice?

Page 349

So when you say 500,000.

Do you mean the console operators that received data exactly as they did in the simulation ?

And who therefore would know if there were something wrong with the data they were receiving from the ground tracking stations in real time, of course.

Or do you mean the rocket engineers who built the first stages, that didn't know if it was going to the moon or not?

All they knew was that they were building a booster that could definitely loft a spacecraft to the Moon. If the NASA brass changed their minds and decided to use it as a lawn ornament the engineers still knew for a fact that it was capable of sending Apollo to the Moon.

Or do you mean the guys that provided electrical support to the launch pad, that could have been on duty for any type of launch?

Yes, you're right, they were very well trained and highly experienced. They would definitely have noticed three guys sneaking down the back stairs.

Or do you mean the security personnel on the pad, who are there for every launch of every type of vehicle ? etc. etc. etc.

Yes, there certainly were a lot of eyes about.

Soon your 500,000 people who kept this big secret whittles down to a very small number that could have been easily contained.

Really? How do you come to that conclusion? More importantly, why would anyone go through all the effort? It would be easier just to go to the Moon. (Now you've got me repeating myself!)

Now you have me repeating myself! Or is your tedious quibble with the number 500,000?

As this chart shows, NASA's budget peaked in 1966, during the height of construction efforts leading up to the first moon landing under Project Apollo. At its peak, the Apollo program involved more than 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and university contractors. Roughly two to four cents out of every U.S. tax dollar (or 4% of the total federal budget) was being devoted to the space program.

Wikipedia

Sorry I exaggerated. The figure was about 409.000. Still, that's closer to 500,000 than 10.