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: 393
377
<< 390  391  392    394  395  396 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
**ATTENTION**

The staff ask that all off-topic and rude remarks stop here. Moving forward please discuss the topic, not each other.

Please review the following links:

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.

YOU are responsible for your own posts.

Moving forward all posts that do not fall within the Terms and Conditions will be subject to removal. Any continued violations after post removals may result in a temporary or permanent loss of posting privileges.

Thank You

ATS Staff



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I DO NOT condone the removal of an on-topic response regarding photography, and perspective, and distance (specifically, foreground versus very distant background).

Again.....the statement was:


Originally posted 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?

I dont understand why this is difficult .


THIS video is reply is perfectly addressing that point!:




This is all that is needed, it is not difficult to understand.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





Wait a minute, is talking about Apollo photography off topic now?
This whole thread has been about investigating all aspects of the moon landing.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




THIS video is reply is perfectly addressing that point!:

This is all that is needed, it is not difficult to understand.


Quick question weed..
In that video your expert debunker names that mountain range as the Montes Apenninus.
At 3:10 he goes on the say they range from 6-10 miles high..(10-16kms)

But when I search that range I find this..

The total length of the range is about 600 km (370 mi), with some of the peaks rising as high as 5 km (3.1 mi).

en.wikipedia.org...

Why such a difference?
Does exaggerating the height of the mountains by over 300% make his claims sound more realistic?
Is lying to prove a point really debunking?
Or is there an honest reason for the HUGE difference ??


jra

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Why such a difference?
Does exaggerating the height of the mountains by over 300% make his claims sound more realistic?
Is lying to prove a point really debunking?
Or is there an honest reason for the HUGE difference ??


The guy in the video was showing how far away the mountains are. One measurement was for the distance to the base of the mountain range, the other for the peak. He was not measuring the height of the mountain itself.

Do you have Google Earth installed on your computer? If so, simply load it up and switch to the Moon and use the measuring tool to confirm it for yourself.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Quick question weed..
In that video your expert debunker names that mountain range as the Montes Apenninus.
At 3:10 he goes on the say they range from 6-10 miles high..(10-16kms)
He doesn't say they're 6-10 miles high. He says they're 6-10 miles from the Apollo landing site.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
Quick question weed..
In that video your expert debunker names that mountain range as the Montes Apenninus.
At 3:10 he goes on the say they range from 6-10 miles high..(10-16kms)
He doesn't say they're 6-10 miles high. He says they're 6-10 miles from the Apollo landing site.


Fair enough..His little lines made it look like height...



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


FoosM yuuo never answered my question - was the Apollo 17 rover significantly different from the Apollo 16 one?

and you didn't comment on my contention that the astronautr appears to be downslope of hte rover so his apparent height comared to the front of hte rover (upslope by hte length of hte rover) is much less than it would be if htey weer at hte same level.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Fodder for the A17 photo festival.


Reflections from the Top of the LRV TV Camera
Detail from AS17-134-20475, taken by Jack Schmitt at the end of EVA-3.


In thinking about possible causes for the markedly non-rectangular pattern seen in the Apollo 17 photos, we considered and rejected the effects of dust on the top of the TV camera. It seems to us that the only likely cause is that the top of the TV camera was not perfectly flat.

Distortions in the reflecting surface can produce an irregular 'image' but, of course, this is speculation.

Source: history.nasa.gov...


And what does the word speculate mean? spec·u·late/ˈspekyəˌlāt/Verb 1. Form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.

NASA. National Aeronautics Speculation Agency.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


FoosM yuuo never answered my question - was the Apollo 17 rover significantly different from the Apollo 16 one?


I doubt it




and you didn't comment on my contention that the astronautr appears to be downslope of hte rover so his apparent height comared to the front of hte rover (upslope by hte length of hte rover) is much less than it would be if htey weer at hte same level.


which photo and how did you come to that conclusion?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I cannot believe this thread is still ongoing.

Nothing of value is being produced here, FoosM is posting any picture he thinks might look weird and proving nothing by it, and people are just getting increasingly aggravated.

I doubt anyone fresh is being convinced, and they certainly aren't reading all the past pages. I had a good go at it but I have forgotten where I was several times.

Give it up. FoosM can start individual threads about whatever thing he doesn't understand on his own, this thread is just an ever descending circle.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



spec·u·late/ˈspekyəˌlāt/Verb 1. Form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.


In other words, NASA has the intellectual honesty to admit when they are theorizing about something. Why didn't you post this image?


Your source.

Seems to me their speculation is not completely ungrounded.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

In other words, NASA has the intellectual honesty to admit when they are theorizing about something. Why didn't you post this image?


Your source.


Relevance?





Seems to me their speculation is not completely ungrounded.


But at the end of the day, its still speculation.
Just like the blue astronauts of Apollo 12.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I cannot believe this thread is still ongoing.

Nothing of value is being produced here, FoosM is posting any picture he thinks might look weird and proving nothing by it, and people are just getting increasingly aggravated.

I doubt anyone fresh is being convinced, and they certainly aren't reading all the past pages. I had a good go at it but I have forgotten where I was several times.

Give it up. FoosM can start individual threads about whatever thing he doesn't understand on his own, this thread is just an ever descending circle.


Well since you are here, and you say you have forgotten where you were... let me summarize by having you
solve the following:


Where did the Sampler go?

And while you are at it, see if you can explain
the differences in
1. shadow size and shape of subject and photographer
2. shadow location and angle of photographer
3. Gnomon size differences

The gnomon provides local vertical, sun orientation, scale, and color




As you can see the sun orientation is basically the same, and the composition of the photos are pretty much the same. And, Its the same mission during the same EVA.

ares.jsc.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Here's something fun to try.

Instead of spamming endless identical questions with legitimately uncertain answers, how about you explain how exactly NASA would mess these up.

It's not feasible that NASA didn't have things like light balance and albedo correct, and as these are still photos with known shutter speeds, there's no need to fake any gravity effects. Why on earth (ha ha!) would NASA spend any time at all faking shots of someone jumping into a rover, when in fact they could just take pictures of them jumping into the rover?

It makes no sense whatsoever, they would be spending huge sums of money (remember, far far before Photoshop) on faking something virtually nobody would ever see.

So I will do my best to answer questions you pose, as long as you do your best to answer that very simple one.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Instead of spamming endless identical questions with legitimately uncertain answers, how about you explain how exactly NASA would mess these up.


NASA is and was run by humans.




It makes no sense whatsoever, they would be spending huge sums of money (remember, far far before Photoshop) on faking something virtually nobody would ever see.


Spend huge amounts of money on what exactly?
What do you find so expensive about the photos?
Secondly, you do realize NASA did have HUGE amount of money at their disposal.



So I will do my best to answer questions you pose, as long as you do your best to answer that very simple one


Goodluck



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Relevance?


It suggests that the dish antenna is reflecting the rover and surface below it. No anomaly.



Seems to me their speculation is not completely ungrounded.


But at the end of the day, its still speculation.
Just like the blue astronauts of Apollo 12.


Just like your "1 second" figure for the "jump" into the LRV. Just like your assumption that your latest photos were taken on similar ground under similar lighting conditions. Your posts are all based entirely on speculation, yet you continue to fail to find any evidence to support your speculation that the Moon landings were a hoax. But that's okay, you're only human.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Relevance?


It suggests that the dish antenna is reflecting the rover and surface below it. No anomaly.


You are just repeating what S.J. had already pointed out.
So, I dont understand the relevance of your post.

It is an anomaly because it has not been identified.
NASA is only "speculating" what is causing it.
Their speculation could be entirely wrong.
But NASA is not interested in true science, so these types of unexplainable events
are barely looked into.




Just like your "1 second" figure for the "jump" into the LRV.


Is based on NASA's own photos, and transcripts.




Just like your assumption that your latest photos were taken on similar ground under similar lighting conditions. Your posts are all based entirely on speculation,


Based on information NASA presented.




yet you continue to fail to find any evidence to support your speculation that the Moon landings were a hoax. But that's okay, you're only human.


If you accumulate all my posts, a reasonable person can conclude NASA faked the moon missions.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Should there be a rounded reflection pattern on the high gain antenna or a rectangular reflection pattern? *

Source: history.nasa.gov...


Apollo Image Atlas AS16-117-18852
Source: www.lpi.usra.edu...


Magical pictures? Simulated pictures? Doctored pictures? Did NASA label these pictures by mistake? I am confused why one of these pictures has a flat black background while the other appears to be fogged by something... anyone care to s p e c u l a t e on that?

edit on 3/21/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: underline


edit to add 3rd HR version of same pic. www.hq.nasa.gov...

*I was thrown off by the labelling of this picture. These are A16 pics, not A17 pics. Sorry I was mistaken. The picture small picture was probably "enhanced" to take out the "orange fog" while the hi-res picture shows even the dust on top of the astronaut's helmet and printing problems.
edit on 3/21/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: edit (must be filled out):



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 390  391  392    394  395  396 >>

log in

join