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: 394
377
<< 391  392  393    395  396  397 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
NASA is and was run by humans.

Lets examine the claim, you believe that there is no way the actions can have been completed within the specified time. In that case, NASA would have had to have two 'takes' in order to capture these photos at minimum.

I will happily concede that humans can make mistakes. However, I don't think it's credible to say that nobody on a team of clearly very fastidious and intelligent people would not have noticed this.

Similarly with many of your other questions, why would these errors occur? Taking a photo of someone jumping into a rover does not seem something that one would dedicate a lot of effort towards. Jump into rover, take photos, whatever photos you get are sufficient. Saves a lot of time, money, hassle, and potential exposes like you believe you have found.


Goodluck

If your best answer to the question of why is 'people make mistakes', then it's not a very credible argument is it? In your eyes it seems that any tiny anomaly condemns the case for us travelling to the moon, wheras in reality tiny anomalies occur regularly. None of us can sufficiently model or understand the behaviour of those suits enough to answer some of your questions, but the existence of those questions does not damage the credibility of a moon mission unless there is some reasoning involved.

Your reasoning seems to be 'it looks odd to me', and you have no further argument to back that up. This is insufficient to claim evidence for any sort of hoax, and frankly promotes terrible 'my side, your side' debate.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I am confused why one of these pictures has a flat black background while the other appears to be fogged by something.


You are confused because (I am guessing) you grew up in an era of digital cameras and digital video.

I am (guessing) that there is no actual film negatives experience in your past. Light leakage on negative film....chemical com positing flaws on the film. Processing mistakes in the chemical baths.

Those of us who HAVE used actual "old-fashioned" print and even ektachrome/Kodachrome (slide/motion picture transparency) film are very, very familiar with the types of "fogging" as you call it there....the yellowish-orangish colors that are in majority of cases from excess light exposure on the undeveloped negative. (for COLOR film). IN-camera, or even later, when the container (spool, cartridge, canister, basically a transport device, whatever you call it) that contained the unexposed film had a minor, minor flaw that allowed light to leak in. Those "stray", and unwanted light photons cause the ruined photos, when developed.

Read:

www.flickr.com...

www.createlookenjoy.com...

Search online, for more.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Damn you Weed..
I actually have to agree with you..

I have a pic of a much younger me and my brother on holiday in England..
I look like I'm being beamed up to the Enterprise thanks to such a flaw..
I actually like that pic....



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


One of the main questions in that series of pics is the sampler..

Pic 1..Sampler in holder near left hand..
Pic 2..Sampler is in his right hand..
Pic 3..Sampler is gone...



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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?



Perhaps it was stowed?

A 1970 document giving tool stowage locations is here - note it's a 49mb download!! - but the sampler in the shot was only carried on Apollo 17 according to the Catalog of Apollo equipment - page 24 - so it isn't shown.

Where was its stowage?


edit on 21-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
One of the main questions in that series of pics is the sampler..

Pic 1..Sampler in holder near left hand..
Pic 2..Sampler is in his right hand..
Pic 3..Sampler is gone...


I understand that, what I don't see is where the question leads. He could have dropped the sampler, he could have placed it somewhere out of frame etc.

How is it possible that NASA would fake a sequence of photos, taking more than one take to do it, and forget that the main character was holding a sampler? Does this really sound like a convincing piece of evidence that the whole thing is a hoax to you?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I am confused why one of these pictures has a flat black background while the other appears to be fogged by something.


You are confused because (I am guessing) you grew up in an era of digital cameras and digital video.



I might have had a slip of dyslexia - with the filenames of the jpgs. One picture has orange fog in it while the other does not. NASA is messing with my mind


Just try it as an experiment: LOOK at those 2 photos and LOOK at the URLS of the JPGS.

Does it cause you any cognitive dissonance?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



I understand that, what I don't see is where the question leads. He could have dropped the sampler, he could have placed it somewhere out of frame etc.

How is it possible that NASA would fake a sequence of photos, taking more than one take to do it, and forget that the main character was holding a sampler? Does this really sound like a convincing piece of evidence that the whole thing is a hoax to you?


I agree but it's still odd..
The NASA transcript says he is being photographed jumping into the Rover..
Apparently in under 4 secs but no ones sure..
I guess the question would be, why did he grab the sampler out of it's holder just to throw it away..

I don't know..



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

If your best answer to the question of why is 'people make mistakes', then it's not a very credible argument is it? In your eyes it seems that any tiny anomaly condemns the case for us travelling to the moon, wheras in reality tiny anomalies occur regularly. None of us can sufficiently model or understand the behaviour of those suits enough to answer some of your questions, but the existence of those questions does not damage the credibility of a moon mission unless there is some reasoning involved.

Your reasoning seems to be 'it looks odd to me', and you have no further argument to back that up. This is insufficient to claim evidence for any sort of hoax, and frankly promotes terrible 'my side, your side' debate.


My answer wasn't simply that people make mistakes.
My answers were that they are human.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I agree but it's still odd..
The NASA transcript says he is being photographed jumping into the Rover..
Apparently in under 4 secs but no ones sure..
I guess the question would be, why did he grab the sampler out of it's holder just to throw it away..

I don't know..

Neither do any of us, I doubt he even remembers why.

The point I am making is that even if it is odd, it's no evidence of a hoax unless it fits into a coherent body of evidence to support that theory. There are hugely long videos of EVAs on the moon, and if they can be shot without having to retake jumping into rover scenes, I think it's likely that 'odd' means just that, not 'hoax'.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
My answer wasn't simply that people make mistakes.
My answers were that they are human.

What particularly human property do they have which would render them incapable of realising an extremely obvious fact: If you take more photos in the time than you could have, it would be noticed by people like you?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I guess the question would be, why did he grab the sampler out of it's holder just to throw it away..

I don't know..
It wasn't in its holder. Here's a clip from about 17 minutes before they got in the rover, showing the sampler on his yo-yo (a retractable tether on their belt):



The yo-yo had a spring-loaded clip attached to the tether and looked like this:



It was designed such that you could remove a tool from the clip by pulling the tool away from the clip, with no need to put pressure on the spring-loaded wings. To clip a tool to it, you need to press the wings together, spreading the jaws of the clip, place the tool's shaft in the jaws, and release the wings.

In AS15-86-11579, from Apollo 15, we see how the tether broke away from the clip on Irwin's yo-yo, leaving the clip attached to the shaft of his tongs:



Coming back to the photos of the jump, he can see in AS17-134-20452, that Schmitt isn't actually holding on to the sampler. You can see the clip is attached to the sampler shaft:



In the next photo, AS17-134-20453, you can see the sampler is no longer connected to the yo-yo. You can see the three holes on one of the wings of the clip back around his belt:



I think the sequence of motion went like this: He jumps up into the seat. In the process, the sampler that had been dangling on his yo-yo tether flies up, either from the momentum of the jump, or being knocked up by his leg. This is the point we see in AS17-134-20452. As the sampler comes up he knocks it (without actually grabbing it) with his left arm or hand towards his right side, where he grabs it with his right hand and pulls it to the right. This causes the yo-yo clip to disengage and retract back. This is the point we see in AS17-134-20453. Now since he had to aply some extra force to get the yo-yo clip to disengage, the sampler is still going to have some momentum carrying it to Schmitt's right. I think he doesn't have a solid grip on it in AS17-134-20453, and it comes out of his hand and continues on to his right, out of the frame of AS17-134-20454.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
My answer wasn't simply that people make mistakes.
My answers were that they are human.

What particularly human property do they have which would render them incapable of realising an extremely obvious fact: If you take more photos in the time than you could have, it would be noticed by people like you?


Have you ever thought that maybe that was the point?
When were all these photos released to the public?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

I think the sequence of motion went like this: He jumps up into the seat. In the process, the sampler that had been dangling on his yo-yo tether flies up, either from the momentum of the jump, or being knocked up by his leg. This is the point we see in AS17-134-20452. As the sampler comes up he knocks it (without actually grabbing it) with his left arm or hand towards his right side, where he grabs it with his right hand and pulls it to the right. This causes the yo-yo clip to disengage and retract back. This is the point we see in AS17-134-20453. Now since he had to aply some extra force to get the yo-yo clip to disengage, the sampler is still going to have some momentum carrying it to Schmitt's right. I think he doesn't have a solid grip on it in AS17-134-20453, and it comes out of his hand and continues on to his right, out of the frame of AS17-134-20454.




I have to apologize to WMD (I believe), who pointed out that the Sampler was not being held in the first photo by the left hand. I simply didnt see it until NAT pointed it out with an arrow.

Now as far as NATs theory on what is going on in those photos... sorry, but Im not buying it.
And here is why. Now that you have presented evidence that the Sampler was attached to the waist, it makes it even more implausible for that Sampler to have have gone to his right hand in the middle of a jump. His body is in the way. If anything it should have shot forward. I doubt with the astronaut would have had the reflexes in that clumsy suit to catch a flying Sampler that is not in his field of view while in the middle of a jump.

The other issue is. Not once did any of the astronauts comment on the comedic events you just described.
Astronauts that seemingly commented on every silly action they made.
Where is the "whoah, just lost the sampler!"?

If the sampler was dropped, who picked it up?

The sequence of the three photos defy logic, and you guys are doing your best to rationalize it in the context that the moon missions occurred. But its not working. Like I said, these photos are as real as a three dollar bill.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by backinblack
I agree but it's still odd..
The NASA transcript says he is being photographed jumping into the Rover..
Apparently in under 4 secs but no ones sure..
I guess the question would be, why did he grab the sampler out of it's holder just to throw it away..

I don't know..

Neither do any of us, I doubt he even remembers why.

The point I am making is that even if it is odd, it's no evidence of a hoax unless it fits into a coherent body of evidence to support that theory. There are hugely long videos of EVAs on the moon, and if they can be shot without having to retake jumping into rover scenes, I think it's likely that 'odd' means just that, not 'hoax'.


You got it backwards.
The ability to go to the moon is a theory.
Anyone claiming to have done it needs to prove that without a shadow of a doubt their evidence could not have been done on Earth or LEO. So far, every aspect of the moon mission could have been done on Earth.

And the three photos are more than odd, they are wrong.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Have you ever thought that maybe that was the point?
When were all these photos released to the public?

I don't understand the question? What was the point you think NASA were aiming for? The photos have been released in various quantities and qualities over many years.


Originally posted by FoosM
You got it backwards.
The ability to go to the moon is a theory.
Anyone claiming to have done it needs to prove that without a shadow of a doubt their evidence could not have been done on Earth or LEO. So far, every aspect of the moon mission could have been done on Earth.

Extensive evidence has been produced to show that this is not true. Enough evidence in fact that you have been reduced to either ignoring the evidence presented, or posting un-answerable questions like 'what caused this pocket to change appearance slightly'.

These questions serve only to cast doubt on the moon mission rather than provide legitimate criticism of any theory. This is why I am trying to avoid getting into a back and forth on this subject, it serves only as propaganda for people who are already unsure. Over my years of posting on conspiracy forums I have constantly seen repetition of the most baseless claims, picked up soley by the poster skim-reading a thread and believing implicitly everything that is written.

I can still find you people posting about 'pods' under the wings of planes on 911, even though the original backers of that theory retracted it 5 years ago. The same happens with Apollo theories, you yourself have repeated complete falsehoods about the Van Allen belts and the path taken through them.

People who want the truth about the Moon are pretty unlikely to be reading this thread, at least not this far in, and the information presented is not only fragmented but endlessly repeated. This is why it needs to be ended and individual topics discussed in individual threads.


Originally posted by FoosM
And the three photos are more than odd, they are wrong.

Only to someone who's already made up their mind.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
This is very strange. And a very good question Foos.

It is inconceivable that sharp objects like these would be placed where the alleged astronauts get in and out of the LRV.

Obviously their range of vision was limited by the helmet etc. So how could they have allowed such a viable risk to their suits to be placed in such a precarious position?

It's a disaster waiting to happen. No one in their right mind would engineer something like that knowing the risks.

edit: We have to remember, that there were only 2 alleged men on the moon. One rupture, and it's game over, blood boils, dead.


Originally posted by FoosM
For all you engineers... I have to ask.

Is this not dangerous?


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


edit on 23-3-2011 by ppk55 because: added: One rupture, and it's game over, blood boils, dead.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



It is inconceivable that sharp objects like these would be placed where the alleged astronauts get in and out of the LRV.


How sharp are they, exactly? What are they made out of? They look like nylon to me. In any event, you seem to keep forgetting what the space suits look like under their white thermal covering:




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
Have you ever thought that maybe that was the point?
When were all these photos released to the public?

I don't understand the question? What was the point you think NASA were aiming for? The photos have been released in various quantities and qualities over many years.


As I said, NASA is made up of humans... people.
Which means it is made up of many personalities; personalities with motives.
Most people through fear of reprisals, or bribery, etc can be kept in line by the organization they work for. However some people working in organizations take a chance to blow the whistle on what they feel is wrong. This can be done subtly or it can be done overtly. This can take the form of quitting, going on strike, espionage, leaks, sabotage, etc.

Here is an example of quitting in protest
Former GE Engineer Quit Over Japan Nuclear Reactor Design
www.minyanville.com...
Did it make a difference? NO.
Should we have been paying better attention, YES.

Do you know how many people quit NASA right before Apollo 11 and right after the Apollo program? I made a post about it earlier in this thread.

In other words, to say why NASA as one unit would do such and such, is oversimplifying the situation. I dont know why, and I dont know who were behind those three photos. All I know is that humans were behind it, and humans make mistakes, but they can also commit sabotage.

But at the end of the day, there they are, three photos placed in a sequence that defy logic regardless if they took place on Earth or on the Moon.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



In other words, to say why NASA as one unit would do such and such, is oversimplifying the situation.


Then why do people like Jarrah keep saying "NASA claims?"



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 391  392  393    395  396  397 >>

log in

join