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: 395
377
<< 392  393  394    396  397  398 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



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.


But they don't defy logic. There have been six perfectly logical explanations offered. Do pay attention. At least you've finally conceded that they may have been taken on the Moon. This means you've wasted 50 pages with a non-argument.




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent


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'.



And what are you doing is exactly what you accuse those who do not swallow the pablum of NASA of doing. You are simply parroting what you have heard or read. Have you seen all this evidence, has this evidence been put under independent scrutiny? And what is this off-world evidence that you think cannot be recreated on Earth?

The reason there is a growing number of people not believing in the moon landing is because the evidence has not been strong enough to keep people believing in it.

For me, the photo and video evidence is dead.
So what is left?

And by the way, my analysis of the VABs trajectory is new.
I didn't parrot that from anyone.

Lets add the two up, Van Allen and Photos:


Some of the color film carried into a record high orbit aboard the shuttle Discovery last month was fogged by space radiation but officials say the crew was not in any danger.

Discovery and its five-member crew were launched into a 380-mile-high circular orbit April 24 to deploy the $1.5 billion Hubble Space Telescope high above Earth's obscuring atmosphere. At that altitude, roughly twice as high as shuttles typically fly, the astronauts were exposed to more radiation than usual from the Van Allen belts, doughnut-shaped clouds of charged particles that spiral about magnetic field lines between the north and south magnetic poles.


Well whats stopping them from flying typically 500 miles high? Or a 1000k?


Discovery flew closer to the belts than any previous shuttle flight.

Arnauld Nicogossian, director of life sciences at NASA headquarters in Washington, said Friday the radiation the Discovery crew was exposed to during the mission was "like having several chest X-rays."

Among the film that apparently was damaged by exposure to space radiation: spectacular high-resolution 70 mm "IMAX" footage shot for a commercial film designed to be shown on giant seven-story-tall screens.


You see, it doesn't add up.
NASA from all its studies and adventures with Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo should have know what film could have been used in space. Why would they spend all that money on film for it to get fogged by space radiation NEAR the van allen belt? LOL.

Thats the one true thing Bean said:



They didnt go near the Van Allen Belts.

www.deseretnews.com...





edit on 23-3-2011 by FoosM because: source



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



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.


But they don't defy logic. There have been six perfectly logical explanations offered. Do pay attention. At least you've finally conceded that they may have been taken on the Moon. This means you've wasted 50 pages with a non-argument.


DJ, you cant have six explanations for one event. Only one explanation is the truth, the others will be false. So that alone shows you that these photos defy logic and require fantasy to place them in the context of the moon landing- which I dont concede to.

Its quite simple for those of us who dont believe in it.
It was faked and thats why the photos dont work.
Just like movies are fake, and we can find mistakes in them too.
Even by the best:




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
So I will do my best to answer questions you pose,


Ok exponent, we are ready.
Give it your best shot.
You didnt give up did you?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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.

So you've added one additional argument to your original, but I think this weakens your position if anything. If we were to believe that someone on the team responsible for faking these pictures wanted to provide evidence they were faked, how would they do it?

Do you really think they would make such ridiculously subtle changes? Changes that in my entire posting lifetime here I have only ever seen mention of from you? You don't think that perhaps they would have done something a little bit more obvious?

The rationalisations you are using border on the absurd. The very fact you are imagining that maybe someone left a secret clue in these images for you is worrying, and I think perhaps you should take a break. These sorts of thoughts are dangerous, as if you convince yourself of this you will begin to see secret hidden signs in many other photos, signs none of us can see. Even your most stalwart companion in this thread doesn't appear to have one iota of the confidence you have about these photos.

For example:

Originally posted by FoosM
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.

Now you not only think the photos are suspicious, but actually impossible, all for unspecified reasons. This is not rational analysis, this is desire.


Originally posted by FoosM
And what are you doing is exactly what you accuse those who do not swallow the pablum of NASA of doing. You are simply parroting what you have heard or read. Have you seen all this evidence, has this evidence been put under independent scrutiny? And what is this off-world evidence that you think cannot be recreated on Earth?

I have seen large volumes of evidence yes, and if you think I am simply parroting then please find my words repeated elsewhere. Everything I write on this site is original unless attributed.

The evidence you discuss has been put under independent scrutiny. Many countries have flown moon missions, manned or unmanned, and space based collaboration has been occurring for many years. Every stage of the NASA missions was observed as much as possible by professionals and amateurs all over the world. This is why there are radio tracks of the capsules on their way to the moon, because people with simple equipment wanted to be involved.

As for evidence that cannot be recreated on earth, the descent and landing footage shows radial dust ejecta, a phenomena which can only be recreated in a vacuum. Not to mention of course that earth's weather correlates perfectly, that large quantities of samples were returned, that the tracks of the men and rovers are visible from orbit. I could go on listing for some time, I don't doubt you will put your fingers in your ears, but I wish to illustrate to whoever is reading the sheer scale of evidence in favour of manned missions.


Originally posted by FoosM
The reason there is a growing number of people not believing in the moon landing is because the evidence has not been strong enough to keep people believing in it.

For me, the photo and video evidence is dead.

I doubt there are a growing number of people, I would like to see you cite that. What I find most interesting though is that you now believe you can dismiss any photo or video evidence, massively biasing any decision you make away from legitimate manned missions. What's the rationale you have behind this? You don't trust NASA. Not really very convincing is it?


Originally posted by FoosM
And by the way, my analysis of the VABs trajectory is new.
I didn't parrot that from anyone.

Then you should feel ashamed, as you are directly responsible for the errors.


Originally posted by FoosM
You see, it doesn't add up.
NASA from all its studies and adventures with Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo should have know what film could have been used in space. Why would they spend all that money on film for it to get fogged by space radiation NEAR the van allen belt? LOL.

So uh, do you think people haven't ever been into space or something? You don't think we have ever even launched unmanned probes to the Moon? Or do you think NASA just forgot to take readings vitally important to their claim of sending men to the moon?

You're correct in that it doesn't add up. I have no idea why you would think that film but not humans being damaged by radiation would mean humans could not survive the radiation. How does that logic work exactly? Humans not in danger, so humans in danger?


Originally posted by FoosM
DJ, you cant have six explanations for one event. Only one explanation is the truth, the others will be false. So that alone shows you that these photos defy logic and require fantasy to place them in the context of the moon landing- which I dont concede to.

If there are six plausible explanations for one event, to claim that proves that none of those are actually right and it is the implausible one is simply illogical. This argument is based in fantasy, where any conclusion other than your own is automatically wrong. There are 6 billion people you could be, does that mean you defy logic and don't exist?


Originally posted by FoosM
Ok exponent, we are ready.
Give it your best shot.
You didnt give up did you?

Nope, been at this a long time and it'll take more than some moon fantasies to make me finally lose faith in humanity.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



DJ, you cant have six explanations for one event. Only one explanation is the truth, the others will be false. So that alone shows you that these photos defy logic and require fantasy to place them in the context of the moon landing- which I dont concede to.


Really? Okay, please explain this photograph. It portrays an event that can only have one logical explanation, right?



Well, what's your explanation?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



DJ, you cant have six explanations for one event. Only one explanation is the truth, the others will be false. So that alone shows you that these photos defy logic and require fantasy to place them in the context of the moon landing- which I dont concede to.


Really? Okay, please explain this photograph. It portrays an event that can only have one logical explanation, right?


I have no idea why you posted that photo except maybe out of frustration.
So how about you explain which of the so called six explanations you side with and why.
Thats will keep the discussion focused and on topic.

edit on 23-3-2011 by FoosM because: that added



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok exponent, we are ready.
Give it your best shot.
You didnt give up did you?

Nope, been at this a long time and it'll take more than some moon fantasies to make me finally lose faith in humanity.


I dont know what faith in humanity has to do with answering a few questions about dubious photos. But anyway, I read through the rest of you post, but I didnt find those answers.
Can you please repeat the answers to my questions?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I think I have an opinion on that photo....it's faked. OR, maybe not....first, the lady on the left, in white, is the "key". NO ONE is even looking at her!! SO, obviously, she wasn't there when photo was snapped...and she was added in (?) (She looks like she's defying gravity, too! Maybe there's a wire, there.....).

Or.....maybe, she looks a little odd because....maybe this is a paranormal capture!! She's a ghost, a spirit perhaps? That would explain why no one looks at her...only the camera can see her. (?)

Really good example....shows that you CANOT "judge" a photo by "analyzing" it to death.



(Without looking as foolish as I just did....)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DJW001
 


I think I have an opinion on that photo....it's faked. OR, maybe not....first, the lady on the left, in white, is the "key". NO ONE is even looking at her!! SO, obviously, she wasn't there when photo was snapped...and she was added in (?) (She looks like she's defying gravity, too! Maybe there's a wire, there.....).



Great, you are willing to analyze photos.
Well I have one that Im still waiting answers for, and its Apollo related.
I also provided questions so you won't have to speculate what is wrong or right about the photos:



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.




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
It's a disaster waiting to happen. No one in their right mind would engineer something like that knowing the risks.
There was no risk. Those are blunt teflon clips, used to hold the LRV deployment cable when the LRV was stowed on the LM.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Great, you are willing to analyze photos.


What's the matter, FoosM? Usually you love to analyze photos but you have no one, single explanation for the photo I posted? Oh, I know, you only like to look for "anomalies." Well, two can play at that game. Let's play the "Anomaly Game" together. Remember this photo?



What's this? Who took this picture? The only person with a camera isn't pointing the carmera directly towards itself!!! How is that possible? And he's wearing sunglasses? How can he possibly operate a complicated piece of equipment like a camera wearing shades?



And there's something weird about this building! How can we be looking directly down on it like this??



And what is this guy doing? Why does he have two of those shovels? Where did they come from? I mean are they made in the US or China? If you can't answer that question unequivocally, it's a smoking gun that the city of Chicago doesn't exist! There can only be one correct, logical answer.



And if that alleged structure is really solid, how did that snow get under it?



And there's something not quite right about those obviously fake buildings in the background! Why is the taller building's roof-line not parallel to the roof-lines of the building in front of it?



And what about these "tourists" just standing around? They've supposedly traveled thousands of miles to see this world famous historic landmark and they're not even looking at it!!! They should be grinning from ear to ear as they gaze at it in awe.



There are so many anomalies in this one photo alone that it provides overwhelming evidence that Chicago is a hoax! After all, a city of four million people requires a great deal more proof than a small town.



You've been playing this childish game for over 300 pages now, FoosM. Can you see why no-one wanrs to play with you any more?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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


1. Not exactly sure what you mean here. The shadow size of everything seems consistent, given in one photo you have big rocks and in another you have soil.

2. In one photo the sun is nearly directly behind the photographer. In another it is behind and to the left of the photographer. Also, in one he has the camera more to the left, capturing less of the photographer's own shadow than in the other.

3. The gnomon is farther away in one photograph, thus appearing smaller.

If you scale things so the sizes of the gnomon's line up, thus providing a view from equivalent distances, things seem to look perfectly fine to me:




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
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






1. Not exactly sure what you mean here. The shadow size of everything seems consistent, given in one photo you have big rocks and in another you have soil.


Well I didnt have issue with the terrain





2. In one photo the sun is nearly directly behind the photographer. In another it is behind and to the left of the photographer.


Given the distance of the sun how is that even possible?
That you can do with studio lights.




Also, in one he has the camera more to the left, capturing less of the photographer's own shadow than in the other.


Ok, what do you base that on?
Whats your point of reference?




3. The gnomon is farther away in one photograph, thus appearing smaller.


Again, what is your point of reference?
One gnomon is indeed slightly further from the center cross hair than the other, but only by a small amount. Other than that, it doesnt explain the size difference.




If you scale things so the sizes of the gnomon's line up, thus providing a view from equivalent distances, things seem to look perfectly fine to me:




Well thats the point NAT, why would you have to scale and rotate anything at all to make the images fit?
The same camera and lens was used correct? The height of the astronaut should be the same, or very similar. Therefore the scale should stay the same.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


2. In one photo the sun is nearly directly behind the photographer. In another it is behind and to the left of the photographer.


Given the distance of the sun how is that even possible?
Distance has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the angle the photographer is facing with respect to the sun. In one photo the sun is almost directly behind the photographer. In another he has turned slightly to the left.


Originally posted by FoosM


Also, in one he has the camera more to the left, capturing less of the photographer's own shadow than in the other.


Ok, what do you base that on?
Whats your point of reference?
My point of reference is that in one photo we see a lot of shadow and in another photo we see only a bit of the left side of the shadow.


Originally posted by FoosM


3. The gnomon is farther away in one photograph, thus appearing smaller.


Again, what is your point of reference?
One gnomon is indeed slightly further from the center cross hair than the other, but only by a small amount. Other than that, it doesnt explain the size difference.
We know the gnomon hasn't changed size. We know the same lens is being used. Thus, the distance between the camera and and gnomon must be different to produce the size difference. The distance to the cross hair has nothing to do with it. It's the difference between the distance from the gnomon to the camera that matters.



Originally posted by FoosM
Well thats the point NAT, why would you have to scale and rotate anything at all to make the images fit?
The same camera and lens was used correct? The height of the astronaut should be the same, or very similar. Therefore the scale should stay the same.
You have to scale it because he's at different distances from the gnomon in both photographs.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Deleted because it duplicates Nat's post and I don't want to get FoosM all confused again.
edit on 23-3-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I dont know what faith in humanity has to do with answering a few questions about dubious photos. But anyway, I read through the rest of you post, but I didnt find those answers.
Can you please repeat the answers to my questions?

It's extremely rude of you to ignore my entire post and repeat the question. If you cannot address the points in it then concede them, if not then refute them.

I answered your questions in great detail, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I didn't answer.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor


2. In one photo the sun is nearly directly behind the photographer. In another it is behind and to the left of the photographer.


Given the distance of the sun how is that even possible?
That you can do with studio lights.


I don't know. Turn???

edit on 23/3/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
deleted 'cos I actually don't want to be nasty!!
edit on 23-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
I dont know what faith in humanity has to do with answering a few questions about dubious photos. But anyway, I read through the rest of you post, but I didnt find those answers.
Can you please repeat the answers to my questions?

It's extremely rude of you to ignore my entire post and repeat the question. If you cannot address the points in it then concede them, if not then refute them.

I answered your questions in great detail, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I didn't answer.


You did not come up with answers to my questions
and...
I had already answered your initial question(s).
Remember?



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


So Im not the one being rude here.
Your at bat, take a swing.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 392  393  394    396  397  398 >>

log in

join