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: 396
377
<< 393  394  395    397  398  399 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I don't know. Turn???


The fact that Foosm never even thought of that being the reason the sun was coming from a apparent different angle says much for his knowlwdge of physics and photography!




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I don't know. Turn???


The fact that Foosm never even thought of that being the reason the sun was coming from a apparent different angle says much for his knowlwdge of physics and photography!


The sun was coming up from a different angle?
Really?
So it decided to laterally move across the horizon to rise from another area.
Thats what you are saying?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
or perhaps the photographer just moved. Kinda obvious.


jra

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I don't know. Turn???


The fact that Foosm never even thought of that being the reason the sun was coming from a apparent different angle says much for his knowlwdge of physics and photography!


The sun was coming up from a different angle?
Really?
So it decided to laterally move across the horizon to rise from another area.
Thats what you are saying?


The ASTRONAUT is turned a little bit more to the left relative to the Sun, when compared with the other photo.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So it decided to laterally move across the horizon to rise from another area.
Thats what you are saying?


No, I am saying the astronaut turned - something you are still unable to actually understand!



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by FoosM
So it decided to laterally move across the horizon to rise from another area.
Thats what you are saying?


No, I am saying the astronaut turned - something you are still unable to actually understand!


Then say so, dont say that the Sun came up from a different angle.
Thats two entirely different things.

And so what if the astronaut turned? This goes back to NAT's statement which was also confusing...
How does that change the angle of the shadow? It doesn't. The only thing that turning does is change the shape of the astronaut's shadow. It wont change the angle cast of the shadow due to the distance of the Sun.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
It wont change the angle cast of the shadow due to the distance of the Sun.


As has been explained many times tio you shadows change apparent angles due to the slope of the ground - why are you unable to understand that simple fact, it has been explained to you many times here before?

You seem very confused again.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by FoosM
It wont change the angle cast of the shadow due to the distance of the Sun.


As has been explained many times tio you shadows change apparent angles due to the slope of the ground - why are you unable to understand that simple fact, it has been explained to you many times here before?

You seem very confused again.


Oh so now you are adding elements new elements into the equation when your older elements get shot down?Well lets go with the new element: The shadows are being influenced by the slope of the ground, correct?
Provide evidence for it for the two photo in question.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Provide evidence for it for the two photo in question.


Just by looking at the pictures you can see where the shadow of the gnomon goes over a rock.... you must have missed that!



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by FoosM
Provide evidence for it for the two photo in question.


Just by looking at the pictures you can see where the shadow of the gnomon goes over a rock.... you must have missed that!


You are all over the place, dereks, I thought we were talking about the shadows of the astronauts?
Whats your problem with the shadow of the gnomon?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Whats your problem with the shadow of the gnomon?


You are the one having problems with shadows, so once again the angle of a shadow changes due too the slope of the ground - it has been explained to you many times, even examples have been given showing how the shadows change - yet you still do not get it!

You are the very confused one here once again,



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by FoosM
Whats your problem with the shadow of the gnomon?


You are the one having problems with shadows, so once again the angle of a shadow changes due too the slope of the ground - it has been explained to you many times, even examples have been given showing how the shadows change - yet you still do not get it!

You are the very confused one here once again,


Can you show us proof that the slope changes or are you just assuming that??



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

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.


Look I'm sorry, but they are not blunt. They look like any other object that could snag, rip, tear or rupture.
How could they not snag the leg of the suit as it was rising from the ground ?



That's more than enough reason not to have them in proximity to where the astronauts allegedly hopped in and out of the LRV.

You have to understand, this alleged moon landing endeavour was supposedly carried out in a complete vacuum.

Now, a vacuum is very different to conditions here on earth in case you weren't aware.
One rip, tear, puncture and the vacuum inside the suit is gone in a nano second.

As I wrote before, the blood boils and it's game over.

So we can sit here for eternity debating how sharp those objects were. The fact remains, they could have snagged or ripped a suit.

For any engineer to even envisage a dangerous design like that on a moon landing is beyond belief.


edit on 24-3-2011 by ppk55 because: added image



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


For my mind that whole picture shouldn't have gone to the moon - dunno it just don't look moon worthy somehow.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
As I wrote before, the blood boils and it's game over.


Except of course your blood does not boil.... and you posting it does not make it true!

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
"You do not explode and your blood does not boil because of the containing effect of your skin and circulatory system. You do not instantly freeze because, although the space environment is typically very cold, heat does not transfer away from a body quickly. Loss of consciousness occurs only after the body has depleted the supply of oxygen in the blood."



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You did not come up with answers to my questions

Why post falsehoods like this? I wrote paragraphs in response to your questions, addressing them specifically. here is a link to my post. Anyone who can read can see you are not being honest.


Originally posted by FoosM
I had already answered your initial question(s).
Remember?

You gave a throwaway answer which provided no specifics, considering that apparently several paragraphs of explanation is insufficient to answer your questions, why do you feel you can dismiss my queries with a sentence?


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

You are being rude by ignoring my posts then claiming I have not answered your questions. I clearly have, as illustrated by the post link above. On the other hand your total answers have been 'they're human, could have been sabotage' with no elucidation.
edit: changed quote marks to make clear that this is paraphrasing, not quoting.

To be honest I believe you are illustrating my point better than even I could. You are not interested in substantive debate or education, you are interested in arrogantly declaring pictures to be fraudulent, despite a complete lack of understanding of the most basic photographic principles.

Debate me or not, I don't really care. What I do care about is ensuring people who are not as well educated on Apollo are not fooled by your hollow rhetoric.
edit on 24/3/11 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



So we can sit here for eternity debating how sharp those objects were. The fact remains, they could have snagged or ripped a suit.


Clearly you intend to.




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by FoosM
Whats your problem with the shadow of the gnomon?


You are the one having problems with shadows, so once again the angle of a shadow changes due too the slope of the ground - it has been explained to you many times, even examples have been given showing how the shadows change - yet you still do not get it!

You are the very confused one here once again,


Can you show us proof that the slope changes or are you just assuming that??


Looks like it does in the pictures and shadows back that up.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by nataylor

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.


Look I'm sorry, but they are not blunt. They look like any other object that could snag, rip, tear or rupture.
How could they not snag the leg of the suit as it was rising from the ground ?



That's more than enough reason not to have them in proximity to where the astronauts allegedly hopped in and out of the LRV.

You have to understand, this alleged moon landing endeavour was supposedly carried out in a complete vacuum.

Now, a vacuum is very different to conditions here on earth in case you weren't aware.
One rip, tear, puncture and the vacuum inside the suit is gone in a nano second.

As I wrote before, the blood boils and it's game over.

So we can sit here for eternity debating how sharp those objects were. The fact remains, they could have snagged or ripped a suit.

For any engineer to even envisage a dangerous design like that on a moon landing is beyond belief.


edit on 24-3-2011 by ppk55 because: added image



So YOUR now an engineer ppk55 given up on your other job what was that again
How do you know they could rip or tear a suit I take it you have tested this in your new role as an engineer!

What are they made of do they have a sharp edge to them?
edit on 24-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Will you just give it up already? You couldn't be more wrong!:




Anybody can plainly see those attachments mounted to the frame of the LRV are smooth, rounded "bumps". As nataylor pointed out, they are made of teflon (plastic).

If they resemble anything, by appearance, it would be small-scale versions of a typical household interior door hinge.

Get up from your seat, and stroll over to your basement or bedroom door....look at the hinges, on the jamb, where the door is mounted. Take one down, with a screwdriver.

THEN...give evidence that something like that could "snag" or "tear open" a typical Apollo EVA suit. Use the specific details and materials, and their thicknesses to "prove" that this would be a valid assertion on your part.

YOUR claim, YOUR turn to validate it....(I am afraid most of the audience will be waiting for quite some while for this to occur....).






edit on 24 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 393  394  395    397  398  399 >>

log in

join