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: 400
377
<< 397  398  399    401  402  403 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
Im also wondering if JW will update his radiation series. There has been a lot of discussion about radiation since Fukushima. Im sure people are wondering, what about NASA, dont they have space suits that can protect workers?

If you understand radiation enough to make critical arguments. You also should understand radiation enough to answer this question.

Please do, as an example of how you clearly are educated enough to make predictions. It would convince us all somewhat that you are not just parroting what you hear with no critical thought


now you want me to predict JW will update his radiation series?

ummm.... I give it a 50/50 chance




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

I know what you have said is not possible because I have many years as an amateur photographer and have performed an awful lot of image processing in my time. I know what your job is not because if you do hold a job where these skills are required, then you are performing it or your posting incompetently.


Yeah, you're right, whatever it is that I do in my life, I perform it.

So since your are an expert in amateur photography, explain this picture:




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You are now included in the growing list of persons who cant defend NASA even with all the material available to you.


Please post a link to this list.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So since your are an expert in amateur photography, explain this picture:




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



Rather than make an honest attempt to understand what they are looking at, they exploit anything that appears odd. In this case, simple research would reveal that the building in question has a slanted atrium on the upper stories, causing the illusion that it is somehow viewed from above. Moon Hoax propagandists will arbitrarily claim that shadows "don't look right," rocks "look like papier mache," the horizon "looks too close" and so forth.


See, I told you it was relevant. Now, explain what, FoosM? What looks "weird" in this picture and what have you done to investigate all the possible explanations?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



.... explain this picture:


Oooohhh! (Raises hand)..."Can I play?"


I will "explain" that. A complete waste of ATS thread space.

Member FoosM apparently took a valid NASA Apollo Lunar EVA mission photograph, and cropped, enlarged, and added a red circle in some photo manipulation program he/she owns.

THEN, posted the result, unsourced, lacking a refernce, for NO reason in THIS THREAD about Jarrah White.


My explanation? Member FoosM is deceptive, disingenuous, manipulative and out of ideas in "defence" of JW. SO, only tactics left are deflection and inane posting attempts that distract. Offering NO real substantive arguments, of any sort.

How am I doing, so far???





edit on 27 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: the Apollo missions were REAL!



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
So far I have only answered 8 of your questions, you have substantively answered none of mine...


Originally posted by FoosM
Nope, just as I expected, exponent didnt finish answering all my questions.
Well I guess that was that, thanks for playing exponent.
You are now included in the growing list of persons who cant defend NASA even with all the material available to you.

I really dislike repeating myself, but once again:

So far I have only answered 8 of your questions, you have substantively answered none of mine...

As for adding me to some list, I don't see why i would care. Your rude dismissal of questions as not worth your time when you demand answers from others shows you up more than I.


Originally posted by FoosM
now you want me to predict JW will update his radiation series?

You cannot be this obtuse, I refuse to believe it.


Originally posted by FoosM
So since your are an expert in amateur photography, explain this picture:

Given the lack of detail and the intentional lack of a reference, I'll try to explain it with absolutely no clue about what the object is.

To me, it looks like a sheet of BoPET roughly covering some device, the area you have highlighted looks like the scattering of light from a low altitude sun onto a surface that possibly has some regolith coating it. I stress that I have no clue what's actually in the photo though, and this is just a guess. I have no clue why you have highlighted this area of light.

edit: oh i just noticed, it's the rover! man that is a confusing photo
edit on 27/3/11 by exponent because: adding extra line



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
So far I have only answered 8 of your questions, you have substantively answered none of mine...


You had one, and I answered it thoroughly.




Originally posted by FoosM
So since your are an expert in amateur photography, explain this picture:

Given the lack of detail and the intentional lack of a reference, I'll try to explain it with absolutely no clue about what the object is.

To me, it looks like a sheet of BoPET roughly covering some device, the area you have highlighted looks like the scattering of light from a low altitude sun onto a surface that possibly has some regolith coating it. I stress that I have no clue what's actually in the photo though, and this is just a guess. I have no clue why you have highlighted this area of light.


Im really wondering if you dis-agree, or agree, that the edge of that foil is touching the lunar surface



edit: oh i just noticed, it's the rover! man that is a confusing photo


Yes, well you'll have to ask NASA about that.
And its actually not the Rover.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Im really wondering if you dis-agree, or agree, that the edge of that foil is touching the lunar surface


Until you post a link to the original photo, it's orange marmalade as far as I'm concerned. You even have to cheat at the "Anomalies Game" now.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Yes, well you'll have to ask NASA about that.
And its actually not the Rover.


You should link to the original pic Foosm and a few more details would help..

IMO the foil is not covering that thing, rover or whatever it is..
It doesn't seem to cast a shadow..
It may be closer to the camera and therefore the pic is misleading..
edit on 27-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 



.... explain this picture:


Oooohhh! (Raises hand)..."Can I play?"


Can we stop you?




I will "explain" that. A complete waste of ATS thread space.

Member FoosM apparently took a valid NASA Apollo Lunar EVA mission photograph, and cropped, enlarged, and added a red circle in some photo manipulation program he/she owns.


Did I claim otherwise?




THEN, posted the result, unsourced, lacking a refernce, for NO reason in THIS THREAD about Jarrah White.



Its part of a post I made, so it doesn't come out of the blue.




My explanation? Member FoosM is deceptive, disingenuous, manipulative and out of ideas in "defence" of JW. SO, only tactics left are deflection and inane posting attempts that distract. Offering NO real substantive arguments, of any sort.

How am I doing, so far???


Well if you would actually watch JW's videos and provide a good rebuttal them then maybe I and others would be offering counter argument in defense of JW's findings. Or not, maybe... just maybe you might make a better case than JW in defense of NASA. I just posted new videos from JW and i don't recall you making any comments on them.


jra

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
edit: oh i just noticed, it's the rover! man that is a confusing photo


It's actually not the LRV, but the Mobile Equipment Transporter (MET) that was used on Apollo 14.

Here is a link to the original photo: AS14-66-9324

Here is what the ALSJ says about the photo.

119:42:01 Leftward from 9323. This frame was taken out Ed's window between the two EVAs at about 20:45 GMT/UTC on 5 February 1971, and shows the flag and the MET at the LM between the EVAs. Note that, in addition to parking the MET in the shadow of the S-Band antenna, as per checklist they have put the S-Band cover on it. Good footprint and tire track definition. The flag is face-on to the TV camera, pointing on an azimuth of about 120. The Sun's elevation was about 16.4 degrees. See a discussion following 131:09:18.


I have absolutely no idea what Foosm sees wrong with the photo and I hate these guessing games. Foos, could you just tell us what you think is wrong?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
[I have absolutely no idea what Foosm sees wrong with the photo and I hate these guessing games. Foos, could you just tell us what you think is wrong?


If he did so you would be able to tell him exactly why he's wrong........which is why all the conspriacy theorists....for pretty much all conspiracies ......try to avoid giving hard conclusions or facts.

Whenever they have done so in the past they have been shown incorrect, and they are nothing if not adaptable.

Now they use innuendo, evidence by association, and bald assertion without providing foundations for such assertions, as "evidence".

such "evidence" is difficult to fight against precisely because it is not based in fact, it shofts, hard questions about it simply never get answered as the believer sqiftly moves off to a different aspect.....



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


If he did so you would be able to tell him exactly why he's wrong........which is why all the conspriacy theorists....for pretty much all conspiracies ......try to avoid giving hard conclusions or facts.
Whenever they have done so in the past they have been shown incorrect, and they are nothing if not adaptable.
Now they use innuendo, evidence by association, and bald assertion without providing foundations for such assertions, as "evidence".
such "evidence" is difficult to fight against precisely because it is not based in fact, it shofts, hard questions about it simply never get answered as the believer sqiftly moves off to a different aspect.....


Bit of a generalization there buddy..
Many times conspiracy theorists don't have hard facts because they are well hidden or unavailable..
It doesn't mean conspiracies are fake,many have been proven true..



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Bit of a generalization there buddy..


Tough - it is my opinion about what I have observed here and elsewhere.

IMO it has more observable evidence to support it than debunkers all being "govt shills", "disinfo agents", and "paid CIA psyops" that you all seem to assume


Your assumption that "the evidence" is hidden is particularly telling - without evidence you have formed a conclusion, and when it is pointed out that you ahve no evidence you come with weasle words like "the evidence is hidden, secret....." or similar because that is what fits the conclusion you have already reached

edit on 27-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Bit of a generalization there buddy..
Many times conspiracy theorists don't have hard facts because they are well hidden or unavailable..


But they could at the very least explain what they think they see is a problem. I see that Foos has now done that, but he could have said what his problem is from the very start instead of showing a cropped photo completely out of context with no link to the original.


Originally posted by backinblack
IMO the foil is not covering that thing, rover or whatever it is..
It doesn't seem to cast a shadow..
It may be closer to the camera and therefore the pic is misleading..


Now that you've seen the uncropped original, do now see the shadow cast by it? Since most of it was cropped off. Does the photo make more sense? Or do you still think there is something wrong with it?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



Now that you've seen the uncropped original, do now see the shadow cast by it? Since most of it was cropped off. Does the photo make more sense? Or do you still think there is something wrong with it?


I also asked Foosm to show the original...
I didn't really see anything wrong with the pic anyway...



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You had one, and I answered it thoroughly.

Once again anyone who reads this thread can see that you didn't. I gave you several questions and you dismissed them with barely a sentence.


Im really wondering if you dis-agree, or agree, that the edge of that foil is touching the lunar surface

I don't think so, it's a hard photo to tell but that looks more like scattered sunlight than significant regolith on top of the foil. Why would it even matter?


And its actually not the Rover.

Nope, shows my ignorance completely.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Tough - it is my opinion about what I have observed here and elsewhere.


And right or wrong I'll accept it as your opinion..
We are drifting off topic so I'll leave it at that..



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Page 400. Wow.

May I make a constructive criticism about this thread. It has been hijacked by Foos who is bringing his own strange ideas into play most of which have had absolutely nothing to do with young Jarrah.
Therefore his posts and those replying to his personal ithoughts should really be deleted as they are all very off topic.

Its a shame as I believe Jarrah has a lot of interesting stuff to say that I don't think has been effectively debunked. I hardly see the point now of using this thread to talk about Jarrah as the waters are so muddied with a million questions posed by Foos and then questions back from DJ et al which no-ones seems to answer and people are referring back to unanswered questions from pages ago. It's now so messy its impossible to get any sense from this.

Foos... I'm afraid you are doing Jarrah no favours with constantly bringing up new, and very questionable, questions about photos that you are now not even bothering to explain. Even I am confused by the point of your last photo...and I'm a Jarrah fan who is still waiting for independant proof that man went to the moon. (No... the blurry compressed picks of blobs on the moon supposedely the lander won't do it for me)

When Jarrah's moon rock series is released we should start a new thread and start actually talking about Jarrah again.

DJ... you are so jealous of Jarrah... I know it. You posted his Rama (?) video and went all heavy with your 'look how he mocks you, with a pirated video..' speech. Jarrah has been a life long fan of that show and has invested the last few years in time and money to make a full length animated film featuring that charachter. Now I'm not a fan.. but surely people on youtube are allowed to post clips of stuff they LIKE as well as stuff that is important to them.
Jarrah is part of a film co-operative/studio and as such is involved in more than just his Apollo films. Give the man some credit. At least we know he is busy and does things.
What was your snide point with that criticism of Jarrah? And what do you do for a living btw?
edit on 27-3-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
I'm a Jarrah fan who is still waiting for independant proof that man went to the moon. (No... the blurry compressed picks of blobs on the moon supposedely the lander won't do it for me)


I asked this to BIB (hope this is ok) a few pages back, what would you say are your biggest problems with believing in a moon mission? Feel free to list as few or as many as possible, it would be nice to get some actual discussion going on in this thread again



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 397  398  399    401  402  403 >>

log in

join