Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM
You may be on to something...
Add a few more minutes to the footage though!

Yeah, that time span covers enough to see the movement.

See this still, taken from when he says "small pebbles" at 14 seconds in this video:

131:54:00 Shepard: Okay, babe. Fred, the surface, here - we spoke about that - is textured. It is, of course, a very fine-grain, dusty regolith, much the same as we have in the vicinity of the LM. But, there seems to be small pebbles - more small pebbles - here on the surface than we had back around the LM area. And the population of larger rocks, perhaps small boulder size, is more prevalent here. Okay, this is probably pretty good.

And this still, taken when he says "look at the MESA area" at 7 minutes, 5 seconds in this video:

135:01:04 Haise: Okay, a little change in the priorities when you get back to the LM. We'd like the TV turned to look at the MESA area, so we can watch the closeout (as the) number one (priority). And then you can shoot a quick picture of the solar wind.

Elapsed time between stills: 4 hours, 52 minutes, 46 seconds. The sun would have covered about 2.5°.

Comparison:

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

I am afraid that you have completely misread the intent of my post. It was an exercise in stare-&-compare. Which reality will you choose, weed? The digitally enhanced or the original TV broadcast?

Hey SayonaraJ.

How come you didnt post this video?

CBS New's Walter Cronkite assures viewers this is not happing in space but only on Television

No wonder Gemini videos are so hard to find !!

They aren't so hard to find now that we have the Matrix.. err.. I mean Google. These old vids are treasure troves of detailed and fascinating commentary. I saw one sad moment during one of the studio segments where they had Buzz answer some scripted questions and he was not looking very pleased about being there. It was weird. Very short and you would missed it if you looked away for a few seconds.

I actually started a different thread about these vids because I thought they were important as a context to what this discussion is about Apollo in the final analysis. But the thread title is about JW so this would be a huge side track.

Originally posted by nataylor

Elapsed time between stills: 4 hours, 52 minutes, 46 seconds. The sun would have covered about 2.5°.

Comparison:

Nice graphics.
So then the camera itself was broadcasting video for at least that amount of time. NASA and the networks switched away from it occasionally as the narrative required? Or only when it was time for a commercial?

Question not directed at you specifically.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
You may be on to something...
Add a few more minutes to the footage though!

Yeah, that time span covers enough to see the movement.


Elapsed time between stills: 4 hours, 52 minutes, 46 seconds. The sun would have covered about 2.5°.

Comparison:

Interesting Nat.
What could this mean?
Where they on the moon?
Or, did NASA use a sun simulator that could replicate the movement of the sun?
Or, was there a change in the local tv transmission and the picture shifted?

What I noticed in your examples was a change in fonts.
I found that curious. Why would they do that?

And what I also found curious is that the text (graphics) slowly make circular motions as if it were hypnotizing the viewers. Try it, just slide the time line back and forth and you will see the graphics make these hypnotizing movements. But maybe its an artifact of the technology back then.

But lets get back to the movement of the sun/lamp flares on the lens.
You maintain that the time given should show some movement. And you demonstrated that a shift occurred.
Now you would agree the sun would not shift instantly, correct? It would be a gradual process. So if the shift happened instantly, you could conclude it was not the sun that moved.
Now lets see when that shift happened:

ABC News Coverage of Apollo 14 Part 44


If you scroll to about

2:45 you will see the following image:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd5c938a1ac2.gif[/atsimg]
at
2:46 the transmission goes haywire
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a36723f2612.gif[/atsimg]
at
2:50 we get a new image and the picture with the solar flares have shifted.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e1aacff8aec1.gif[/atsimg]

Resulting in:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/54625c7ab98b.gif[/atsimg]


So, we have a problem. PPK could be correct and the flares never moves because they are studio lights. Nat could be correct and the flare does move because its the sun. But in the end we really cant prove anything because the transmission has moved the image. So typical with this debate

Originally posted by FoosM

So, we have a problem. PPK could be correct and the flares never moves because they are studio lights. Nat could be correct and the flare does move because its the sun. But in the end we really cant prove anything because the transmission has moved the image. So typical with this debate

Well we don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves. If we considered the signal flow of this visual imagery from source to destination - it might look something like this:

A14 camera to A14 transmitter.
A14 transmitter to NASA receiver.
NASA receiver to Network feed.
Network feed to network affiliates.
Network affiliates to end user TV screen.
TV screen to American eyes 40 years ago.

40 years later.
Network archived video tape to end user.
End user video tape machine to computer.
Computer to internet.
Internet to the world 40 years later.

Seriously, dude, I think this topic alone could be provide a wealth of material for a PhD thesis in conspiracy theory

I'd even reckon that there are very few people in alive in this world who have viewed all 3 networks coverage of Apollo 14 from pre-launch to post-splashdown. Emphasis on VERY FEW

I'd like to see Jarrah do a long series on these network broadcasts. Jarrah is a highly talented video producer and I'm sure he would bring us some valuable insights into the technical details of the Apollo 14 video signal flow.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
I'd like to see Jarrah do a long series on these network broadcasts. Jarrah is a highly talented video producer and I'm sure he would bring us some valuable insights into the technical details of the Apollo 14 video signal flow.

Indeed, it probably would help to give the whole picture.

I mean look how elaborate this set was for Gemini:








Where are the wires???


He must be really in SPACE!!!

reply to post by FoosM


Great. I'm going to up all night watching these

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by FoosM

 

Great. I'm going to up all night watching these

It got real quiet in here. My guess is that people are watching these videos! AHAHAHA!

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by FoosM

 

Great. I'm going to up all night watching these

It got real quiet in here. My guess is that people are watching these videos! AHAHAHA!

Yeah.... too quiet
Well I hope DJ is working on the radiation questions that was posed earlier.
And Nat, might be investigating if that sun flare indeed did or did not move.
And I guess the rest of us are waiting for JW to finish off his new series.

I was just thinking... I can imagine that for some people these old broadcasts might
trigger some kind of flash back... and a realignment in their memory might be occurring...
a realization of... "wait a minute, it all seemed real when I was a kid,
but they were programming my mind with- gasp! Simulations!"

This guy is amazing. It shows that NASA cant trick everyone and that eventually the truth will get out some how.

reply to post by AndrewSwann



Trying to get to your "20 posts", eh??

Why not take the effort to actually read through the thread....daunting task, I realize. Grab a tasty snack, and favorite beverage.

The "wunderkind" (aka "Jarrah White") is, really, a poorly-educated delusional narcissistic celebrity wannabe.....full of bluff, fluff and rubbish.....

reply to post by AndrewSwann


Welcome to ATS..
Don't worry, some members do more than just rant without adding anything to the thread..

But like any garden, you need to keep up the weeding.

Those Gemini videos do show how good they were at simulating space activity..

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55

 

Now the only way I can see a sun not moving, is if it's not a sun, but a fixed studio light. hmmm.

As usual, we been through all this before:

Your quote is too wide for me to copy and paste, but to answer your question, the synodic lunar day is about 29 days, 12 hours long, or about 708 hours. This means it takes the sun 708 hours to travel 360 degrees in the sky, or about 0.51 degrees per hour. During the course of a terrestrial day, the sun will have moved about 12.2 degrees in the lunar sky. Anyone should be able to calculate that for themselves.

Page 130.

How do you find these posts so quick?
Have you indexed this thread???

It's called "paying attention", something you seem to consistently fail to do.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor


[stuff]

You know what I find strange by all this.
Lack of uniformity.
In how samples where stored, brought back and catalogued.
I mean take a look at all the chart breakdowns, they are all written-up differently.
That makes no sense. One thing I know about the government, especially in the military, they like
uniformity.

This all looks like its made to purposely confuse people.

edit on 26-4-2011 by FoosM because: redacted

edit on 26-4-2011 by FoosM because: word missing

NASA isn't a military agency. They're civvies, part of the Executive Branch. Also, Hanlon's Razor. People screw up.

Weird that you can't even do that much research.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

How do you find these posts so quick?
Have you indexed this thread???

It's called "paying attention", something you seem to consistently fail to do.

You mad about something?

Originally posted by backinblack
Those Gemini videos do show how good they were at simulating space activity..

Good in what way exactly? Like when the guy gets out of the capsule and he's "floating" above it and then just moves more to the right for no aparent reason. Or like how his tether is clearly being affected by gravity. These video's show how hard, if not impossible, it is to accurately simulate space activity here on Earth.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by backinblack
Those Gemini videos do show how good they were at simulating space activity..

Good in what way exactly? Like when the guy gets out of the capsule and he's "floating" above it and then just moves more to the right for no aparent reason. Or like how his tether is clearly being affected by gravity. These video's show how hard, if not impossible, it is to accurately simulate space activity here on Earth.

Yeah but what you're not taking into account is the fact that these videos were not meant to deceive so a few errors was fine..
If they were meant to deceive then they may have edited out the obvious bits.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor


[stuff]

You know what I find strange by all this.
Lack of uniformity.
In how samples where stored, brought back and catalogued.
I mean take a look at all the chart breakdowns, they are all written-up differently.
That makes no sense. One thing I know about the government, especially in the military, they like
uniformity.

This all looks like its made to purposely confuse people.

edit on 26-4-2011 by FoosM because: redacted

edit on 26-4-2011 by FoosM because: word missing

NASA isn't a military agency. They're civvies, part of the Executive Branch. Also, Hanlon's Razor. People screw up.

Weird that you can't even do that much research.

You know that is wrong, 000063. NASA is and has always been an institution of the military-industrial complex. To wit:

Langley. NPIC. OSS. Paperclip. Von Braun. V-2. U2. CIA. Pull your head out of the sand, mate!

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor


[stuff]

You know what I find strange by all this.
Lack of uniformity.
In how samples where stored, brought back and catalogued.
I mean take a look at all the chart breakdowns, they are all written-up differently.
That makes no sense. One thing I know about the government, especially in the military, they like
uniformity.

This all looks like its made to purposely confuse people.

edit on 26-4-2011 by FoosM because: redacted

edit on 26-4-2011 by FoosM because: word missing

NASA isn't a military agency. They're civvies, part of the Executive Branch. Also, Hanlon's Razor. People screw up.

Weird that you can't even do that much research.

You know that is wrong, 000063. NASA is and has always been an institution of the military-industrial complex. To wit:

Langley. NPIC. OSS. Paperclip. Von Braun. V-2. U2. CIA. Pull your head out of the sand, mate!

I honestly find it amazing that you think throwing random words around and going " Pull your head out of the sand, mate!" is a valid argumentative technique, in lieu of things like "facts" and "reason".

en.wikipedia.org...

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA, /ˈnæsə/) is an executive branch agency of the United States government, responsible for the nation's civilian space program and aeronautics and aerospace research.

The "military-industrial" complex is so vaguely defined by you as to encompass effectively every gov't agency ever. NASA itself, while gov't run and employing, on occasion, military personnel, is not itself a military agency. Put down those goalposts.