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: 446
377
<< 443  444  445    447  448  449 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   



The AwE130 archives release Apollo 8 film, this 8mm film has no sound but the footage will show you how it was shown to the people in the sixties. More films are released at the awe130.nl website.


Does anybody know another source for these films?

I like how it starts, like a movie with the studio intro:




edit on 5-5-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Yeah whatever, the question wasn't vague.
You probably just thought the russians landed men... or was it the chinese?

We are talking about the impossibility of manned moon landings.
We are not talking about if Surveyor or Luna happened.



I'm making a point; you need to be SPECIFIC with your questions, or else there's a chance they will be misinterpreted.




How I want you to answer?
Whats this, a set up to claim later I forced you to answer a certain way?
Just give me your answer.
Is your answer 'false'?



Yes, by asking me a true/false question, you are forcing me to answer in a certain way. And I've given you my answer. If you don't understand it, then ask me to clarify as opposed to claiming I didn't answer a question I clearly did.

Well, whatever time zone you are in, you always come back on before it is time for me to sleep, so again, adieu until tomorrow.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
The Apollo mythology works so well because it has been repeated on TV so many god damned times.
With every anniversary the mythology is re-edited and re-imagined for each subsequent generation.

Here is 60 Minutes, a reputable American news show, making heavy use of editing and "historical dramatizations". These are basic Hollywood techniques. It also happens to be a technique used in propaganda.

Apollo defenders cannot stand the fact that NASA deleted the original Apollo 11 telemetry tapes/b] so the only option for them is to re-live the fantasy through TV retrospectives such as this one .... with the dramatic soundtrack later added by a studio sound engineer.




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Three simple yes or on questions. How many answers?



]Now, your turn: when Jarrah interviewed an expert on Aboriginal culture as an "expert witness" on photography, was he lying? Yes or no?



Need more info.




When Jarrah claimed that the Apollo 8 CSM could have hidden in "polar orbit," then reversed himself when someone explained what a polar orbit actually is, then claimed that he intentionally lied to "trap" his opponent, was he lying? Yes or no?



Simple, would JW make such a mistake?
Of course not. He wasnt lying about tricking this opponents.
He made a rookie mistake.




When Jarrah claimed that E. E. Kovalev's data contradicted NASA's, even though it actually confirmed it, was he lying? Yes or no?



What was contradicted?


Zero; not one single yes or no answer. Here's any easy one for you, FoosM: did the Apollo 12 SEVA take place or not? Just answer yes or no.
edit on 5-5-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.

edit on 5-5-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Apollo defenders cannot stand the fact that NASA deleted the original Apollo 11 telemetry tapes/b] so the only option for them is to re-live the fantasy through TV retrospectives such as this one .... with the dramatic soundtrack later added by a studio sound engineer.


And the Hoax Propagandists can't stand the fact that all of the data is still available, even though the original storage media are obsolete.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


Three simple yes or on questions. How many answers?



]Now, your turn: when Jarrah interviewed an expert on Aboriginal culture as an "expert witness" on photography, was he lying? Yes or no?



Need more info.




When Jarrah claimed that the Apollo 8 CSM could have hidden in "polar orbit," then reversed himself when someone explained what a polar orbit actually is, then claimed that he intentionally lied to "trap" his opponent, was he lying? Yes or no?



Simple, would JW make such a mistake?
Of course not. He wasnt lying about tricking this opponents.
He made a rookie mistake.

Impossible to answer a yes/no on someone's intentions.
Please get real.
So I did the best thing, making a statement to what was more logical.






When Jarrah claimed that E. E. Kovalev's data contradicted NASA's, even though it actually confirmed it, was he lying? Yes or no?



What was contradicted?


Zero; not one single yes or no answer. Here's any easy one for you, FoosM: did the Apollo 12 SEVA take place or not? Just answer yes or no.
edit on 5-5-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.

edit on 5-5-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)


This post fails DJ.
I requested more info, you fail to offer that info.
Then you come up with questions that are impossible to verify once answered.

Regarding the Apollo 12 SEVA question.
No, it didn't happen on the moon.


edit on 5-5-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   
When I saw this video, I immediately thought how fake it looks. It looks to me like there is a wall in the background. You can clearly see the line where the surface of the ground meets the wall, which is covered in wallpaper to look like it has a lunar surface. I guess you could say it is a hill, but why does the face of it look so flat?


edit on 5-5-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
another photo, you can again see the stark contrast between the surface and the background.



I mean all you need to do is just look at the photos that NASA gave the world to see how fake it all is and how there is extensive use of wallpaper to create backgrounds. It's really pathetic that we have been forced to believe this utterly fake moon landing hoax.
edit on 5-5-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 


There is no atmosphere on the moon, therefore distant objects and terrane will appear as clear as nearby objects because there is no atmospheric haze. Viewing a slope, gradually sloping more distant from you is harder to determine, especially when the horizon is cropped out therefore, can only be visualized by decreasing detail due to the sheer distance. This is part of the reason images on the surface of the moon look foreign to most undiscerning viewers used to seeing atmospheric haze scattering of light to smoothen out the contrast and color to the point of blending into the sky, like here on earth.


edit on 5-5-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



This post fails DJ.
I requested more info, you fail to offer that info.
Then you come up with questions that are impossible to verify once answered.

Regarding the Apollo 12 SEVA question.
No, it didn't happen on the moon.


So you admit that by posing exactly the same type of questions with the same dearth of information and vagueness as you, the post fails. Have you started to get the point of the exercise?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Mercurio
 


There is no atmosphere on the moon, therefore distant objects and terrane will appear as clear as nearby objects because there is no atmospheric haze. Viewing a slope, gradually sloping more distant from you is harder to determine, especially when the horizon is cropped out therefore, can only be visualized by decreasing detail due to the sheer distance. This is part of the reason images on the surface of the moon look foreign to most undiscerning viewers used to seeing atmospheric haze scattering of light to smoothen out the contrast and color to the point of blending into the sky, like here on earth.


edit on 5-5-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)


What about the other photo from my other post? You think that's caused by a lack of atmospheric haze? It's obviously wallpaper on a film set, and no drawn out "explanation" will change that. It does not look like a real background at all.
edit on 5-5-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercurio
I mean all you need to do is just look at the photos that NASA gave the world to see how fake it all is and how there is extensive use of wallpaper to create backgrounds. It's really pathetic that we have been forced to believe this utterly fake moon landing hoax.


Then do explain the parallax effect that happens when one compares two photos of the same thing, from two different viewing angles.

One of many examples:


These are photos AS17-146-22402 and AS17-146-22367

The backgrounds aren't flat. The lack of an atmosphere and the lack of familiar objects (like trees, building or other man made objects) make it hard to judge distance and scale on the Moon. The Lunar surface isn't flat either, there are lots of craters, so that makes the surface to be rather undulated. That can cut ones view of the horizon and create a noticeable division between the surface and a mountain in the background, for example.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Mercurio
I mean all you need to do is just look at the photos that NASA gave the world to see how fake it all is and how there is extensive use of wallpaper to create backgrounds. It's really pathetic that we have been forced to believe this utterly fake moon landing hoax.


Then do explain the parallax effect that happens when one compares two photos of the same thing, from two different viewing angles.

One of many examples:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ec98ab4615a9.gif[/atsimg

These are photos AS17-146-22402 and AS17-146-22367

The backgrounds aren't flat. The lack of an atmosphere and the lack of familiar objects (like trees, building or other man made objects) make it hard to judge distance and scale on the Moon. The Lunar surface isn't flat either, there are lots of craters, so that makes the surface to be rather undulated. That can cut ones view of the horizon and create a noticeable division between the surface and a mountain in the background, for example.

That ANNOYING image proves very little, especially since you did not explain the reasoning behind it, all you did was post it. All you have succeeded in doing in posting that image is giving me a headache.


From what I can tell, they are two images taken at slightly different places and angles. That accounts for the so-called "parallax effect" (whatever that is).



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 



From what I can tell, they are two images taken at slightly different places and angles. That accounts for the so-called "parallax effect" (whatever that is).


When something is viewed from two different angles, one sees it slightly different from each vantage point; this is what allows us to see things in three dimensions. Perhaps this article will explain it more clearly for you:
WikiPedia

Notice how the mountain in the background seems to change it's shape slightly between the photos? That is because it is a distant, three dimensional object.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Mercurio
 



From what I can tell, they are two images taken at slightly different places and angles. That accounts for the so-called "parallax effect" (whatever that is).


When something is viewed from two different angles, one sees it slightly different from each vantage point; this is what allows us to see things in three dimensions. Perhaps this article will explain it more clearly for you:
WikiPedia

Notice how the mountain in the background seems to change it's shape slightly between the photos? That is because it is a distant, three dimensional object.


Or, maybe it's a false "effect" created by the animation of two images taken at slightly different places and angles. That's why it appears to be three dimensional to you.
edit on 5-5-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 


WHY are people even engaging this person? With examples of posts, like this:


..... the so-called "parallax effect" (whatever that is).


I wish I had a "Toss Hands Up" emoticon.....

"so-called"??

"(whatever that is)"???!



>sigh< The instructor in me cannot allow even one little lamb to fail, without at least an effort...even IF I suspect I am being played as a troll-feeder:

mercurio, do you like videos? Can you watch them? Since an animated GIF of two images that compared (made your head hurt", just wanted to check.....hang on to your chair>

From Apollo 15, a video from on the LRV as they drove over the surface....looky, looky at the distance they travelled, and at the hills off in the far distance...compare it to other movies you may have seen, filmed from a moving car on Earth:




Are you going to make the effort to learn, or just play games, like a few others in this classroom?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 


What other photo?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 


Those two images are from the same viewpoint and angle viewing the same direction. The difference is the first is from Apollo moon landing, the second is from the Japanese moon mapper that creates a 3D mesh so a camera viewpoint can be directed to any position, like Google Earth. This Proves that NASA could only have taken the photo on that point on the moon. Digital photography didn't exist in 1972.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


I see no change in that background pic..
A change on angle should change the view slightly but I see nothing..



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 



From what I can tell, they are two images taken at slightly different places and angles. That accounts for the so-called "parallax effect" (whatever that is).


WHAT ? you dont even know what parralax is - but you dismiss the evidence ?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 443  444  445    447  448  449 >>

log in

join