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: 454
377
<< 451  452  453    455  456  457 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I've read Jaques Ellul I know what propaganda is. Class dismissed.


Then why are you so bad at it? Were you implying that the crowd celebrating on the ABC coverage were making secret hand signals? So, in addition to the 400,000 people who actually worked on the space program, there were thousands of extras hired by TV networks to "fake" celebrating? Tell me, Sayonara, who wasn't in on it?


If you had watched the video you might have been mildly entertained by two dudes flipping the bird to the ABC camera. I thought it was a funny thing and worth pointing out to anyone who is studying the subject of media & Apollo


Here's is what I really wrote

pay special attention at about 1:00 in this video down in the bottom left there are some dudes making some interesting hand signals.


Does DJW001 purposefully replace "interesting" with "secret"? Yes.
Does DJW001 engage in propaganda or was this an editing mistake? It was propaganda.
Why was it propaganda? Because DJW001 next dredges up the old "400,000 people" counter-claim so beloved by the NASA cheerleading squad and he rather unskillfully tries to pin that claim on me when I didn't make it.

I'm quite sure that 000063 could tell us what kind of fallacy that is, won't you?




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Got any of that proof yet that men landed on the moon??


That's not the point of this thread. It's about a young aussie "genius" that has been shown to be a liar. Got any proof that he's merely incompetent yet?


There you go again using that L-word because your argument is without merit.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Does DJW001 purposefully replace "interesting" with "secret"? Yes.
Does DJW001 engage in propaganda or was this an editing mistake? It was propaganda.
Why was it propaganda? Because DJW001 next dredges up the old "400,000 people" counter-claim so beloved by the NASA cheerleading squad and he rather unskillfully tries to pin that claim on me when I didn't make it.

I'm quite sure that 000063 could tell us what kind of fallacy that is, won't you?


I'm sorry for misquoting you, it wasn't intentional. The accusation of propaganda still stands, however. Why don't you simply type "America sucks" over and over again, it's really all you are trying to say anyway.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



There you go again using that L-word because your argument is without merit.


Which argument? The one where I showed that Jarrah lied about the "polar orbit?" The one where I showed that he lied about Kovalev's research? I'm still waiting for the Jarrah Squad to admit that these were bare faced lies.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Hey FoosM here is some originally broadcast ABC footage of an ABC News sponsored event for the Apollo 11 moon landing.




Let me get this straight SJ.
What you are saying is that only ABC showed the live footage of the Apollo 11 landing?
How could a public station, get exclusive deal for a public event such as the landing?

So what exclusives did NBC and CBS get?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



There you go again using that L-word because your argument is without merit.


Are you talking about the studio model used to fill in the empty visual space?


jra

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You may not, but thats how they are being defined.
So it could very well be that you are not seeing the originals, correct?


Well I honestly have no idea. It's the only online source I've found for them. (Link)


There you lost me. What does orbiting the moon have to do with photos of the Earth?


Because on page 2 and after that (Link for anyone who may have missed it before). They begin to not only match up weather patterns from Earth, but also match up Lunar craters in the photos to the known positions of where the CSM should have been in orbit of the Moon at that time. Some of those photos include part of the window frame from the CSM in the foreground, with an approaching LM Ascent module. That's starting to get pretty elaborate and complex for it to be faked in my opinion.


Now here is the kicker. All Apollo photography is suspect. Why? Because nobody got to see them till some time after the missions. Plenty of time for photo manipulation. Would you agree with that?


I would agree that nobody saw them till they were brought back to Earth, developed and then published. Not for the manipulation. I have yet to see any convincing photo manipulations from that time period. The lack of digital photo editing software would mean this would have to be all done by hand.


The only strong evidence that one could possibly use is LIVE tv footage that showed the Earth. And then matching that image of Earth to satellite imagery. Do we have any examples of that?


Yes, we sure do. Here's a link to another thread in that forum, which compares images of Earth from both the live video and still photography to the known weather patterns of that time.


Lets get into that. Analyze what is going on here. And why I ask the question, what part of the documentary was a lie?


Everything from start to finish was a joke. It was not a serious documentary.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Quoting because FoosM seems to have missed it. And this one too. A source Jarrah (mis)quoted said the radiation dose would be survivable. If he quoted it, and you're arguing that Jarrah is credible, then his source must be credible too. Which means he either misread or lied about the content of his source.

Alternately, he quoted a source which isn't credible, which made a mistake, which means his point about the radiation being unsurvivable is unsupported.

You, of course, have been dodging around admitting Jarrah was wrong about it. He makes a lot of points in his series; even if he was wrong about this one, he has plenty of other points. Why are you refusing to admit that he was incorrect on this one point?

And before you say "prove it", he displayed the unshielded radiation dosage. He even highlighted the part where it says "unshielded" in his video. That's about as useful for calculating the astronaut's exposure as, oh, trying to figure out how wet a naked man gets when you're aiming a hose at him, despite the fact that the guy you'll be dousing is wearing a drysuit and a raincoat.


Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Illustronic

Nobody is going to be able to explain to you what things should look like on the moon because your understanding of such things, as this Ausie kid's understanding of things, is horribly lacking.


On the one hand you say nobody/ will be able to explain it:
(Because no man has been on the moon)
Affirming the consequent.


On the other hand you say we lack understanding.
(as in we should know how these things should look like)
Scientists have confirmed it. Repeatedly. Expecting Joe Citizen to know what it "should" look like is a recipe for disaster. For example, Christopher Columbus knew the world was round. A lot of people did. Napoleon wasn't particularly short for his day. The Salem Witch Trials never burned anyone at the stake. A lot of popular conceptions about how things "should" be are just plain wrong.


Well since you believe man has landed on the moon, and you know how this should look like,
explain why it looks so fake, or why the way it looks, looks right!
Here's a new tactic; explain what scientists have confirmed that it looks "wrong", or that the facts are incorrect. Scientists in the field of study in question, that is. No linking to Jarrah videos. I want you to find something yourself.
edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: Stupid confusing tags.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





No, Sayanara, FoosM prevaricates; Jarrah White full on lies


Hi DJ. Can you help me? How do differenciate between a lie , as in knowingly trying to decieve, and a mistake, as in giving wrong information?

You reference instances where Jarrah made ERRORS... how do you know they were 'lies'??

Once again I question your vitriol. It seems way out of line with what young Jarrah is trying to achieve through time and effort. The poor man gets so much stick... why would he continue doing this if he didn't BELIEVE???

Would you agree that Jarrah is sincere in his beliefs?

Oh, and here is young Jarrah's latest video updating his status... NOT the moon rock videos but he does explain what is happening to them (this month him say)... very interesting information about youtube's strange censorship policy. Whoever wrote that legal speak from moonmovie.com deserves a pat on the back.




edit on 15-5-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



Hi DJ. Can you help me? How do differenciate between a lie , as in knowingly trying to decieve, and a mistake, as in giving wrong information?

You reference instances where Jarrah made ERRORS... how do you know they were 'lies'??


When Jarrah quoted the paper from Kovalev, he would have known that Kovalev's data was in accord with NASA's, yet he claimed otherwise. I suppose it's possible that someone else had given him the cherry picked information, which he used without further investigation, in which case he was simply lazy. On the other hand, when he claimed that he was making the "polar orbit" argument in an attempt to "trap" his opponents he was deliberately misrepresenting his position, which would be lying, or else lying when he said that he intentionally misrepresented his position; either way he lied... and was proud of it.


Once again I question your vitriol. It seems way out of line with what young Jarrah is trying to achieve through time and effort. The poor man gets so much stick... why would he continue doing this if he didn't BELIEVE???


If Jarrah simply presented his case objectively, people would refute him calmly. Unfortunately, it is Jarrah that sets the tone:


Mr. Windley, I call you Mister because I doubt you are even qualified to be a garbage truck driver...I recorded it (Just so I could laugh at your and Jim Oberg's ignorance "... Sometimes I think NASA picks its employees off the street...if I were a teacher and you were one of my students I'd instantly stamp your report with an F and tell you to go home and be more thorough.... Am I going too fast for your pea brain? Let me go slower. ...Until you can conduct a proper experiment Windley, your results are[vile language deleted]. What next? Are you going to go round insisting that the moon is made of cheese? My IQ is above 150 and I eat Swiss cheese minded propagandists like you Mr Windley for breakfast. You know what I find most ironic about that disgraceful documentary? "If we look very closely, we can see the LEM did in fact disturb a fair bit of dust, just not enough to cover the landing pads" BWAAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!!!! And there the propagandists go, contradicting the very words from the astronaut's mouth "We're picking up somedust!"..."We're picking up some dust!" [repeated 15 times!--DJW001]...Sigh. I wish the pro-NASA morons could go off to their fantasy world and leave us intelligent people in peace. In the words of my late grandfather, you might as well believe in Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs. In the end its just scientific vandalism, pathetic really.

Jarrah White
Surely you remember this. Jarrah is little more than a mean spirited bully who refuses to respect anyone. Why should he expect respect in return? I am giving him the benefit of the doubt in claiming that he is insincere and merely making these ridiculous videos as a means to draw attention to himself. If he is sincere, he must be delusional, as he himself has seen all the evidence that contradicts his claims.



Would you agree that Jarrah is sincere in his beliefs?


No. No-one who is intelligent enough to operate that editing software can be so stupid as to not know how shadows form, or honestly believe that any government, however evil, would spend $25,400,000.000 (in 1975 dollars) on a hoax. (World War II only cost $300,000,000 in 1945 dollars)


Oh, and here is young Jarrah's latest video updating his status... NOT the moon rock videos but he does explain what is happening to them (this month him say)... very interesting information about youtube's strange censorship policy. Whoever wrote that legal speak from moonmovie.com deserves a pat on the back.


Typical Jarrah; he blames someone else for the delay. His outraged letter to YouTube was hilarious. I'm glad someone stood up to his bullying... and now he is trying to bully YouTube management. Where did he come up with that dollar figure for damages? Does he really think that his little self inflicted annoyances are that important? Here's what Google's legal response is going to be:


YouTube reserves the right to decide whether Content violates these Terms of Service for reasons other than copyright infringement, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscenity, or excessive length. YouTube may at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, remove such Content and/or terminate a user's account for submitting such material in violation of these Terms of Service.

www.youtube.com...

Buh-bye, Jarrah.

edit on 15-5-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.

edit on 15-5-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Hey FoosM here is some originally broadcast ABC footage of an ABC News sponsored event for the Apollo 11 moon landing.




Let me get this straight SJ.
What you are saying is that only ABC showed the live footage of the Apollo 11 landing?
How could a public station, get exclusive deal for a public event such as the landing?

So what exclusives did NBC and CBS get?



During the Apollo moon landing broadcasted by the three major North American networks ABC, NBC and CBS.. it was late at night of July 21st, 1969.... each network presented slightly differing versions of history that evening... this is a fact. In the smallest of these variations we might find new questions to ask about Apollo

New questions that might just one day prove to be the breakthrough that removes one of truth's protective layers...

[yvid]

CBS got the live Nixon split-screen telephone call with Nixon but ABC did not.
ABC had the outdoor event with the people gathering to see the broadcast on a large screen and the very nice model of the Apollo LEM as seen in the picture above.
NBC... not sure yet. I haven't reviewed enough of the material.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



No. No-one who is intelligent enough to operate that editing software can be so stupid as to not know how shadows form, or honestly believe that any government, however evil, would spend $25,400,000.000 (in 1975 dollars) on a hoax. (World War II only cost $300,000,000 in 1945 dollars)


Who says all that money was spent on Apollo??
Governments funnel money away to other projects all the time..
Some even suggest Apollo was an excuse to do just that..



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Like Clock Work... Orange




The Zeiss 50mm and 36.5mm, f/0.7 lenses used to film candlelight sequences for "Barry Lyndon" without the addition of artificial light were originally still-camera lenses developed for use by NASA in the Apollo Moon-landing program, and modified by Cinema Products Corp. The 50mm lens, shown here in focusing mount, had to have the adjustable shutter blade, necessary for still photography, removed for filming... There were were only 10 of these Zeiss lenses ever produced. Three are owned by Kubrick, six by NASA and one can be found at the German Movie Museum in Frankfurt.


And they couldnt take picture of stars

Ok so what was the purpose of all those black skies in the video and film?
Well probably to hide the support rigging and wires.

I began to think though that there must be some evidence for this somewhere.
Some tell tale sign of the effect... I may have found that something.

It comes from the Orange Soil scene.
This video:




This video documents the initial field interpretation that the orange soil collected at Station 4 (Shorty Crater) was an oxide. It turned out to be composed of pyroclastic glass particles ejected by the impact which created Shorty. This was the only pyroclastic material sampled from a known stratigraphic context on the lunar surface.


What I like you all to to focus on is 0:17 to 0:18 where the actor has turned and hopped.
Take a look at the PLSS
The top portion of the PLSS



What did you just see happen?
Did it appear to you, like it did to me, that the PLSS was darkened by a shadow?
Of course, if you look at the whole scene we have to ask ourselves, the shadow of what?
What made a portion of the PLSS disappear?



I submit to you this as evidence for tell tale signs of special effects!




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Like Clock Work... Orange




We bought an old Newman Sinclair clockwork mechanism camera (no pun intended) for 40 Pounds. It's a beautiful camera and it's built like a battleship. We made a number of polystyrene boxes which gave about 18 inches of protection around the camera, and cut out a slice for the lens. We then threw the camera off a roof. In order to get it to land lens first, we had to do this six times and the camera survived all six drops. On the final one it landed right on the lens and smashed it but it didn't do a bit of harm to the camera. This, despite the fact that the polystyrene was literally blasted away from it each time by the impact. The next day we shot a steady test on the camera and found there wasn't a thing wrong with it. On this basis, I would say that the Newman Sinclair must be the most indestructible camera ever made.


Same video, same scene:

Pay attention to the following:


Now here is my question, due to the lack of atmosphere, should there be any resistance affecting that bag, when the actor moves?



Because it appears that inertia is in effect!






www.visual-memory.co.uk...
blog.glassquarterly.com...



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



During the Apollo moon landing broadcasted by the three major North American networks ABC, NBC and CBS.. it was late at night of July 21st, 1969.... each network presented slightly differing versions of history that evening... this is a fact.


Believe it or not, in the United States TV networks are free to make their own editorial decisions. Each network received the feed from NASA, but each also had cameras of their own recording people's reactions, or providing commentary or even showing models and artists' conceptions to enhance the viewing experience. Why do you have a problem understanding this?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



And they couldnt take picture of stars





posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Because it appears that inertia is in effect!

Correct; inertia is in effect. Inertia and momentum work exactly the Same on the Moon as on Earth or in space. That's why the sample bags bobble and swing the way they do.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



And they couldnt take picture of stars

files.abovetopsecret.com...[/atsimg]


As expected, DJW001 disregards all other evidence and just focuses on trying to prove you cant
take pictures of stars on the moon.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Because it appears that inertia is in effect!

Correct; inertia is in effect. Inertia and momentum work exactly the Same on the Moon as on Earth or in space. That's why the sample bags bobble and swing the way they do.


Oh yeah? If thats the case why did Mythbusters make such a big issue about it with their flag episode?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by DJW001
 





No, Sayanara, FoosM prevaricates; Jarrah White full on lies


Hi DJ. Can you help me? How do differenciate between a lie , as in knowingly trying to decieve, and a mistake, as in giving wrong information?

You reference instances where Jarrah made ERRORS... how do you know they were 'lies'??

Once again I question your vitriol. It seems way out of line with what young Jarrah is trying to achieve through time and effort. The poor man gets so much stick... why would he continue doing this if he didn't BELIEVE???

Would you agree that Jarrah is sincere in his beliefs?

Oh, and here is young Jarrah's latest video updating his status... NOT the moon rock videos but he does explain what is happening to them (this month him say)... very interesting information about youtube's strange censorship policy. Whoever wrote that legal speak from moonmovie.com deserves a pat on the back.

iA2vl0p-pIk


edit on 15-5-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)
I've already claimed that DJ is being a bit uncharitable. Incompetence is only slightly less credible than actively lying, after all.

It's also rather hypocritical of Jarrah to complain about YT's policy when he's known for filing DMCAs against the people who criticize him.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 451  452  453    455  456  457 >>

log in

join