Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by DJW001

but your reputation is on the line, after all.

Really? You do think your statements are very important don't you?
You hope to instill fear in those who don't follow your mantra...
"I love NASA... I believe NASA... everything NASA says is true"

Why is my 'reputation on the line, after all" ?? Explain. I have a succesful life and career and my reputation doesn't hinge on wether or not man landed on the moon!

I summise you have become so deluded and blinded with your unflinching attititude that now you think that we are all Jarrah White!!

My reputation will not suffer by me making suggestions or writing some of my thoughts for the benifit of others. My life is not that shallow.

If all you have is ATS to boost your reputation and make you feel impoertant then I truly pity you.

I am here as a pleasant distraction. ATS is a great site with incredibly eloquant and intelligent posters, most of whom retain an elementt of courtesy in their posts, even if they vehemenantly disagree with others points of view. Others, and I'm afraid I would include you in this, seem intent on being uncharitable to the max and keep repeating the same old tune to whoever dare question the NASA os.

That is fine. You do your thang dude... but I would suggest life is too short to really get so worked up and think that my comments on ATS will affect my life in any other way at all.

Dream on. Like NASA. You are wrong. Again. And you keep repeating yourself. Like a record baby. Right round. Right round.

I am a D.J., I am what I play Can't turn around no, can't turn around, no, oh, ooh I am a D.J., I am what I play Can't turn around no, can't turn around, no, oh no

source: David Bowie: track DJ

reply to post by manmental


So... you admit you know nothing about film production. Cool. Good-night, ppk.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental

 

So... you admit you know nothing about film production. Cool. Good-night, ppk.

Nope. You are wrong.... yet again. Its becoming a habit and I think it suits you.

I have made three feature films and award winning promos, videos and short films. I have been involved in the film industry for over 30 years.

So I kind of know what I'm talking about when it comes to film thanks very much.

And your point was?

Pray tell what are your credentials to mock me so?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Komodo

 

Everyone KNOWS you can't see the stars THROUGH a camera Lens FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH..........as it has been proven ~!

Oh? How do you explain this then?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/db161bc5356a.jpg[/atsimg]
pointshootnedit.com...

The simple fact of the matter is that eyes, like cameras, adjust to different light conditions. As a survival mechanism, the pupil contracts much faster than it dilates. (In other words,if your eyes are used to the bright surface of the landscape, it will take longer for them to adjust to the dark, allowing you to see stars.)

wow.. you fell for it hook, line and sinker.. didn't you .. so WHY did you post the Picture of JUST the moon with no stars and what was your point ???? and what was your point using THIS picture LOL..

You see DJW001, it's very simple what your doing, but how can you say that the guys that flew to the moon couldn't see stars with their naked eyes if you are using this as an example to 'prove' to me we can.. LMAO ..

wow.. thx for pointing out that the guys that flew to the moon CAN/SHOULD/COULD have very well seen the stars based UPON these to pics >> ~!!

reply to post by manmental


just to interject - may i ask a question ?

based on your experience of fim making - do you believe in any of the hox believers claims in regard to the photgraphic records of the appolllo program ?

ie - shadows , lighting , perspective , c rock etc etc

Originally posted by manmental
Go on Foosm!
If they were so blinded by the brightness of everything that apparently prevented them from seeing stars in no atmosphere (ie nothing to block their view...) then how the %$£k could they drive that Moon Buggy so confidantly like Mad Max... ???

They weren't blinded. They were perfectly capable of seeing just fine in bright light. It just means their eyes were adjusted such that they were incapable of seeing stars. The eyes have an amazing dynamic range, meaning they are capable of seeing very dim and very bright things. However, the actual range they can see any one time is quite limited. Meaning if your eyes are adjusted to bright light, you can't see dim things. If your eyes are adjusted to dim light, bright light will overwhelm them. And it takes time to adjust from one extreme to the other.

reply to post by FoosM

That;s not the type of food I would be eating if I had a long journey close quarters and being shook like a mixed drink by the Saturn V.

you MUST stop this.. cuz' your making my ribs ache ~!!!! Now ......... plz stop.. ok .. well..

I would concure.. they're intestines would be HUGELY gurgling by tomorrow morning ..

reply to post by manmental

I live in London with masses of pollution and I can see stars, sometimes during the day.

I go to the countryside away from urban environments and the stars are so bright its breath-taking (i literally walked into a tree enthralled by the view

So on the moon, with NO atmosphere... I reckon, and this is me using common sense and experience, if I turn my back to the sun and look up I would &%^(ing see some stars.

I just reckon there;s a crock of something not quite right about NASA and what they claim about the moon.

EXACTLY~!!...........and to which I've seen ZERO evidence to suggest otherwise~!!! But DJ says we CAN see stars under our atmosphere with our naked eyes.. and EVEN with a camera and a telescope but ...

we can't with zero atmosphere on the moon OR in outer space (meaning, on the way to the moon, NOT LEO)

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental

 

I am a director and writer and vfx artist, so i hire a cinematographer who does the camera work.
But I have taken 1000's of photos in my life and think I've a good eye for composition.

Ah. I see. In that case, as a director, perhaps you can provide us with a breakdown of the various elements that needed to be co-ordinated for this project? I was an "associate producer" for a small theater company, so I know how tedious this gets... but your reputation is on the line, after all.

and your's ISN"T ~!!! that's laughable ~!!!!!

2nd to be sure..

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by manmental

 

just to interject - may i ask a question ?

based on your experience of fim making - do you believe in any of the hox believers claims in regard to the photgraphic records of the appolllo program ?

ie - shadows , lighting , perspective , c rock etc etc

c-rock: BS I started my career in the art department (worked on tons of big budget films and promos.) I've never ever heard of marking stage rocks and we used fake rocks loads!

I truly believe NASA recreated a lot, if not ALL, their photographic (and very possibly video) evidence on Earth.
I'm not even sure NASA went to the moon but the photos are pure fantasy.

There are definite weird anomalies with lighting and shadows. Like I said previously some Hoax believers spread themselves too thin and say every photo shows anomalies.

This destroys their arguements. A lot of the shadows and lighting and 'similar BG' theories are easily debunked by knowledge of camera lenses, un-even terrain and perspective.

But these very variables would be known to any expert in visual effects in 1969... and NASA had the money to pull off a simulation... the live video feed was orchestrated so that the worlds media had to film it off a screen. The videos are hokey to say the least. Nothing I've seen in the NASA videos couldn't have been done on Earth.... either in a studio, or with miniatures and on location, using 'day for night' basic image manipulation and keying in the black 'sky'.

I have also been involved in miniature model making and I know the level of detail one can achieve with models.

So... yes... lots of photos look odd. So do lots of videos.

I would definitely say there are key photos that are sure fire re-creations on earth based on the lighting, composition and circumstance, but I choose to focus on close up hi res photos rather than blurry stuff that is open to so much misinterpretation.

I enjoy sitting on the fence as to wether man set foot on moon. I enjoy preaching my belief that the photos are faked. Why wouldn't they be? If the film was all ruined NASA would fake the pics.... surely.

The photos look fake. NASA is the source of the reality of the missions and NASA says the photos are taken on the moon. I don't trust NASA.

Originally posted by manmental

Originally posted by DJW001
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ed796767291.jpg[/atsimg]

Easy... because the Earth has an atmosphere for starters, so atmospherics come into play.

Secondly, the photo looks like its had some subtle manipulation, like a filter was used, for aesthitic purposes.

Thirdly... I would say its a very long exposure... to achieve this level of visibility for all subejects in view.

Fourthly, it could be a composite.
...

Must reply quickly to this one.

1) Earths athmosphere actually doesn't affect star light that much. It dims it very little but at the same time it spreads it making stars look bigger than without an athmosphere.

2) Where does it look like a manipulation?

3) It's not a very long exposure. Just look at the foreground. It's pitch black.

4) Could be. However if you have doubts about this photo then just take a camera and take the same shot yourself. I have done it. Anyone who can get their hands on a camera and some form of stabilization such as a tripod can. Pointless to make assumption about such a picture on the net before you do that.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by manmental

Originally posted by DJW001
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ed796767291.jpg[/atsimg]

Easy... because the Earth has an atmosphere for starters, so atmospherics come into play.

Secondly, the photo looks like its had some subtle manipulation, like a filter was used, for aesthitic purposes.

Thirdly... I would say its a very long exposure... to achieve this level of visibility for all subejects in view.

Fourthly, it could be a composite.
...

Must reply quickly to this one.

1) Earths athmosphere actually doesn't affect star light that much. It dims it very little but at the same time it spreads it making stars look bigger than without an athmosphere.

2) Where does it look like a manipulation?

3) It's not a very long exposure. Just look at the foreground. It's pitch black.

4) Could be. However if you have doubts about this photo then just take a camera and take the same shot yourself. I have done it. Anyone who can get their hands on a camera and some form of stabilization such as a tripod can. Pointless to make assumption about such a picture on the net before you do that.

1) A hazy sky would obscure stars.
2)Er.... because it looks un-real (have you ever seen this?) it could be a composite... i do composites for a living and it would be easy to grab a still of the moon and the hill and 'comp' them together seemlessly.
3) So? Check out lots of long exposures and the FG is black. Means nothing.
4) Where is the exif data? camera type. lens. aperture. f stop. exposure. shutter speed. etc etc

Pointless to post a random photo without the relevant data to support its inclusion.

1) A hazy sky would infact obscure any light including star light and sun light.
2) Doesn't look unreal to me at all.
3) If it were a long exposure the foreground can stay pitch black but the moon would just blow out totally. That of course could mean a combosite however taking this shot without using composite method shouldn't be a problem.
4) Yeah I'd like to see the info too. I can post some of my own moon shots for the hoax believers to dwell upon. I can even go one step further and post them as raw files too cause I dont care about the copyrights on them.

reply to post by manmental

I have also been involved in miniature model making and I know the level of detail one can achieve with models.

Really? How old are you?

I enjoy sitting on the fence as to wether man set foot on moon.

Excellent. Quick, if you are sitting on the fence, please present the three best arguments in favor of the reality of the lunar landings.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental

 

I have also been involved in miniature model making and I know the level of detail one can achieve with models.

Really? How old are you?

Old enough to make miniature buildings for Tim Burtons BATMAN movie (1989)

Back before CGI young man.

reply to post by DJW001

Excellent. Quick, if you are sitting on the fence, please present the three best arguments in favor of the reality of the lunar landings.

OK master... hang on... er... you almost trick minded me... 'in favor (US spelling) of the reality of the lunar landings'....
easy

1. The media.
2. Hope.
3. You and Weed.

Ok so I'll dumb few moon shots. Even in the darkest ones of these the moon is completely and totally blown out. Had I exposed the moon properly none of the other detail would survive. It would all just be pitch black. I also dumb some moon shot raw files so you can dig into it. Seems that some people might not want to go outside and take shots for themselves.

reply to post by manmental


So, either you are not "on the fence," or there is no evidence that the lunar landings were " faked." Which is it?

Ok so I'm not going to post the raw files after all. Fireftp decided to lie to me about my disc quota. Here's some straight form the cam jpeg's anyway. Moon pics. No critique thought This patch was taken when I first got a proper camera and I had absolutely no idea what I was doing
Especially telling is this one

reply to post by DJW001


You appear to be dodging a lot of questions asked of you in the last few pages..

Isn't that something you complain about others doing?
Are you going to answer them?