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: 488
377
<< 485  486  487    489  490  491 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Again, I will state, why use that film for only one mission?
It wasn't used for only one mission.

Apollo 14, 70mm Magazine S
Apollo 15, 70mm Magazine R
Apollo 16, 70mm Magazine SS
Apollo 17, 70mm Magazine QQ
Apollo 17,70mm Magazine RR
Apollo 17, 35mm Magazine UU
Apollo 17, 35mm Magazine VV
Apollo 17, 35mm Magazine WW
Apollo 17, 35mm Magazine XX
Apollo 17, 35mm Magazine YY
Apollo 17, 35mm Magazine ZZ



Thanks, but this is major fail.
All the shots are from "orbit"
Nothing from the surface of the moon.
And they offer nothing different than the other speeds that were used.




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Not sure how that's a "fail." We were talking Apollo 8's use of 2485 film (which was to be used in orbit, obviously, as Apollo 8 never landed on the surface). You asked why that film wasn't used on other missions, I pointed out it was. I really don't get what photos taken from the surface have to do with anything.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM
 


Not sure how that's a "fail." We were talking Apollo 8's use of 2485 film (which was to be used in orbit, obviously, as Apollo 8 never landed on the surface). You asked why that film wasn't used on other missions, I pointed out it was. I really don't get what photos taken from the surface have to do with anything.


Fail part is, you are going to land people on the moon, and you only use this special film from orbit?
6000/16000 should be very grainy. What advantage would it have to take pictures of distant objects, like the moon's surface 50K away?

And again, why no astrophotography? That was the point of the original post. They had the cameras, they had the film, and no mission bothered to do any astrophotography. If they really went to the moon, they could really show off in so many more useful ways than to play golf.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



And again, why no astrophotography? That was the point of the original post. They had the cameras, they had the film, and no mission bothered to do any astrophotography.





Thats nice and all, but are you saying that astrophotography was impossible on the moon and/or in the CM/LM during the time of Apollo?


Rather than repeat myself again, why don't you go back to the last time you tried this gambit and work your way through the thread again yourself?
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Well, I see an 'anomaly' right off the bat, the 3 in question are at different distances. The middle on looks zoomed in~! Why are all 3 at different distances. ???


Personally FoosM, I think your right, I think they're miniatures, look at what they did with mini's in Indiana Jones movies, why couldn't it be done back then ?? To me, these pics point directly to miniature being used in the shots; I do NOT believe the person in the suit could have made all those adjustments in 4secs......and no motion blur......

I'll say it.... it's IMPOSSIBLE with that camera~!



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by FoosM
 


Well, I see an 'anomaly' right off the bat, the 3 in question are at different distances. The middle on looks zoomed in~! Why are all 3 at different distances. ???


Personally FoosM, I think your right, I think they're miniatures, look at what they did with mini's in Indiana Jones movies, why couldn't it be done back then ?? To me, these pics point directly to miniature being used in the shots; I do NOT believe the person in the suit could have made all those adjustments in 4secs......and no motion blur......

I'll say it.... it's IMPOSSIBLE with that camera~!


My sentiments exactly!
Im surprised that skeptics have not taken that photo series and run with it as evidence of fakery.
Nobody on either side have been able to offer logical explanations for all the apparent anomalies.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Im surprised that skeptics have not taken that photo series and run with it as evidence of fakery.
Nobody on either side have been able to offer logical explanations for all the apparent anomalies.


You mean blind hoax believers with no sense of time?





If you really want to re-live one of your greatest fails, you can go back and re-read starting here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 6-6-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



If you really want to re-live one of your greatest fails, you can go back and re-read starting here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


To be fair them photos were never resolved..
Maybe a few guesses at explanations but that's about all..

No one really explained the scenario with the sampler...



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



No one really explained the scenario with the sampler...


Because there were too many logical explanations. Remember FoosM's fallacy: "If there is more than one reasonable explanation for an event, it cannot have taken place?"



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



No one really explained the scenario with the sampler...

Because there were too many logical explanations. Remember FoosM's fallacy: "If there is more than one reasonable explanation for an event, it cannot have taken place?"


The only "logical' explanation is that the astronaut "threw" the sampler away..
To be honest I don't know much about the sampler and how they treated it..
Would they just throw it around?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



No one really explained the scenario with the sampler...


Because there were too many logical explanations. Remember FoosM's fallacy: "If there is more than one reasonable explanation for an event, it cannot have taken place?"


There was nothing logical about any of the explanations.
Stop trying to re-write history.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Stop trying to re-write history.


I am definitely not the one trying to rewrite history on this thread, you are.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



No one really explained the scenario with the sampler...

Because there were too many logical explanations. Remember FoosM's fallacy: "If there is more than one reasonable explanation for an event, it cannot have taken place?"


The only "logical' explanation is that the astronaut "threw" the sampler away..
To be honest I don't know much about the sampler and how they treated it..
Would they just throw it around?


litterbugs!
Throwing away was a theory proposed,
but of course I provided evidence that they were using it afterwards.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



The only "logical' explanation is that the astronaut "threw" the sampler away..


As the timing on the animation shows, the astronaut had the time to stow the sampler behind him. This is not a movie film, these are stills taken a second or two apart. One second is a longer time than we usually think. Here we go again: one hip-po-pot-a-mus.... Ample time to make a half turn and back.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



As the timing on the animation shows, the astronaut had the time to stow the sampler behind him. This is not a movie film, these are stills taken a second or two apart. One second is a longer time than we usually think. Here we go again: one hip-po-pot-a-mus.... Ample time to make a half turn and back.


One second is ample time??
Really??
Maybe you're forgetting what they were wearing..
Not so easy to turn around and stow the sampler with a full EVA suit on IMO..

But hell, you reckon they can so who am I to argue with an expert astronaut right?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
There was nothing logical about any of the explanations. Stop trying to re-write history.


Originally posted by DJW001
I am definitely not the one trying to rewrite history on this thread, you are.


Yes DJW, you are trying to re-write history AGAIN. After your fake photos I don't think we can trust much of what you say. Wow so many pages since I've been gone, can't wait to get back into it.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



The only "logical' explanation is that the astronaut "threw" the sampler away..


As the timing on the animation shows, the astronaut had the time to stow the sampler behind him. This is not a movie film, these are stills taken a second or two apart. One second is a longer time than we usually think. Here we go again: one hip-po-pot-a-mus.... Ample time to make a half turn and back.




More fantasy
You have yet to explain how a seated astronaut with a PLSS could turn around to stow away an item.




posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Yes DJW, you are trying to re-write history AGAIN. After your fake photos I don't think we can trust much of what you say. Wow so many pages since I've been gone, can't wait to get back into it.


MY fake photos? Where's the Exif data for the picture you posted? The one you used to "prove" the camera needs to be pointing at itself. Until you post that, you have zero credibility in my book.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



One second is ample time??
Really??
Maybe you're forgetting what they were wearing..
Not so easy to turn around and stow the sampler with a full EVA suit on IMO..


Clearly, we have different opinions, but at least you have the grace to admit its just an opinion. Have a star.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You have yet to explain how a seated astronaut with a PLSS could turn around to stow away an item.


And you have yet to explain why they couldn't.

Edit to add:

edit on 6-6-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 485  486  487    489  490  491 >>

log in

join