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: 490
377
<< 487  488  489    491  492  493 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I think you are just trying to fill this page with junk posts to move the thread away from
new readers that may discover NASA lies like this great photo mystery:


What great mystery do you see in these photos? The shots that have the Earth in frame, the astronaut who took them had to nearly get down on his knees to get it in frame. They were taken from a lower angle than the ones that don't show the Earth above.




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Oh dear... now we have to try to explain parallax to you again. I've taken some photos that might explain things for you, but at this point I'm not sure they will help. I'll sleep on it and decide in the morning.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


before addressing that montage - i want to know the nasa numbers of the pics



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


get the feeling that foosm is going round in circles ?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
He could easily have raised it beside his head and let it slide down behind his back. Thanks!


Oh come on stop playing around.
Lets get serious here.
I dont think you believe what you just wrote.
FoosM, you seem to be calling DJ a liar. Are you calling him a liar? If not, then what are you calling him?


You seem awfully interested in non interesting things.
You just made three posts that could have been made into one.
And neither has anything to do with with proving the moon landing happened.
Or, debunking JW or any other evidence of fakery.

I think you are just trying to fill this page with junk posts to move the thread away from
new readers that may discover NASA lies like this great photo mystery:
I'm merely asking for a clarification of the point you were trying to make in the post in question.

Let me simplify: Were you calling DJ a liar? It's a binary question. Yes or no.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

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


Actually they didn't had to turn around or anything.

As you can see in the following pictures. It should be quite easy for them to just put away anything on that bag thingy they had on the side of the PLSS, that was exactly for that pourpose.


Jack Schmitt and Gene Cernan ride rover test vehicle during geology/EVA training. September 8, 1972:


Harrison Schmitt and Eugene Cernan practice taking lunar soil and rock samples during an EVA exercise. August 28, 1972:


Schmitt jumping into the LMP Rover seat at Station 9:


edit on 8-6-2011 by hateeternal because: (no reason given)



You might want to check this out also:
PLSS Tool carrier Harness.

now...you were saying??
edit on 8-6-2011 by hateeternal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by hateeternal
 



As you can see in the following pictures. It should be quite easy for them to just put away anything on that bag thingy they had on the side of the PLSS, that was exactly for that pourpose.


But he didn't...
How about you concentrate on the "actual" pics and subject in question..

Where did the sampler go in the "pics" being discussed?
It is NOT in the "baggy thingy" and that's not really where it's meant to go anyway..



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by hateeternal
 



As you can see in the following pictures. It should be quite easy for them to just put away anything on that bag thingy they had on the side of the PLSS, that was exactly for that pourpose.


But he didn't...
How about you concentrate on the "actual" pics and subject in question..

Where did the sampler go in the "pics" being discussed?
It is NOT in the "baggy thingy" and that's not really where it's meant to go anyway..


Can you point me to where the original set of pictures is. Only then I can concentrate in the "Pics" being discussed.
I don't care about you're animated gif. it doesn't tell me anything.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hateeternal
 



Can you point me to where the original set of pictures is. Only then I can concentrate in the "Pics" being discussed.
I don't care about you're animated gif. it doesn't tell me anything.


They are in the thread..
The way you jumped in with all the answers I assumed you knew where..

I haven't posted an animated gif...



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by hateeternal
 



Can you point me to where the original set of pictures is. Only then I can concentrate in the "Pics" being discussed.
I don't care about you're animated gif. it doesn't tell me anything.


They are in the thread..
The way you jumped in with all the answers I assumed you knew where..

I haven't posted an animated gif...


ahah I'm in this thread since the day it began. but yeah today i jumped back in and didn't read all the remaining posts since my last visit. I'll get to it and I hope I can find that set of pictures...and what the actual problem with the dissapearing sampler is?


edit on 8-6-2011 by hateeternal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

We know the entire event too no longer than 4 seconds.
The three photos would have to be taken within those 4 seconds.
The camera takes one second to wind the roll for the next shot.
That does not include the time it takes for the photographer to press the trigger for each photo.

The photos however do not show the astronaut jumping up, hovering, and landing in his seat.
All three photos are after the initial jump. So basically you would have to say it took 3 seconds to land!



Still think its a non-issue? Are you being intellectually honest?
In those 3 seconds, the astronaut managed to pull out the LRV sampler, change hands, and made it disappear.
All this with no motion blur in the photos.

Its MAGIC look!




Please tell me why do you think these picures had to be taken in 4 secs. Only one of the pictures is described as being Schmitt jumping into the rover. the other pics could have been taken any time after that. a minute, 30 secs. But why do you say they are taken in a max period of 4 secs?? i just dont get it. do you have proof that the pictures were taken in sequence in that time-frame? I'd like to see that...

you can clearly see that these pictures were not taken on that time-frame, the photographer ( Cernan) was in diferent positions on the 3 pictures. what about that?
edit on 8-6-2011 by hateeternal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal

Originally posted by FoosM

We know the entire event too no longer than 4 seconds.
The three photos would have to be taken within those 4 seconds.
The camera takes one second to wind the roll for the next shot.
That does not include the time it takes for the photographer to press the trigger for each photo.

The photos however do not show the astronaut jumping up, hovering, and landing in his seat.
All three photos are after the initial jump. So basically you would have to say it took 3 seconds to land!



Still think its a non-issue? Are you being intellectually honest?
In those 3 seconds, the astronaut managed to pull out the LRV sampler, change hands, and made it disappear.
All this with no motion blur in the photos.

Its MAGIC look!




Please tell me why do you think these picures had to be taken in 4 secs. Only one of the pictures is described as being Schmitt jumping into the rover. the other pics could have been taken any time after that. a minute, 30 secs. But why do you say they are taken in a max period of 4 secs?? i just dont get it. do you have proof that the pictures were taken in sequence in that time-frame? I'd like to see that...

you can clearly see that these pictures were not taken on that time-frame, the photographer ( Cernan) was in diferent positions on the 3 pictures. what about that?
edit on 8-6-2011 by hateeternal because: (no reason given)


Ready to become an Apollo moon landing skeptic? A hoax believer?

Here is part one the original post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is what NASA said:


Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping in his seat. The three pictures are AS17-134- 20452, 20453, and 20454.


You see, they didnt say Gene goes to to the front of the rover to take a PICTURE of Jack jumping into his seat. They say he took PICTURES, that means the act of jumping was recording in a sequence. Like you would take, depending how fast your camera was, a series of pictures of a dolphin jumping out of the pool in a water park.

In the transcript CERNAN confirms:



168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.


Now pay attention to the time: Jack asked ready... four seconds later Gene claims he is finished.



Between "Ready" and "I got three of them"
there are only 4 seconds.
The photos only show the landing sequence of the event.
Not the take-off.
So thats 3 photos for just the landing in the seat portion.


You can see that easier here in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So now its clear that the intention of this part of the script was to take
a series of photos of Jack jumping into the LM.
Problem is, the Hasselblad was not a fast camera.
It took one second for the roll of film to wind.
And jumping into the rover only takes about one second!

Now, NASA was smart enough to know they needed at least 2 seconds for time.
Because between each photo a second passes. So they gave four seconds for the event.

But, at most, Gene could have captured one photo of Jack actually jumping.
But Gene captured supposedly three photos:

The first photo we see Jack elevated right above his seat as if he just jumped and
the cameraman pressed the trigger right after.
A plausible photo if one was taking a photo of somebody jumping:



But then, in the second photo, Jack is still elevated above his seat just little lower.
Thats impossible with a camera that takes a second to wind to set up a new shot!


Finally the third, Jack has touched or just landed in the seat:



Now lets get back to what you said, because us skeptics have noticed it too:



But why do you say they are taken in a max period of 4 secs?? i just dont get it. do you have proof that the pictures were taken in sequence in that time-frame? I'd like to see that...

you can clearly see that these pictures were not taken on that time-frame, the photographer ( Cernan) was in diferent positions on the 3 pictures. what about that?


The photographer was in different positions on the 3 pictures!
Yeah, explain that! Explain how that is possible in four seconds to capture a one second jump!
And there is no indication that he bounced. LOL.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Ready to become an Apollo moon landing skeptic? A hoax believer?

Here is part one the original post:


And here's the part where your original post starts to get demolished:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you're just going to repeat your tired old "arguments," I might as well repeat myself, too.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



And here's the part where your original post starts to get demolished:


Really??
Demolished is such a strong word..
You must read "between" the lines because I see no full explanation for those pics as yet..

Enlighten us with "facts" DJW, not mere possible explanations that have been suggested but not properly proven..



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

If you're just going to repeat your tired old "arguments," I might as well repeat myself, too.


I was asked a question, thats what I was addressing.
We didnt need your input. Stop trying to interrupt and derail conversations.
You cant let other people think and answer for themselves can you?

edit on 9-6-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Here is what NASA said:
Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping in his seat. The three pictures are AS17-134- 20452, 20453, and 20454.


It says that Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping ON his seat, not jumping into his seat!! So...that doesn't mean the act of jumping was recorded in sequence, because what they wanted was to catch Jack in mid-air...that's why Gene took 3 pictures...


168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.

Yes I had noticed that, but it doesn't mean that Cernan took the 3 pictures after he said ready??. actually for what I can understand Cernan was already taking the pictures and then he might have noticed that Jack was putting away the sampler and then after that Schmitt asked Cernan if he was ready to capture another jump... the 3 pictures are nothing more than 3 attemps of Cernan trying to catch Jack in mid-air.

When Jack asks Cernan if he is ready he didn't get an answer did he?? so...there's no evidence that he actually started to take the sequence of pictures then...saying that he got three of them that time doesn't mean he really got the three of them that time. you can see after that on the rest of the conversation, Cernan telling Shmitt that he hopes that the pics came out!!

168:47:25 Cernan: I hope they (the pictures) came out.

edit on 9-6-2011 by hateeternal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001

If you're just going to repeat your tired old "arguments," I might as well repeat myself, too.


I was asked a question, thats what I was addressing.
We didnt need your input. Stop trying to interrupt and derail conversations.
You cant let other people think and answer for themselves can you?

edit on 9-6-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)
Speaking of which, for the third and last time, were you calling DJ a liar?

Because if you refuse to answer, I'm just going to assume you agree with his post, and you think it was perfectly possible for the astronaut to just drop the object behind him.

All I'm asking is whether you think DJ was telling what he thought to be the truth, or a deliberate falsehood.
edit on 2011/6/9 by 000063 because: -

edit on 2011/6/9 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 



Because if you refuse to answer, I'm just going to assume you agree with his post, and you think it was perfectly possible for the astronaut to just drop the object behind him.
All I'm asking is whether you think DJ was telling what he thought to be the truth, or a deliberate


What's this liar stuff??

I think you'll find DJ was merely giving an opinion, NOT an answer..
Who know's if DJ believes that's the true explanation?
Ask him, not Foosm..



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I was asked a question, thats what I was addressing.
We didnt need your input. Stop trying to interrupt and derail conversations.
You cant let other people think and answer for themselves can you?


Yes, hateternal was asking you a question about a subject that you brought up back here again in an attempt to deflect from your failing "No Stars" gambit. How can contributing a link to a post that analyzes the photographs in question be construed as either an interruption or a derailment? As for letting people think for themselves, I'm all for it. Hateternal has correctly surmised that your time analyses is faulty. Bravo!



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



Because if you refuse to answer, I'm just going to assume you agree with his post, and you think it was perfectly possible for the astronaut to just drop the object behind him.
All I'm asking is whether you think DJ was telling what he thought to be the truth, or a deliberate


What's this liar stuff??

I think you'll find DJ was merely giving an opinion, NOT an answer..
Who know's if DJ believes that's the true explanation?
Ask him, not Foosm..
FoosM said he didn't believe that DJ believed what he was saying. Twice. That sounds like FoosM was accusing DJ of being a liar. I asked him for clarification once, and he tried to change the subject. I asked him again, and he ignored it. All I want is for him to tell me, in a direct statement, if he was calling DJ a liar. FoosM has a pathological aversion to direct statements, haven't you noticed? Even the simplest ones. I wonder what's so hard about saying "I think you're lying"?

EDIT: I would like to point out that FoosM saying DJ is not a liar does not necessarily mean he thinks DJ is right. There's still the possibility that DJ is honestly wrong. However, FoosM seems to have asserted that DJ is deliberately lying, and that's what I'm asking after.
edit on 2011/6/9 by 000063 because: +



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 487  488  489    491  492  493 >>

log in

join