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.
Really??
Demolished is such a strong word..
Ready to become an Apollo moon landing skeptic? A hoax believer?
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.
Originally posted by hateeternal
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!!
AS17-134-20452 (OF300) ( 124k or 744k )
168:47:03 Station 9. Jack mounting LRV, sunstruck.
AS17-134-20453 (OF300) ( 176k or 1008k )
168:47:03 The second of three photos Gene took of Jack jumping into the LMP Rover seat. Good view of the segmented mirror on the top of the TV camera. Jack has the LRV sampler in his right hand.
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!!
Originally posted by 000063
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"?
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..
How is this, I dont think DJ believed what he was saying, and I doubt you believed him as well.
Pay close attention to the word "mounting".
Can you inform us what you believe the word "mounting" means?
Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, so you would like to interpret "Jack jumping in his seat" to "Jack jumping on his seat" ? So what you are saying is that Gene was taking pictures of Jack bouncing on his seat? Is that correct?
Originally posted by FoosM
Let me provide you with NASA's own words.
And you simply will have to state if you agree or disagree with NASA's own statement.
Because Im not making this up. This is what NASA has said. So if you disagree with it, you do understand that you are disagreeing with NASA.
Photo 1.
AS17-134-20452 (OF300) ( 124k or 744k )
168:47:03 Station 9. Jack mounting LRV, sunstruck.
AS17-134-20453 (OF300) ( 176k or 1008k )
168:47:03 The second of three photos Gene took of Jack jumping into the LMP Rover seat. Good view of the segmented mirror on the top of the TV camera. Jack has the LRV sampler in his right hand.
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.
Originally posted by FoosM
Now let me ask you this. If Jack was jumping INTO his seat during the second photo.
What was he actually doing in the first photo? Was that the same action? In other words, part of the same jump? Or would you say that Jack jumped into his seat, got back off the rover, then jumped back into his seat again?
Did you really need me to provide such obvious information DJ? Please, anybody can see you cant turn around in the rover!
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
How is this, I dont think DJ believed what he was saying, and I doubt you believed him as well.
NOW you ARE calling me a liar.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
Did you really need me to provide such obvious information DJ? Please, anybody can see you cant turn around in the rover!
Then how do you explain this shot?
Don't you dare to presume what I do or do not believe.
Originally posted by FoosM
How is this, I dont think DJ believed what he was saying, and I doubt you believed him as well.
Well, no.
That is not calling somebody a liar because he would have to know the truth.
–noun
1.a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.an inaccurate or false statement.
Which is odd, because your side has been assuming up and down that the Apollo astronauts have been lying through their teeth. You yourself have made several statements that have claimed, point blank, the landings were a hoax. Your sudden retreat to "we can't know the real truth!" is backpedalling. In fact, your debating technique, by and large, consists of Argument from Ignorance and Incredulity. For a purported "skeptic", you frequently place your off-the-cuff opinions over those of actual experts who have studied the evidence. I mean, you think their dinner/breakfast the night before is a smoking gun, because it's not what you would eat. I don't think you're a dietician.
Nobody here knows the real truth.
Unless one of us was part of the Apollo space program.
Skepticism does not mean "question everything", BTW.
Ready to become an Apollo moon landing skeptic? A hoax believer?
Astronots = busted.
Did you double check their findings to make sure you weren't just blindly agreeing with somebody just because they believed Apollo landed men on the moon?
Men didnt land on the moon, so the photos must be fake.
You didn't say "intellectually dishonest". You implied, flat out, that he was lying.
So what I was saying is that DJ has doubts or is being intellectually dishonest about the statement he made.
Your funny.
Tell me. What were you lying about and who where you lying to?
So what I was saying is that DJ has doubts or is being intellectually dishonest about the statement he made.
You stated DJ was lying to everyone about his actual beliefs, and are now trying to weasel out of admitting it because of your pathalogical aversion to direct statements.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
How is this, I dont think DJ believed what he was saying, and I doubt you believed him as well.
NOW you ARE calling me a liar.
Your funny.
Tell me. What were you lying about and who where you lying to?
edit on 9-6-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)
NOW you ARE calling me a liar. I made it perfectly clear when I was speculating, and, in fact, emphasized that we simply lacked enough information to reconstruct exactly what happened. This is called "integrity." I don't care which scenario is the correct one because your argument is based entirely on a logical fallacy in the first place. Your failure to admit that this is the case is pathetic, and now you find it necessary to resort to ad homs? A clear demonstration of the weakness of your position.
And either you or that person who gave you a star please explain what this video has to do with anything.
Originally posted by hateeternal
Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, so you would like to interpret "Jack jumping in his seat" to "Jack jumping on his seat" ? So what you are saying is that Gene was taking pictures of Jack bouncing on his seat? Is that correct?
Yes that's what I'm saying!
Originally posted by FoosM
Let me provide you with NASA's own words.
Photo 1.
AS17-134-20452 (OF300) ( 124k or 744k )
168:47:03 Station 9. Jack mounting LRV, sunstruck.
Ok yes, they say that only that picture depicts jack mounting the LRV. Not the 3 pictures you showed. only that one is described as being Jack mounting the LRV. he obviously had to MOUNT it to be jumping ON it!!!
AS17-134-20453 (OF300) ( 176k or 1008k )
168:47:03 The second of three photos Gene took of Jack jumping into the LMP Rover seat. Good view of the segmented mirror on the top of the TV camera. Jack has the LRV sampler in his right hand.
Ok they said that but they also said this:
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.
Which one is correct??
Originally posted by FoosM
Now let me ask you this. If Jack was jumping INTO his seat during the second photo.
What was he actually doing in the first photo? Was that the same action? In other words, part of the same jump? Or would you say that Jack jumped into his seat, got back off the rover, then jumped back into his seat again?
No!! What I am saying is that the 1st jump into the Rover was captured by Cerne, and is the 1st picture of the sequence and then after he was already ON the rover he jumped IN it!! and then the 2 other pics were taken trying to catch the moment he was mid-air...
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
And either you or that person who gave you a star please explain what this video has to do with anything.
Did you watch the video? Do you really need someone holding your hand to help you figure this out, or do you simply go into massive denial whenever someone finds a primary source that contradicts your interpretation of a secondary source? In order to shoot the LRV driver in profile, the astronaut in the passenger seat would need to be able to make a quarter turn while holding the camera. A quarter turn would be enough to deposit the tool behind him.
Originally posted by FoosM
DJ et al.
I thought you guys were educated in all things Apollo.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
The fact that I emphasized the uncertainties of my interpretation is a sign of my intellectual honesty, a concept you cannot seem to grasp. Incidentally, you are not funny at all.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
NOW you ARE calling me a liar. I made it perfectly clear when I was speculating, and, in fact, emphasized that we simply lacked enough information to reconstruct exactly what happened. This is called "integrity." I don't care which scenario is the correct one because your argument is based entirely on a logical fallacy in the first place. Your failure to admit that this is the case is pathetic, and now you find it necessary to resort to ad homs? A clear demonstration of the weakness of your position.
Originally posted by 000063
Don't you dare to presume what I do or do not believe.
Originally posted by FoosM
How is this, I dont think DJ believed what he was saying, and I doubt you believed him as well.