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: 55
377
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Great. Let's start then with one of these "independently verifiable" claims. If you would give us one, with the verification. We can see who is right and who is wrong.


The first claim I saw him make is that the following photo at: history.nasa.gov... could not have been made without multiple light sources.

Here is a condensed commented version with comments I added:


The three shadows by the left shoulder of the astronaut shadow averaged 51 degrees. The four by the right of the astronaut averaged 299 degrees. This is an angle difference of 112 degrees, which is a very massive difference.

Jarrah White claims that there can be some shadow angle difference (due to the angle to the lens?) but that difference is limited to small angle changes. He claims the level to which the pictured shadows are at different angles cannot be re-created naturally because multiple light sources would be required. People have disagreed saying this is perfectly possible given the varied terrain on the moon. None the less, given this photo, it would most definitely be possible to conduct an independent study to find out whether such shadow angles can be re-created.

Jarrah White claims that for all Apollo missions, only the sun was used as a light source for all photos taken on the moon.

So, since you claim everything the Moonfaker guy has said is debunked then hopefully you can show me documentation that differences of shadow angle given the picture taken could be 112 degrees even with only one single light source given similar conditions.

The most convincing evidence that people will buy into is photos of similar scene, even possibly one created by a 3D visualization system. So, the necessary conditions would be objects on the ground, where those objects are nearby a torso shadow, that are aimed roughly 112 or more degrees apart, and preferably where the body and objects are similar in size/shape as in the photo, and preferably where the light source is cast at a similar angle as in the photo.


All dosimeter readings for Apollo are available.


Where? I'll look at them. Have you checked them against other craft to see if they are similar? If the person referenced in the blog did all this research on radiation it would have been nice if they listed their sources so they could be independently verified.


And why should I trust their radiation meters more than the Van Allen radiation meters? Van Allen is the guy who discovered the Van Allen belt and from what I understand they had very crispy readouts.

What did these "readouts" say specfically? Where in the belts were these "crispy" readouts? How does the trajectory of the Apollo launches relate to the belts? And "the guy" who discovered the VA belts specifically states there would be no problem passing through the belts as Apollo did.


I don't remember the exact numbers, but I'll do what I can to find this out when I get to that claim. I'll find out everything I can about Van Allen's experiment. I'll be evaluating each and every claim by Jarrah White that I deem significant because from my perspective he raises good questions and makes good points.

Edited - Minor clarification.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by truthquest]




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 

How's this?


Multiple light sources create multiple shadows from the same object. Where are the multiple shadows in the Apollo images?

[edit on 5/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I don't even have to 'verify' that image. It's quite impossible to have multiple light sources present. First of all there would be multiple shadows and in other parts shadows would be less dark because the other lights hit them. Anyone btw know more about this picture? What was the lens used and where was it shot? I have a feint recollection that this was taken towards an incline to a crater but can't be sure.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



The photo you provided proves that there can be different angles of shadows. But, it does not quite prove that the shadows can diverge to the same extent shown in the Apollo 17 photo. In my commented image above I show red circles about where the rocks appear in the Apollo 17 images. Had there been objects placed in those locations comparable to the Apollo 17 photo I suspect there would be a 25 degrees of difference on both sides, which is not close to the difference shown in the provided image.

While the image you show has a fairly sharp 52 degree angle difference by my measure, the shadows shown are quite a far ways apart in comparison to the Apollo 17 photos where the objects are one body shadow width to the right and left of the astronaut's shadow roughly where I made the red circles.

A photo showing a similar angle change but on a smaller patch of ground more similar to the Apollo photo would better prove the case that this can be a natural occurrence.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by truthquest

Multiple light sources create multiple shadows from the same object. Where are the multiple shadows in the Apollo images?


There are no claims made that I know of about multiple shadows. But, I see no way of knowing at what point a shadow would be drowned out by light from the second light source without recreating a similar scene using multiple light sources.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
There are no claims made that I know of about multiple shadows. But, I see no way of knowing at what point a shadow would be drowned out by light from the second light source without recreating a similar scene using multiple light sources.


I'll give you a clue. If there were a 2nd or 3rd light bright enough to drown out 2nd shadows it would show in the other shadows. Also there is no highlights which would be quite obvious.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


You need to see how the terrain in that picture is because as Phage has shown what you claim cant happen can be shown to happen here on earth, YOUR challange is take a photograph with multiple light sources and each object and it doesn't matter how close to each other only have ONE shadow.

LETS see YOU do that!



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by Phage
 



The photo you provided proves that there can be different angles of shadows. But, it does not quite prove that the shadows can diverge to the same extent shown in the Apollo 17 photo. In my commented image above I show red circles about where the rocks appear in the Apollo 17 images. Had there been objects placed in those locations comparable to the Apollo 17 photo I suspect there would be a 25 degrees of difference on both sides, which is not close to the difference shown in the provided image.

While the image you show has a fairly sharp 52 degree angle difference by my measure, the shadows shown are quite a far ways apart in comparison to the Apollo 17 photos where the objects are one body shadow width to the right and left of the astronaut's shadow roughly where I made the red circles.

A photo showing a similar angle change but on a smaller patch of ground more similar to the Apollo photo would better prove the case that this can be a natural occurrence.


Look at what I have underlined above YOU have answered your own QUESTION if only JW had had the common sense to do the same


Phage has shown its possible for shadows to be at different angles with one light source and its even the same one used on the Moon ie the Sun and its due to the ground conditions obviously its to technical for JW


Many keen photographers on here and all these photo anomoly claims give us a good


[edit on 19-5-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by GallopingFish
Forgive me i did not read all 54 pages but is it not possible that...
They Did go to the moon, found stuff that they didn't think that the general populace should see e.g structures and evidence of previous or current occupation of the moon.

Then decided on earth to Create a moon landing that suited what they think should be on the moon. "nothing"

It ties in with some of the radio conversations about the astronauts seeing stuff.

So it would make the moon landing footage fake, but they did go to the moon!!



That would be impossible considering the video was beamed live from the surface of the moon for each mission. When would they have had the time to make up the fake video if they just discovered the structures when they got to the moon?


Is it not at all possible that they were prepared?
Come on has NASA never had a plan B / or lied before???
I'm no Moon Buff so your most probably right But i do give this more of a chance than Impossible.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   
truthquest, apart from the points being raised here by others, like:

- absolutely no trace of multiple shadows
- penumbral effects that match the sun's angular size correctly

..can I ask if you spent any time actually looking closely at that image?

If not, then I would suggest you need to be a little more rigorous in your truth-questing. If you did, may I ask a very simple question of you..

- do you agree with the directions he has 'determined'?

(If Jarrah has elaborated on how he determined those angles I suggest you post that information.)


I have a very good reason for asking that question... Actually *several* reasons. And I will elaborate, in a pictorial form, after you have answered.




[edit on 19-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

- do you agree with the directions he has 'determined'?


I have a very good reason for asking that question... Actually *several* reasons. And I will elaborate, in a pictorial form, after you have answered.




[edit on 19-5-2010 by CHRLZ]


I was going to ask the very same question


Its pretty obvious in at least a few of the examples he's got the direction of the shadow quite wrong. And in other instances he has ignored shadows that obviously dont agree with his premise.

Yet more cherry-picking to prove a non-existent point. The fact there arent multiple shadows destroys his argument completely even disregarding his incorrect determination of directions.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM







LOL that video was hilarious. YOu mean to tell me all those billions bush gave them didn't even go to the "new" lander? I think Ron Paul needs to do an audit on NASA and see where these funds go. I did hear that NASA was a part of some Mayan expedition awhile back.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Why do we need a 'NEW' lander ... just use the old one? It was 100% successful
Just use the old blueprints, or did they lose them just like the hundreds of tapes of video and telemetry.

Why do we need a new rover ... the last one did wheel spins in the dirt and travelled 7 miles. Supposedly.

Might I add, with a pretty flawless video uplink to earth. The hours and hours of perfect TV reception from that rover are breathtaking.

Why do we need new rockets ... just use the old tech .. With some slight 2010 tweaks.


Originally posted by dragnet53
LOL that video was hilarious. YOu mean to tell me all those billions bush gave them didn't even go to the "new" lander?



[edit on 19-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Why do we need a 'NEW' lander ... just use the old one? It was 100% successful
Just use the old blueprints, or did they lose them just like the hundreds of tapes of video and telemetry.

Why do we need a new rover ... the last one did wheel spins in the dirt and travelled 7 miles. Supposedly.

Why do we need new rockets ... just use the old tech .. With some slight 2010 tweaks.


Originally posted by dragnet53
LOL that video was hilarious. YOu mean to tell me all those billions bush gave them didn't even go to the "new" lander?


[edit on 19-5-2010 by ppk55]


ahh just like the mind set of NASA and keep themselves stuck in the 1950's.

Why then do they need billions and billions of dollars for the constellation project to go to the moon? Just use the same price tag back in the 50's and call it a day....




posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


Since I just woke up to find your first "question" more than adequately dissected, and since there are posters awaiting answers to many issues brought up, I'll refrain from bringing up any other issue. With the exception of one, rather imporant point.

I noticed "measurements" in your picture of 238.7 and 238.8 degrees, how are you able to get such a degree of accuracy in your measurements?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Sarcasm is often used to hide lack of knowledge and inability to research, and there isn't even an attempt to hide the complete lack of content in this post. So, yes, nicely done, ppk.

BTW, I see you live near Jarrah, know him?


Originally posted by ppk55
Why do we need a 'NEW' lander ... just use the old one? It was 100% successful

Pretty much, yes, it was - I'm glad you agree.. After the simulator flew hundreds of times on earth (in 6x the gravity, and wind..), after Grumman did an excellent job on developing and refining it, after improvements were made after the in-mission testing... The very first LM to land on the Moon performed MARVELLOUSLY. So well, that very few alterations were made in subsequent missions.

Yes, it was probably the finest and most reliable piece of Apollo engineering. A superbly functional masterpiece, as anyone with decent ENGINEERING experience will testify. Grumman and NASA were, are, and should be rightly proud.


Just use the old blueprints, or did they lose them just like the hundreds of tapes of video and telemetry.

I know it is hard for some folks to do research, so I'll give you a chance - YOU post the links to all the LM data that has survived and is publicly available on the Interweb (and that doesn't count what is available in paper form. No personal computers back in 69, 'member?..) ..

If you can't, I WILL... It's pretty easy to find.


Why do we need a new rover ... the last one did wheel spins in the dirt and travelled 7 miles. Supposedly.

So if you don't think it was true, why don't you post proof otherwise, rather than the childish sarcasm? Can't make a real point, so you have to get all smarmy?


Might I add, with a pretty flawless video uplink to earth. The hours and hours of perfect TV reception from that rover are breathtaking.

Again, can you be specific - what it is you are whining about? Do you not understand TV technology, link budgets, difference between film and video?

Come on, be brave, admit what it is that you don't understand - there are plenty of folk here that can help. If you hide behind sarcasm, how can anyone help you or debate your 'points'?

Oh wait, that's right - that's what you DON'T want... Real debate isn't your strong suit.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
check this out on what Rockerfeller states on about the 'constellation program'.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   
I was ignoring the posters who have nothing to add to the discussion but it is well worth pointing out that the new landings will have a completely different mission, so all the old hardware is useless.

Uh, not that that point will register through all the smarm....



Originally posted by CHRLZ
Do you not understand TV technology, link budgets, difference between film and video?

Come on, be brave, admit what it is that you don't understand - there are plenty of folk here that can help. If you hide behind sarcasm, how can anyone help you or debate your 'points'?

Oh wait, that's right - that's what you DON'T want... Real debate isn't your strong suit.



That reminds me of one of my favorite "proofs" of the HBs, that has disappeared over the years. A guy named "Cosmic Dave" at, I beleive NASAscam, had a video shot from a rover as it was moving from one station to the next. He was crazy incredulous as to how this could be shot when the antenna had to be repostiioned every time they stopped so the live feed could be reestablished. He couldn't understand that there was the live video feed and 16mm film, shot, of course, with different cameras. It was even funnier because in the clip he had on his site, the video camera attached to the rover was actually in the footage!

It took months to show him his error and, to his (eventual) credit, he took it down.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
There are hours and hours and hours of video content that was uplinked back to earth. Not 16mm film, I'm talking video.

I'm just saying, the quality is absolutely amazing, especially for the time.
Considering a whole lot of it came from the rover, it's even more amazing.

I really don't know if they could even pull this off today. Transmission, yes, but the constant quality, mmm.

Check them out ... it's all there.

history.nasa.gov...
(your scroll wheel hand will get tired)

history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...


[edit on 19-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
There are hours and hours and hours of video content that was uplinked back to earth. Not 16mm film, I'm talking video.

I'm just saying, the quality is absolutely amazing, especially for the time.
Considering a whole lot of it came from the rover, it's even more amazing.

I really don't know if they could even pull this off today. Transmission, yes, but the constant quality, mmm.

Check them out ... it's all there.

history.nasa.gov...
(your scroll wheel hand will get tired)

history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...


[edit on 19-5-2010 by ppk55]


Thanks for the genuine reply.

Yes, it is quite good quality, although the 'field sequential' color technology had a few issues... And they got off to a very shakey start with the Apollo 11 initial footage - the technology (and available bandwidth) were being somewhat pushed, but they got better at it as the missions progressed.

I'd have to ask, why is the quality so surprising? Making a camera able to work in a vacuum isn't a huge deal, and the thermal issues were very easy to deal with. So transmission *was* the main restraint, but the technology was up to it. I've previously referred to the subject of 'link budgets' - while these are somewhat involved, all the information on how they did it, everything from power requirements to bandwidths to beamwidth, is all readily available and verifiable.

It would be nice to do it again now, with HD, 3D..



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join