Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
8/ USA is still ruled by British royal family

Funny... Hadn't heard that one.

You left out the marshal law/FEMA prison camps though.

reply to post by dpd11


Yeah, sorry - it was jsut a quick list.

there's also Nibiru & Elenin

Just to follow up on the VLT topic ...

I checked the VLT site and it seems they claim a resolution of 0.002 milli-arcsec in the near infrared. So with that number and a closest approach of ~360,000 km, I'd expect to resolve two items ~3.5 m apart [360,000,000*tan(.002/205265)]. Let's give each of the 2 items it's own pixel ... that's ~1.75 m/pixel ... less than the LRO in normal orbit. Even halving the number (see the wiki) still means the Earth based VLT in interferometer mode has no chance to improve upon the pics from the LRO (assuming the Apollo remains show well in the near IR). The above took me 15 mins of perusing the VLT site. Why didn't JW do the rudimentary check I just did before making his statement ? Even wikipedia would have told him this much.

www.eso.org...

I'm not going to go back through 500 pages of posts... But what has been mentioned of the landing evidence shown in the new LRO imagery? Let me guess... They faked those?

Originally posted by dpd11
I'm not going to go back through 500 pages of posts... But what has been mentioned of the landing evidence shown in the new LRO imagery? Let me guess... They faked those?

You can start here:

www.youtube.com.../c/6D5D89F8740FDB4A/0/OKj5fckUX-c

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
Just to follow up on the VLT topic ...
. The above took me 15 mins of perusing the VLT site. Why didn't JW do the rudimentary check I just did before making his statement ? Even wikipedia would have told him this much.

Ok... so whats your point?

Originally posted by MacTheKnife


BTW I believe the technique discussed in your source is what was just done with LRO. Should the resolution be improved from what I just linked, what whine will we hear ? I suspect it'll be "but NASA took the pics. They're photoshopped." So why are you even bringing resolution up ?

Well thats a good start
Maybe the skeptical part of your mind is finally starting to develop.

Originally posted by Pinke
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/822cb62a7318.jpg[/atsimg]

^ Single light source, multiple directions of shadows.

How close was the light source?
And was the source the SUN?

Originally posted by wmd_2008

I tell you what why don't you explain one of your arrows say the blue arrow next to the gnomon shadow that points from bottom left to top right up the slope please explain the logic of that arrow that should give everyone a

And here I thought that people who blindly swallow government propaganda were good at following instructions.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by FoosM

 

Eeh... well for one I havent seen any anomalies. Neither has anyone who knows photography and light. And I call myself professional photographer because I am. I don't have good quality personal hardware and that is irrelevant to the point to begin with.

Congratulations... I guess

At any rate, JW says in this interview that he is a formally trained photographer.
And he has been able to find various errors in the photography by the Astronauts.


So lets see you challenge JW on this subject.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by dpd11
I'm not going to go back through 500 pages of posts... But what has been mentioned of the landing evidence shown in the new LRO imagery? Let me guess... They faked those?

You can start here:

And so when they recapture the images of those areas after the most optimum distance the camera system was calibrated for has been reached... Then what is the excuse going to be? It already shows the objects. So obviously it's just going to show them better. But of course, that's when the old fail safe conspiracy explanation will be pulled out, that always fixes everything... "Oh, well of course those are fake". Same old tired excuse for everything.

reply to post by FoosM


A) Where exactly does he say that? B) "Formally trained" can be anything from 1 day course to a pro degree so what's the point of that? C) With his infamous "expert" testimony about multiple light sources he has already demonstrated that he has zero knowledge of light and photography therefore I'm inclined to say that even if he somehow were to get some paper from some course he still knows nothing.

Originally posted by FoosM
At any rate, JW says in this interview that he is a formally trained photographer.

So lets see you challenge JW on this subject.

Photographers aren't trained to debunk photos. JW's photography training speaks for itself in the videos the person puts out. Not exactly a DOP.

How close was the light source?
And was the source the SUN?

Oddly enough, yes.

The sun is accurately modelled quite easily and regularly. You should try it sometime!

Pinke: now make it so that there is uneven ground etc. so some of the people who dont understand real world will get it. Too bad we cant have JW to look at it.

Originally posted by dpd11

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by dpd11
I'm not going to go back through 500 pages of posts... But what has been mentioned of the landing evidence shown in the new LRO imagery? Let me guess... They faked those?

You can start here:

And so when they recapture the images of those areas after the most optimum distance the camera system was calibrated for has been reached... Then what is the excuse going to be? It already shows the objects. So obviously it's just going to show them better. But of course, that's when the old fail safe conspiracy explanation will be pulled out, that always fixes everything... "Oh, well of course those are fake". Same old tired excuse for everything.

I dont get what you are saying.
Are you telling us that the images that NASA presented as proof of the landings sites could not have been faked?
Are you saying that those white blobs are of a resolution that anybody can tell what they are?

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by FoosM
At any rate, JW says in this interview that he is a formally trained photographer.

So lets see you challenge JW on this subject.

Photographers aren't trained to debunk photos. JW's photography training speaks for itself in the videos the person puts out. Not exactly a DOP.

How close was the light source?
And was the source the SUN?

Oddly enough, yes.

The sun is accurately modelled quite easily and regularly. You should try it sometime!

Now wait a minute.
Are you saying that the light source in that picture you provided is the actual sun or a model of the sun?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by FoosM

 

A) Where exactly does he say that? B) "Formally trained" can be anything from 1 day course to a pro degree so what's the point of that? C) With his infamous "expert" testimony about multiple light sources he has already demonstrated that he has zero knowledge of light and photography therefore I'm inclined to say that even if he somehow were to get some paper from some course he still knows nothing.

Did you listen to the video or not?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by FoosM

 

B) "Formally trained" can be anything from 1 day course to a pro degree so what's the point of that? .

Various places say he has Certificate III & IV from the Sydney Institute in Film and Television - the certificate levels are explained at the Australian Qualifications Authority page, and would require 12 and 12-18 months traiing now and approximately equate to year 12 & 13 of high school - the Senior Secondary School Certificate equates to Certificate IV, although the certificates are for post-secondary trade training and replaced the old "Trade certificates" which were given under apprenticeship schemes.

australian qualifications framework

The Sydney Institute offers a number of courses in photography - the Certificate IV in photoimaging is described here:

This course teaches you the skills required to work as a photographic assistant, introducing you to new developments and techniques and offering a solid understanding of the industry. You will learn how to:

• Conceive and execute photographs to a professional standard
• Present and discuss your work
• Be aware of the occupational health and safety aspects of the photoimaging industry.

The course also gives you theoretical and practical training in the general industrial, commercial and professional photoimaging. You will learn about:

• The production of black and white and colour photographic images
• Drawing on elements of design and traditions of photography
• Digital image capture and computer image management
• Camera techniques using a range of studio and SLR camera systems
• Lighting for both studio and location work.

so it looks like a good training course for someone aspiring to become a professinoal photographer.

No doubt someone will suggest or insist that "Digital image capture and computer image management"
makes JW an expert in digital enhancements - I'll leave it to anyone with more knowledge of photography to opine what level of expertise might be imparted in that in a course at this level!

Edit: BTW a "TAFE" in aus is not something to do with Theatre and Film Entertainment - it stands for Tertiary and Further Education - in the old days they were technical colleges and polytechnics run & funded by the states and territories rather than by the Federal Govt.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by dpd11

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by dpd11
I'm not going to go back through 500 pages of posts... But what has been mentioned of the landing evidence shown in the new LRO imagery? Let me guess... They faked those?

You can start here:

And so when they recapture the images of those areas after the most optimum distance the camera system was calibrated for has been reached... Then what is the excuse going to be? It already shows the objects. So obviously it's just going to show them better. But of course, that's when the old fail safe conspiracy explanation will be pulled out, that always fixes everything... "Oh, well of course those are fake". Same old tired excuse for everything.

I dont get what you are saying.
Are you telling us that the images that NASA presented as proof of the landings sites could not have been faked?
Are you saying that those white blobs are of a resolution that anybody can tell what they are?

No, they could have been faked... Which is of course what you're saying, and what people who believe this stuff say, anytime they come up against proof of the landings. 'Everybody is in on it... Everything is faked... And everything is a lie'. That doesn't mean any of it actually is of course, but it;s a great way to erase all evidence in the mind of conspiracy believers... Simply say something and it becomes true. Would you say that I couldn't have a pet bear that rides a unicycle?

reply to post by FoosM


Yes. Did you post a wrong video or did I just go ADHD?