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: 57
377
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by truthquest


The second I see such a photo with a similar angle disparity over a small area like in the Apollo 17 photo I'll change my mind easily because I really do suspect it can be done. Until then though I'm just guessing and will say Jarrah White brings up a good question with the Apollo 17 photo in question (as shown at the top of previous page) because that angle disparity is an oddity.


And once again I ask, how do you manage to get a measurement of 283.7 and 283.8 from that picture? How do you get the accuaracy down to a decimal point?


Sorry I forgot to mention I was using Paintshop Pro to tell me the angles that I was drawing. When you draw a line using PSP it tells you the angle you are drawing on the bottom of the screen.




posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest


The second I see such a photo with a similar angle disparity over a small area like in the Apollo 17 photo I'll change my mind easily because I really do suspect it can be done. Until then though I'm just guessing and will say Jarrah White brings up a good question with the Apollo 17 photo in question (as shown at the top of previous page) because that angle disparity is an oddity.


I realize this is just CYA for you at this point, but what you are saying here is that you expect to see one thing, but because this guy on youtube makes a video, you're going to suspend your own preconceptions and believe the guy with a poorly-done video.

That's just sad.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by truthquest


The second I see such a photo with a similar angle disparity over a small area like in the Apollo 17 photo I'll change my mind easily because I really do suspect it can be done. Until then though I'm just guessing and will say Jarrah White brings up a good question with the Apollo 17 photo in question (as shown at the top of previous page) because that angle disparity is an oddity.


And once again I ask, how do you manage to get a measurement of 283.7 and 283.8 from that picture? How do you get the accuaracy down to a decimal point?


Sorry I forgot to mention I was using Paintshop Pro to tell me the angles that I was drawing. When you draw a line using PSP it tells you the angle you are drawing on the bottom of the screen.


That isn't the question. I realize you can get many programs to give you an angle measurement, what I want to know is how you determine the EXACT direction of a shadow, to that accuracy. Because as I look at your picture, your measurements of some of the shadows look off by more than a few degrees.

IOW, you are adding a degree of accuracy to something that is too arbitrary to measure that well.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


The problem is you, FoosM and a few others are trying to prove photographic EVIDENCE is wrong to keen and semi pro and possible pro photographers on here, I bought my first all manual SLR in DEC 1979, yes 31 years ago it had manual focus and manual exposure, the best way to learn.

I have been into photography for LONGER than JW has been alive
, the guy is an A**HOLE when he talks about this subject .

A clue for your next challenge DONT have a flat terrain put a few objects at the top of slopes some at the bottom of slopes some in between and use one light source see how the shadows look then



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


Getting sadder by the minute...

THIS video:



...with the alleged 'expert' and "his highness, the ONE you seem to worship" (JW) at her side, was already discussed several pages back...( How in the gol-darned world has THIS thread gone on so long, anyway?
)

Thoroughly unconvincing, this woman so-called "expert". Sure, she can fool some people (easily fooled "his highness") as has been clearly evidenced in this ridiculous thread.



Wait, was this your attempt to debunk, debate facts & opinions?
because whatever you call it it was uninformative and uninspired.
Try again, because your losing the debate.
Manned moon landing is a hoax.
I laugh at the thought.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Here's an idea, how about you present an argument for a change instead of just posting someone else's totally incorrect videos to make your points for you?


How about you attempt to debunk the videos instead of running away from them?


Originally posted by Tomblvd

Why don't you ANSWER Tombvld's post???


Because Tomblvd answered his own question



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by truthquest
 


The problem is you, FoosM and a few others are trying to prove photographic EVIDENCE is wrong to keen and semi pro and possible pro photographers on here, I bought my first all manual SLR in DEC 1979, yes 31 years ago it had manual focus and manual exposure, the best way to learn.



Piker, Canon AE-1 in 1977.

But I swear I NEVER used the automatic mode.;-)



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Here's an idea, how about you present an argument for a change instead of just posting someone else's totally incorrect videos to make your points for you?


How about you attempt to debunk the videos instead of running away from them?



Please list the the qualifications of JWs "expert".




Originally posted by Tomblvd

Why don't you ANSWER Tombvld's post???


Because Tomblvd answered his own question



Er, that was me asking the question, genius. No better way to prove you aren't really reading a thread than that.

Bravo.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by truthquest
 


The problem is you, FoosM and a few others are trying to prove photographic EVIDENCE is wrong to keen and semi pro and possible pro photographers on here, I bought my first all manual SLR in DEC 1979, yes 31 years ago it had manual focus and manual exposure, the best way to learn.

I have been into photography for LONGER than JW has been alive
, the guy is an A**HOLE when he talks about this subject .

A clue for your next challenge DONT have a flat terrain put a few objects at the top of slopes some at the bottom of slopes some in between and use one light source see how the shadows look then


the same.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Here's an idea, how about you present an argument for a change instead of just posting someone else's totally incorrect videos to make your points for you?


How about you attempt to debunk the videos instead of running away from them?



Please list the the qualifications of JWs "expert".




Originally posted by Tomblvd

Why don't you ANSWER Tombvld's post???


Because Tomblvd answered his own question



Er, that was me asking the question, genius. No better way to prove you aren't really reading a thread than that.

Bravo.


Her qualifications?
Watch the video.

Sorry Tomblvd, people are seeing through your silly attempt to distract the mounting evidence that Apollo was a hoax. Im sure in the back of your mind doubts are creeping in.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Her qualifications?
Watch the video.



They weren't given in the video. I would like her name, where she's employed, and her credentials that make her an expert. YOU were the one who made the claim, now support it.




Sorry Tomblvd, people are seeing through your silly attempt to distract the mounting evidence that Apollo was a hoax. Im sure in the back of your mind doubts are creeping in.


People? What people? Who, exactly, are you talking about?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 



Piker, Canon AE-1 in 1977.


Nanner, nanner, I think I win>


Minolta SRT-101, birthday gift from Dad....seems like it was 1970-1971. I was still in High School....

That was good camera!!



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Tomblvd
 



Piker, Canon AE-1 in 1977.


Nanner, nanner, I think I win>


Minolta SRT-101, birthday gift from Dad....seems like it was 1970-1971. I was still in High School....

That was good camera!!


Must have been hell carrying all those glass plates around.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



......the mounting evidence that Apollo was a hoax.


Tap. Tap. ....testing...one...two....testing....

"Is this thing on?"

FoosM....do you only read your own posts, and forge ahead, skipping merrily over the others of value?

You talking about the same thread, here?


I suggest, from here on, as I muster all the civility and decorum I can, that you stop embarrassing yourself. Unless, of course, if you feel the anononymity of the Internet is so thorough you don't mind being seen as a fool?

Certainly "Jarrah White" doesn't...he plays fool quite well. I can only guess he has some other incentive at heart, and I don't think it's a hope to acquire a pack of Wallabys. I'm thinking he has AUS$$$ in his eyes......



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


LOL!

I'm not THAT old....close, though.

Here:



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Her qualifications?
Watch the video.



They weren't given in the video. I would like her name, where she's employed, and her credentials that make her an expert. YOU were the one who made the claim, now support it.




Sorry Tomblvd, people are seeing through your silly attempt to distract the mounting evidence that Apollo was a hoax. Im sure in the back of your mind doubts are creeping in.


People? What people? Who, exactly, are you talking about?


I agree with him what are her credentials im beginning to suspect its his mom. Though moms do know alot of stuff i dont know if shes qualified to evaluate pictures. My favorite part is she couldnt figure out how to work the computer.The other thing for being an expert not once does she take into account the terrain at all. So id have to say im sorta skeptical his mom has any photo experience.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
I realize this is just CYA for you at this point, but what you are saying here is that you expect to see one thing, but because this guy on youtube makes a video, you're going to suspend your own preconceptions and believe the guy with a poorly-done video.

That's just sad.


You are discussing me now rather than the evidence, which is the annoyance that got me to start talking on this thread in the first place. Lets just stick with the evidence. In the effort you took to complain about my preconceptions, expectations, and so-called CYA moves, you may have found a photo showing a patch of ground the size of the Apollo 17 photo with an shadow angle disparity of greater than 100 degrees.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by truthquest
 


The problem is you, FoosM and a few others are trying to prove photographic EVIDENCE is wrong



No. I've stated several times I don't have a strong position.


A clue for your next challenge DONT have a flat terrain put a few objects at the top of slopes some at the bottom of slopes some in between and use one light source see how the shadows look then


If I'm going to all that trouble I'd be aiming to reproduce the shadow angles. Would such a setup allow me to do this?

[edit on 19-5-2010 by truthquest]


jra

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
That "object" you circled seems to be ink, that you can find on other photos.
Ink that I am assuming is used to black shadows and skies.


You know what they say about assumption right? If that were ink used to darken skies and shadows, why would they leave a blotch of it near the top left corner in every photo? That makes no sense.

Although I have no experience with medium or large format sheet film. I believe that it's a "notch code".


At any rate, here is something to consider.
Not all the photos were released during the Apollo missions.
www.lpi.usra.edu...


Of course with the lack of the internet. Access to the whole photographic record was more difficult. But all the photos were available by request to those who wanted them. The Apollo 11 photography, for example, was available as early as 1970 for scientific study to scientific and educational institutions world wide, as well as to individuals.

NSSDC Report 70-06
Apollo 11 Lunar Photography



But whats worse... check out the shadows of the rocks! Check how they magically split directions from the near center line of the photo!


It's called "perspective". The Sun is near the center of the frame. The shadows will appear to spread outwards at different angles, relative to the viewer.

Some Earthly examples:
photo1
photo2
photo3

There was no magic involved in the making of those photos.

Get a camera, go outside, and take some photos. Seriously. You might learn something about photography that way.


Originally posted by wmd_2008
I bought my first all manual SLR in DEC 1979, yes 31 years ago it had manual focus and manual exposure, the best way to learn.


It sure is the best way to learn. My first camera was my dad's 1978 Nikon FE SLR. It's a few years older than me, but it was fun to use and a great way to learn the basics.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

How about you attempt to debunk the videos instead of running away from them?


And how about you debunk the debunk. Still working my way through your genious' Big 32, and haven't heard a peep from you. Gonna stop posting Youtube links and respond?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join