Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

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.

That's no expert. If you want to debunk this video just wait till she says that the image isn't shot to an incline because relative size of different rocks. As I have said in a previous post my head just exploded when she said that.

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?

Just curious, why is an expert needed in order to determine that shadows facing each other are from 2 light sources. I thought eyes were sufficient for that task. It would be like needing an expert to go to the bathroom. It's not like we are trying to remember details, we are looking at them. Anyway, just curious.

Peace

If you think there is 2 light sources then you really do need an expert help. Thing is that whoever this lady is in the video is far from an expert. This issue has been beaten to death on this thread already.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

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.

That's no expert. If you want to debunk this video just wait till she says that the image isn't shot to an incline because relative size of different rocks. As I have said in a previous post my head just exploded when she said that.

Why?

Funny, I could see you just sitting there as your head got bigger and bigger. Thank god no one had a needle eh? You could have a popped head man. Be careful in here, I worry about you. There is already too many heads that are big and on the verge of exploding here. Don't be another statistic, only you can prevent an exploding head. I wouldn't count on any secret service.

Peace

Originally posted by PsykoOps
If you think there is 2 light sources then you really do need an expert help. Thing is that whoever this lady is in the video is far from an expert. This issue has been beaten to death on this thread already.

You can't be an expert. You don't answer questions. I see two shadows facing each other. Unless there is something reflecting the light back, it isn't possible.

That will be 75 dollars. I'll just add it to your tab.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


It's called "perspective." See how the shadow of the astronaut looks like a truncated triangle? Is it because the astronaut is triangular? No, he is a rectangle. The sides of the shadow grow narrower as they approach the "vanishing point" on the horizon, above the top of the picture. Parallel lines converge. The rocks are lit from the same sun, behind the astronaut. Their shadows also fall in a straight line towards the "vanishing point." See how they all converge towards a single point above the frame? It is just like the way railway tracks seem to grow together as they get further away. Jarrah's clumsy drawing demonstrates this principle fairly well, although his "expert" doesn't seem to understand the concept of "scientific perspective," which has been understood by artists since the renaissance. If there were two sources of light, all the objects would throw two shadows, one for each light. You can try this at home: turn on two lamps. How many shadows does everything cast? (Oh yes, turn the overhead light out first!)

Notice the shadows in this photograph:

bp2.blogger.com...

Edit to add link to outside image.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by DJW001]

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


If YOU look at this post YOU will SEE why there is not TWO light sources in the Moon picture!

Someome who thought like you took up the challenge I set and PROVED himself WRONG!!!!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Like I said to this poster many on here are very keen photographers , I have had an interest in photography probably longer than JW has been alive the guy knows SWEET F A re this subject a bit like yourself!

ps That will be £75 thanks will add that to your tab will I

[edit on 20-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by jra.

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".

====
Maybe its not ink, but in several photos you can find black smears as well, and I recall that they seemed to originate from that black spot. And not all photos have this black spot.

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

=======

You got me on that one
but you didnt touch the tire tracks issue on either photo

It just further descends into the ridiculous... And FoosM is BUSTED again...

Originally posted by FoosM
That "object" you circled seems to be ink, that you can find on other photos.

Yeah ink works really well on a positive transparency, that has been scanned several times at different resolutions.

Ink that I am assuming is used to black shadows and skies.

The old joke about ass-u-me is particularly relevant here...

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

The best way to view ALL of the Apollo images is right here:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
and those images can all be identified and matched against the Apollo Journal. FoosM didn't know that. And he expects to be taken seriously...

So let's look at his quote with non-tinfoilhat shaded eyes and see what it is referring to... But wait, LET'S ADD SOME STUFF THAT FoosM DELIBERATELY CUT OUT.. Gee, you'd think someone who criticises anyone else he thinks is 'cheating', would be careful not to do it himself...

He left this bit out:

In addition to hand-held cameras, the last three flights--Apollo 15, 16 and 17-- carried scientific mapping cameras to perform orbital surveys along the ground track of the orbiting command module....

and then he quoted this bit:

Until now, these film products have resided in cold storage or have been shelved and archived at NASA data repositories. Access to them required a trip to Houston, Washington DC, or other locations and for manual searches through binders, microfilm, or other catalogs, for which photographic reprints could be requested and produced. Indeed, the public, because of these limitations, has never had the opportunity to see most of the photos taken by the Apollo astronauts.

He stopped there, leaving out this bit:

Thanks to the painstaking labors of the LPI staff, these priceless photographs have been digitally scanned and are now available in an easy to use online digital resource. It is now possible to browse through the image collection in its entirety

So, in other words:
- these images are mostly not 'general photography', but images taken by the mapping cameras, and ONLY from the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 missions (Yes, he left THAT fact out too...).
- the information has always been available, but only by visiting NASA.
- it has ALL now been scanned and made available.
- ALL of the Apollo 11, 12, 13 and 14 mission photography has always been readily available.

So it's hard to see exactly what his 'beef' is.. And you have to ask why he deliberately left out the surrounding context, and didn't name the missions to which that information applies.

Frankly, I think that's SHAMEFUL behavior. FoosM is deliberately misleading the forum. AGAIN.

Originally posted by truthquest
I took plenty of time to look at the photos, though not being a photography expert that doesn't mean much.

Then WHY are you wasting our time? Do you think I should now spend a coupla hours teaching you about perspective distortion, vanishing points, pincushion/barrel distortion in a wide angle lens, equivalent focal lengths, photogrammetry, the difficulties (and in many cases *impossibilities*) in trying to measure a 3d scene recorded in a 2d plane?

Let's face it - you are unlikely to have a beginners clue about any of that, and how vitally important it is. And how, when you put it all together, it makes a complete joke of any such attempt to measure the angles.

Then we can add in the concept of measurement accuracy and error range. You put numbers on that image to 4 sig. fig's accuracy. Without justifying it in any way, or giving us an error range, or showing how you determined where to draw the lines.

Then we add in the penumbra issue. This one alone can easily prove it must be the Sun.

Then we add in the no-multiple shadow issue.


Is there a trend showing up?

Mate, I'm not a 'qualified' scientist, but I have worked in the science, engineering and research fields for many years - and that sort of thing is just not on. Even in the most basic engineering workshop, you'd be out the door in five seconds.

Like many of the Apollo deniers on this thread, you need to take a long hard look at your 'quest for truth'. With such a clearly demonstrated COMPLETE lack of knowledge of even the most basic aspects of that one issue, how is it that you come here and post such junk? Do you expect others to educate you? Frankly, you look as if you just jumped onto the first conspiracy site you saw, and fell for it hook line and sinker. No attempt to research the 'other side', no attempt to verify the science, the physics, the photography, even the most basic geometry. Clearly, no relevant experience whatsoever.



It's NOT a good look.

A little off topic, sorry..

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Piker, Canon AE-1 in 1977.
But I swear I NEVER used the automatic mode.;-)

Zenit E, early 1970. I think I'm in equal first place, now... but maybe not in a quality sense..

Btw, I got one that must have been made on a Tuesday in the Zenit factory, as it was a *great* camera and fine lens. But my favorite camera of all time was a Minolta X700.. (WW, I also had an SRT for a while - always liked Minoltas..) Did a stint as a commercial photographer for several years, using mainly Bronica SQ MF gear, but also had occasional use of a Hass, rather like the ones used for Apollo.

So yes, Apollo deniers, I know how to use cameras (film and digital), and I understand photogrammetry very well - how to use it, and.. HOW NOT TO. If you are interested in the 'How Not To', I suggest YOU go watch more Jarrah videos... And don't bring them back here unless you can explain in YOUR OWN WORDS what is so convincing.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by PsykoOps
If you think there is 2 light sources then you really do need an expert help. Thing is that whoever this lady is in the video is far from an expert. This issue has been beaten to death on this thread already.

You can't be an expert. You don't answer questions. I see two shadows facing each other. Unless there is something reflecting the light back, it isn't possible.

That will be 75 dollars. I'll just add it to your tab.

Omg. Ok here we go again: These shadows are not facing each other. They are perfectly paraller. The angle of the shot and wide screen effect just make it appear that they're facing each other.
Also it is impossible to have a magical 2nd or 3rd light in the picture that would only create a shadow but would leave no other trace at all. There would be new highlights, it would affect all the other shadows etc. This is a very bright light source, you can't hide the effects it has.
Does this answer the question? Also check the thread few pages back and see earthly examples of this effect.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by PsykoOps
If you think there is 2 light sources then you really do need an expert help. Thing is that whoever this lady is in the video is far from an expert. This issue has been beaten to death on this thread already.

You can't be an expert. You don't answer questions. I see two shadows facing each other. Unless there is something reflecting the light back, it isn't possible.

That will be 75 dollars. I'll just add it to your tab.

I've been hoping someone would come along with this...

I have a simple challenge for you, 'let'.., one that goes right to the heart of your knowledge and experience on this topic.

Point out the two shadows facing each other, very precisely. By all means pick your favorites. You could probably use truthquest's 'angles' to identify them, if you are not capable of editing and posting an image.


Now, if I - using a camera with a similar angle lens, the Sun, and a couple of suitably placed objects - can duplicate the effect (and also SHOW YOU HOW YOU CAN DO IT FOR YOURSELF), will you apologise and admit you are completely wrong?

By the way, I would encourage and welcome others to do the same thing - let's see how closely we can duplicate the effect. (....and maybe that way I won't have to even bother.. )

Oh, by the way, there has been a development. I urge you to see my next post, folks...

STOP PRESS!!
Especially for tomblvd, but for all discerning viewers eager to find out more about Jarrah's 'expert witness' program.... it appears that the 'expert' in Jarrah's video was contacted, way back in 2007 - try here:

educationforum.ipbhost.com...

Scroll down to the post by Dave Greer, Apr 19 2007, 12:15 PM.
The image he created is no longer there, but you'll see it shortly if you keep reading..

Because.. it gets SO MUCH BETTER. Scroll down to about 3/4 of the way down, Dave Greer again at Apr 23 2007, 04:58 AM.

There is the email from Jenny Heller for all to see, with her permission. And the (very pleasant) email from Dave that elicited her reply, along with an example image showing the same type of shadow effect. Like i said, It's not hard to do.

Now, I'm not going to quote the email from Jenny, except to whet your appetite with these words "...one of his class assignments.."

I STRONGLY recommend that everyone goes and takes a long hard look at what she says. Try to keep a straight face while doing so.

If Jarrah could have been busted worse, I honestly don't know how.

I'll be interested to hear other comments on this. I'm afraid I'm finding it rather difficult to stop laughing. BTW, in case you are concerned at what you might find, the email is not embarrassing at all, from Jenny's perspective... In fact, I congratulate her for what she did, and said.

But from Jarrah's? OH DEAR!!!!

Priceless. You just can't get better entertainment than this....

reply to post by CHRLZ



LMAO! Well done CHRLZ.

Once again Foos, Truth and the rest are done in by the cretin Jarrah, and being incurious about what they see.

I think "kicked square in the balls" is not too strong a descriptiion.

"Perspective expert" indeed!


[edit on 20-5-2010 by Tomblvd]

Oh, and it appears I was beaten to it.. Here's an image from a 'pericynthion', from the unexplained mysteries forum.



A masterpiece, if you ask me.

'Truthquest' and 'letthe..', what say you? Care to measure the angles?

Why not try in your own lounge room? Preferably use sun rays rather than a spot lamp, though.

reply to post by FoosM


FoosM, earlier I asked for a list of unanswered questions. You then said it was very obvious which questions were not answered yet, and came with an example. That question turned out to be answered very easily.

Can you come with a top 5 list of issues you base your position that the moon landing is a hoax on? And if these issues can be explained rationally, are you willing to accept that the landings were real? If not, what will convince you that the landings were real?

reply to post by -PLB-


... and while he is at it, can i please know if werner von braun was in on it, and what this dream of his was he wanted to realize?

reply to post by CHRLZ


Yeah I knew it would end up being something like this. Can we bury this issue now?

Originally posted by FoosM
but you didnt touch the tire tracks issue on either photo

I don't see any issue in either photo.

How about we look at a higher res version first of all.

AS15-86-11602

I see patches of tire tracks with footprints having covered over parts of them. So what's the problem with that exactly? The area around the LM, over the course of 3 EVA's, is going to see a lot of action. No footprint or tire track is going to remain undisturbed for very long during there stay.

And with AS16-110-18006. I'm not sure if its already been mentioned, but they picked up the rover and moved it. Thus the tracks why the tracks are not aligned with the wheels.

history.nasa.gov...
145:11:16 Young: Me too, Charlie. Fact is, let's bring the Rover back up here.

145:11:23 Duke: Well, I'm out. I'm not getting out again, and getting back in.

145:11:26 Young: No, I don't mean that. I mean let's bring the Rover back up here.

145:11:29 Duke: Oh, you want to pick it up, huh?

145:11:30 Young: Yeah.

145:11:31 Duke: Okay. (Pause)

145:11:36 Young: Okay, now. We've got to swing it around. (Pause) There we go.

145:11:50 Duke: Okay.

145:11:51 Young: That's more like it. (Long Pause)

Also the caption for AS16-110-18006 on the Apollo surface journal says this:

Rightward of 18005, showing the back of the Rover. In this photo, note that the Rover is not sitting on it's own tracks. After getting off, John decided at 145:11:16 that the Rover had to be re-positioned and, rather than spend any time getting back on, he and Charlie picked the vehicle up and moved it.