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: 60
377
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Guess I will never learn if von Braun was in on it or what his dream was




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


What in the bloody blazes is wrong with you??


Its actually that sole boot print above the crosshair left of the rock that screams impossible. The shadows actually go toward the astronot even though its higher up!


Your continued insulting misspelling of 'Astronaut' is uncalled for.

The rest of your "assessment" of the photo is merely laughable....


And what about those three rocks close to the astros head on the right side.
Also pointing right at him!


Your point? You do have one, I gather? NO? Thought as much...:shk:


Any normal, ordinay thinking adult (or child of reasonable age and intelligence) can look at those pictures in comparison, and see instantly just HOW the effects from the Apollo photo were recreated, ON EARTH, in a bloke's living room! On FLAT CARPET!! Not the varied slopes and irregular terrain on the Moon! A proper representation could be easily reproduced by using beach sand, or just a dirt field somewhere on Earth!

Unbelievable! There is no way, anymore, you can convince me of your sincerity in believing the "Moon Hoax" nonsense...by now, all you're doing is trolling, plain and simple!

It's NOT cute...it's NOT adorable....and it's NOT funny. Your mates may think so, laughing it up in your parent's basement? Pathetic, if that's the case.

You know....Socrates (an actual genius, BTW) would pretend to be 'dumb', or naive when asking questions in order to trip up a fatuous blowhard, to humiliate him. In fact, Socrates' questions were clever, and pointed, not stupid at all. He knew the correct answers.

You, FoosM, on the other hand....you certainly are no Socrates......



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Everybody in your eyes it seems always busted if they are a moonhoax believer.

This thread needs to be locked. It is like trying to argue with a brink wall on each side. I know my view point won't change because I know our government has lied from the RMS Lusitania to Global Warming.




since ya didnt answer I'd like to ask again:
How did NASA manage to fake lunar landscapes that would match up 100% with data from JAXA, 40 years later?
Or did JAXA just pretend to send a probe, and actually made their models according to ancient NASA fotos?


Jaxa from what I read didn't fully believe NASA on the apollo 15 landing site. They didn't find jack, but I find it quite odd they did gravitational readings on the moon surface. Japanese are honorable people and know they don't lie. Why didn't NASA show them apollo 11 or 12 landing sites?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky


Not talking about pics of the landing sites.

Left: JAXA data
Right: Apollo

Isnt it time for you to randomly declare victory again?

Edit to add: You got a vacation home up there? Cool! Can I come visit you one weekend?


[edit on 20-5-2010 by debunky]


Notice that the JAXA picture is a 3d picture of the scanned surface of the moon. Now if it was a scanned surface would it also scan the equipment since it is supposedly still on the surface?



[edit on 20-5-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
Never mind the Shadows.
Ignore 1000s of earth fotos with a single light source with shadows showing the exact same behaviour.

Just explain how NASA managed to fake moon landscapes matching up perfectly with JAXA data, not to be collected for 40 years.

Ohhh ohhh... FoosM is here!
Please, pretty, pretty please do tell:
Was von Braun in on it?
And what was this dream he was trying to realize?

[edit on 20-5-2010 by debunky]


Awww you want me to give you some attention?
How sweet.

Tomblvd:


Heh, and here you spent post after post earlier in the thread telling us that they brought von Braun into NASA explicitly for the purpose of "militarizing space", only to find out later he only wanted to go to Mars.

But then again, consistency was never one of your strong points....


THEY brought von Braun to.... militarize space?
True or false?

He only wanted to go to Mars?
True or false?

Here is a hint, they are both basically true, except the last one I wouldn't state "only"
Maybe he was a sick nazi who enjoyed making WMD as well as landing people on other planets.

So there is no inconsistency on my part.

Got it?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


What in the bloody blazes is wrong with you??


Its actually that sole boot print above the crosshair left of the rock that screams impossible. The shadows actually go toward the astronot even though its higher up!


Your continued insulting misspelling of 'Astronaut' is uncalled for.

The rest of your "assessment" of the photo is merely laughable....


And what about those three rocks close to the astros head on the right side.
Also pointing right at him!


Your point? You do have one, I gather? NO? Thought as much...:shk:




I made my point, I call fake.
You disagree with me?
I guess not because I dont see you denying it.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
Never mind the Shadows.
Ignore 1000s of earth fotos with a single light source with shadows showing the exact same behaviour.

Just explain how NASA managed to fake moon landscapes matching up perfectly with JAXA data, not to be collected for 40 years.

Ohhh ohhh... FoosM is here!
Please, pretty, pretty please do tell:
Was von Braun in on it?
And what was this dream he was trying to realize?

[edit on 20-5-2010 by debunky]


But I guess you missed the JAXA earth rising clips? The earth's scaling is wrong in the apollo photo's of the earth. If my Japanese wasn't so rusty I really wish I could ask one of them if they are half convinced that America landed on the moon. but hey they are going to send robots around 2020 to the moon. Now that would be awe inspiring to see what they find on the surface.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


From "what I read"? We supposed to accept your interpretation??


Jaxa from what I read didn't fully believe NASA on the apollo 15 landing site.


How about citing that, so everyone can see it in proper context, not filtered through your haze....

Oh, and your gem here:


But I guess you missed the JAXA earth rising clips? The earth's scaling is wrong in the apollo photo's of the earth.


Seriously? You post this? Serious?

I'd have thought you'd be running out of straws, by now....

[edit on 20 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by debunky


Not talking about pics of the landing sites.

Left: JAXA data
Right: Apollo

Isnt it time for you to randomly declare victory again?

Edit to add: You got a vacation home up there? Cool! Can I come visit you one weekend?


[edit on 20-5-2010 by debunky]


Notice that the JAXA picture is a 3d picture of the scanned surface of the moon. Now if it was a scanned surface would it also scan the equipment since it is supposedly still on the surface?

[edit on 20-5-2010 by dragnet53]



What he doesn't want to acknowledge is the fact that NASA said they mapped the moon to choose landing sites. Who knows, maybe they also mapped the moon during apollo using unmanned craft and from there extrapolated data for their photo compositions.

Not to mention we have no idea what the DoD was up to.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:39 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


You must be an expert at everything! But hey I also took photography as well and I know you need perfect lighting and exposure to make a good quality photo. Too much light and you get a bad photo. Moon surface is supposed to be highly reflective but yet the astronauts take really good snap shots. I know they used the run and shoot method until they got a clean shot, but even those clean shots would still have bad shots. They would have to found a huge rock that casted a shadow to block the light from the surface.

But I know and predict you will say something that I was taught wrong and my teacher was a moron.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by debunky


Not talking about pics of the landing sites.

Left: JAXA data
Right: Apollo

Isnt it time for you to randomly declare victory again?

Edit to add: You got a vacation home up there? Cool! Can I come visit you one weekend?


[edit on 20-5-2010 by debunky]


Notice that the JAXA picture is a 3d picture of the scanned surface of the moon. Now if it was a scanned surface would it also scan the equipment since it is supposedly still on the surface?



[edit on 20-5-2010 by dragnet53]


*sigh*
yes: Left: CGI, based on the JAXA data.
Right: NASA faking that data.

It is not the landing site. The Rover moved on since that picture was taken. Tiny details, like the rock next to the rover don't show up. Being a metal frame it would have quite a different return than the regolith anyway.

Now: how did they anticipate the data 40 years before it was collected?

@Foosm:
So von Braun was in on it? He knew it was impossible to go to the Moon, so he started planning for Mars? Because Mars would be so much better for weaponizing space than the Moon? I was under the impression that having some nuclear missiles on the moon would be an advantage since they can fire down here quite easily, while getting up there is a whole lot harder? (gravity well and all) And the difficulties of a Moon Mission dont apply for a Mars Mission?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by debunky


Not talking about pics of the landing sites.

Left: JAXA data
Right: Apollo

Isnt it time for you to randomly declare victory again?

Edit to add: You got a vacation home up there? Cool! Can I come visit you one weekend?


[edit on 20-5-2010 by debunky]


Notice that the JAXA picture is a 3d picture of the scanned surface of the moon. Now if it was a scanned surface would it also scan the equipment since it is supposedly still on the surface?

[edit on 20-5-2010 by dragnet53]



What he doesn't want to acknowledge is the fact that NASA said they mapped the moon to choose landing sites. Who knows, maybe they also mapped the moon during apollo using unmanned craft and from there extrapolated data for their photo compositions.

Not to mention we have no idea what the DoD was up to.


It is funny that you mention this and I have posted this video on here before and nobody can tell me if it is true or not.




it coincides with what you are saying.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Astounding....you been fighting dragnet for control of those straws???


What he doesn't want to acknowledge is the fact that NASA said they mapped the moon to choose landing sites.


Why not actually do the research, instead of spouting junk?

OF COURSE they used what technology they had available to them, back then, to select landing sites!


Many ways, what they were able to photograph (and recieve i n transmitted images) from the early orbiters, up to and inlcuding direct observations with telescopes!



Who knows, maybe they also mapped the moon during apollo using unmanned craft and from there extrapolated data for their photo compositions.


Who knows?!? HISTORY, and the historical records!


Sorry, but you are too ridiculous, so my original point stands.

This is trolling behavior. Tossing out what ever outlandish "theory", one after the other, ocmpletely disregarding the data, facts, and science presented, but barrelling along, changing topics at will, and throwing out stuff to see what will stick? It is not inquiry, it is disruptive and malicious.

Trolling.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by debunky


Not talking about pics of the landing sites.

Left: JAXA data
Right: Apollo

Isnt it time for you to randomly declare victory again?

Edit to add: You got a vacation home up there? Cool! Can I come visit you one weekend?


[edit on 20-5-2010 by debunky]


Notice that the JAXA picture is a 3d picture of the scanned surface of the moon. Now if it was a scanned surface would it also scan the equipment since it is supposedly still on the surface?



[edit on 20-5-2010 by dragnet53]


*sigh*
yes: Left: CGI, based on the JAXA data.
Right: NASA faking that data.

It is not the landing site. The Rover moved on since that picture was taken. Tiny details, like the rock next to the rover don't show up. Being a metal frame it would have quite a different return than the regolith anyway.

Now: how did they anticipate the data 40 years before it was collected?

@Foosm:
So von Braun was in on it? He knew it was impossible to go to the Moon, so he started planning for Mars? Because Mars would be so much better for weaponizing space than the Moon? I was under the impression that having some nuclear missiles on the moon would be an advantage since they can fire down here quite easily, while getting up there is a whole lot harder? (gravity well and all) And the difficulties of a Moon Mission dont apply for a Mars Mission?


*SIGH* I know that it is a scanned surface of the moon. But your lack of reading comprehension is lacking from what I stated. They scanned the surface and if they scanned the surface that data would also have the landing equipment there as well.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by debunky


Not talking about pics of the landing sites.

Left: JAXA data
Right: Apollo

Isnt it time for you to randomly declare victory again?

Edit to add: You got a vacation home up there? Cool! Can I come visit you one weekend?


[edit on 20-5-2010 by debunky]


Notice that the JAXA picture is a 3d picture of the scanned surface of the moon. Now if it was a scanned surface would it also scan the equipment since it is supposedly still on the surface?

[edit on 20-5-2010 by dragnet53]



What he doesn't want to acknowledge is the fact that NASA said they mapped the moon to choose landing sites. Who knows, maybe they also mapped the moon during apollo using unmanned craft and from there extrapolated data for their photo compositions.

Not to mention we have no idea what the DoD was up to.


And what was used for that mapping? Telescopes, photos and pen and paper!!! Yet they somehow managed to get a perfect 3D model out of that, one the japanese could only match, rather than surpass 40 years later...



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dragnet53
 

Yup. Perfect shots everytime.




Yup, they sure as hell used a shadow in that picture which I could believe. But the other pictures without the shadow casting is in question.


[edit on 20-5-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 




I know they used the run and shoot method until they got a clean shot, but even those clean shots would still have bad shots.


Poorly exposed images. Poorly focused images. Poorly framed images.
All from one magazine.


[edit on 5/20/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks for providing that photograph. It looks like someone put a lot of effort into re-creating the scene. I typed in the URL displayed on the image you presented but didn't see any detail on how the photo was created. If you could provide a link that specifically discusses that photo I'd appreciate it.

I'd obviously want to know how many light sources they used and how they set up the scene.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


Well, as to that photo's provenance, would be good to find out, but alas I only swiped it, and delivered it.

I repeated it from CHRLZ's post HERE.

Guess a visit to the website mentioned might be a starting place. This could overtask my computing skills, however. Others are more capapble.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join