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: 61
377
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 06:25 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]



It all depends on how good the scanning resolution was do you not think about what you are stating.

For EXAMPLE people ask why they dont use Hubble to picture the landing sites, well because the smallest object it could resolve is about 300ft across so the lander wouldn't show.

Find out the scan resolution and that will give you your answer.




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Hey Foos, are you ever going to admit you were wrong about Jarrah's "perspective expert"?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

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.



Well what do I do to counter such a great reply well this
your the moron not the teacher you TOOK photography welll your statement re the rock shows the lesson was wasted I TAKE IT that it was only one.

I can go outside and take a picture of the Moon from the Earth NO problem have you not tried that and because of the exposure time the Moon shows and not stars.

In fact when you used to buy film a little piece of paper with it gave you exposure settings to use if you had a manual camera but no light meter.

With regards to the Astronauts pictures we all KNOW that they were not all perfect, The Moon is lit by the Sun SO guess what exposures are like a summers day on Earth CAN I ASK do you have to find a HUGE rock here on Earth to hide in the shadow to take pictures here on Earth
DIDN'T THINK SO

What really is worrying is WHAT country has such an appalling level of education and I do hope you are not the best example from it.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

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.



The Earth scaling is NOT wrong how the Earth would look depends on the focal length of the lens and film/sensor format again were you a sleep when your TEACHER explained that in photography


jra

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
This is why its not a notch. For what purpose?


I honestly don't know. It might be connected to the number that's stamped onto the photo.


remember those streak that i mentioned?
Why is it the same in these photos?


Every photo from Magazine E has these smears. Which is unfortunate, but something must have gotten inside that film magazine that made a mess on every photo.

I don't see how these two issues are 'hoax' related though.


Originally posted by dragnet53
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?


Do you know what 10 meters per pixel means? It means that every pixel in an image is equal to 10 meters. That was the resolution of Kaguya's terrain camera. The LM's width is 4.3m (9.07m if you include the legs). So at 10m/pixel the LM will be smaller than half a pixel. This is why you cannot see the leftover equipment in the Kaguya images.

But the point that seems to be escaping you is that the terrain matches the photo taken on the surface during Apollo 15. That's the whole point of the comparison. I'd also like to see the source for your claim that JAXA doesn't fully believe NASA on the Apollo 15 landing site. I've never seen JAXA express any doubt towards any of that at all.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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]



It all depends on how good the scanning resolution was do you not think about what you are stating.

For EXAMPLE people ask why they dont use Hubble to picture the landing sites, well because the smallest object it could resolve is about 300ft across so the lander wouldn't show.

Find out the scan resolution and that will give you your answer.


From what I read about the hubble not taking the pictures on the moon was because of the reflective surface. That was the answer straight from NASA.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Whats wrong no reply to my answers re your photography lesson


What is you answer re this and The HUBBLE not taking a picture of the Moon


www.nasa-intelligence.com...

Back to the photography lessons what have you got to say!!!

[edit on 21-5-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
From what I read about the hubble not taking the pictures on the moon was because of the reflective surface. That was the answer straight from NASA.


Frankly, this is getting beyond a joke. Dragnet, CITE YOUR SOURCE. QUOTE IT.

When you do that, we will explain the context. NASA may well have referred to the fact that the lunar surface brightness may damage some of its sensitive instruments - it is designed for FAINT DEEP SPACE objects, not imaging the Moon. (Having said that, it has been used to take some lunar images, but with great care to ensure other instruments were shielded..)

But this stupid suggestion that Hubble could resolve Apollo remnants, comes back to a fundamental issue that none of these Apollo deniers seem to be able to get through their impenetrable skulls - Neither the Hubble, or any earth-based telescope, or MOST of the spacecraft that imaged the surface of the Moon (from USA, Russia, Japan, India, etc), has the RESOLUTION required to image the lunar equipment.

Up until LRO. Before it, the best that even the very best spacecraft could resolve were large areas, eg the long tracks made during some of the missions.

Now why is it that the Apollo deniers don't understand this really, really basic concept? Anyone who has even a passing interest in space exploration understands what resolution means. Ie, the ability to actually RESOLVE something...

Or perhaps they do understand, but simply want to string it along for a while.

The resolution capabilities of the spacecraft and telescopes in question are all easily researched, and it AGAIN shows the PITIFUL level of knowledge these people bring to the topic.


Anyway, dragnet53, I hereby formally request that you CITE your claim about what NASA stated.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


errrr.. but you don't want to post your own sources ?? wow.. just wow.. and there's the kettle calling the pot black..

errp .. try again ..





posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
errrr.. but you don't want to post your own sources ?? wow.. just wow.. and there's the kettle calling the pot black..

errp .. try again ..


OK, Komodo, now it's your turn. Keep laughing while you answer..

Tell us which ones YOU think could have resolved an Apollo remnant.

Here's the information for Hubble, seeing you asked and are clearly unable to find it...:

en.wikipedia.org...

"the Hubble resolution limits viewing of lunar objects to sizes no smaller than 60-75 yards (55-69 meters)"


www.tass-survey.org...

... impossible for an optical telescope on the Earth to resolve any of the Apollo hardware ...A lunar lander of width 5 meters, at a distance of 382,000 km, subtends an angle of 0.003 arcsec. The Hubble Space Telescope isn't appreciably closer the Moon, and its best resolution is about 0.03 arcsec in the near-UV. Not good enough."


And I strongly recommend this one, which explains it all really simply in detail such that even a foos or dragnet could understand (with a bit of help from their mums, perhaps):

calgary.rasc.ca...

even ignoring the limitation imposed by Earth's atmosphere we can see that we would need an optical telescope with an objective mirror about 100 meters (about 328 feet) in diameter to just about be able to see the landers and the rovers. ... the largest Optical telescope in the world is only 10 meters in diameter, the cost of building such a telescope could be more than the cost of going there and taking a picture with a normal camera.



Would you like some more? I am here to serve.

Which telescope or spacecraft do YOU think could resolve the Apollo landers, and are unable to find the resolution figures for..? And don't forget to explain why you picked it...



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
This is why its not a notch. For what purpose?


I honestly don't know. It might be connected to the number that's stamped onto the photo.


remember those streak that i mentioned?
Why is it the same in these photos?


Every photo from Magazine E has these smears. Which is unfortunate, but something must have gotten inside that film magazine that made a mess on every photo.

I don't see how these two issues are 'hoax' related though.



Well as I said before.
I think those photos are composites.
I think the reseau plate was added after those photos were made, and/or
used to to scale the photos/objects to match the terrain.
I believe several shadows and the sky were darkened with ink or something similar.



Before computers, photo manipulation was achieved by retouching with ink, paint, double-exposure, piecing photos or negatives together in the darkroom, or scratching Polaroids.





posted on May, 21 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   
You know it has to make one think... NASA never did come up with a convincing argument about why we never went back to the Moon.

I think it's funny.. like Bush.. every time a President says we are going back to the Moon or on to Mars, the next administration always scraps the idea for some reason or another.. this has happened many times in the past.

Makes one think this kid is on to something.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Hey Foos, are you ever going to admit you were wrong about Jarrah's "perspective expert"?


Um... no, why?
In the video she states who she is and where her expertise is in: "perspective"




[edit on 21-5-2010 by FoosM]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
You know it has to make one think... NASA never did come up with a convincing argument about why we never went back to the Moon.

I think it's funny.. like Bush.. every time a President says we are going back to the Moon or on to Mars, the next administration always scraps the idea for some reason or another.. this has happened many times in the past.

Makes one think this kid is on to something.


yup, i find that suspicious as well. I mean with the constellation program they didn't even have a moon lander design ready. yet, they wanted more money from congress. Ron Paul needs to give NASA an audit. Just like when Columbus found the new world they went back again and built a city. When they had the price tags cheap they should of built the moon base before inflation hit.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Hey Foos, are you ever going to admit you were wrong about Jarrah's "perspective expert"?


Um... no, why?
In the video she states who she is and where her expertise is in: "perspective"




[edit on 21-5-2010 by FoosM]


But then in a subsequent e-mail she admits she isn't.

Anything JW asserts in one of his miraculous videos is true, without confirmation? Is that how the world works for you?

How many times must you be embarrassed by JW's lies before you stop believing what he says?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
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.


Thanks for PMing me the link to what seems to be the original source of this image at:
educationforum.ipbhost.com...

I did measure the angles and they were easier to measure than the Apollo 17 images. I found there is a total of 123 degrees of difference between the shadow angles on the left side of the image vs. the rights side, which compares well with the 112 degrees I measured on the Apollo 17 photos.

In summary, the source says that a SINGLE spotlight was used in the image. It was a 1/10 scale model setup using shaped paper wads as rocks. What the photographer claims he did was get the same view angle as in the Apollo image by setting his Canon SD700 IS to 5.8mm focal length, which ends up being very similar to a 35mm camera. The author claims the Apollo 17 picture in question was shot with a 70mm Hasselblad using a 60mm lens. Much more detail can be found at the above link which adds much more detail about the photographic experiment.

This image conclusively shows that sharp shadow angles are in fact consistent with real photography and therefore the photo is consistent with a real photo AFAIK.

So, that shows that evidence #1 "Exhibit A" from the Moonfaker series is incorrect. I think there are about 20 points to cover from the series I have yet to review and hope that the rest of them will be settled with the same level of confidence.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
Thanks for PMing me the link to what seems to be the original source of this image at:
educationforum.ipbhost.com...

I did measure the angles...

...This image conclusively shows that sharp shadow angles are in fact consistent with real photography and therefore the photo is consistent with a real photo AFAIK.

So, that shows that evidence #1 "Exhibit A" from the Moonfaker series is incorrect. I think there are about 20 points to cover from the series I have yet to review and hope that the rest of them will be settled with the same level of confidence.


Applause! Wow.

Truthquest, I humbly apologise - I misread you. That's a fine piece of reasoning/analysis, and a credit to you. Keep it up!!!



[edit on 21-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Now, to tidy up some other issues, and perhaps refine the definition of 'anomalous'...


1. Where did "letthereaderunderstand" go?
He seems to have inexplicably vanished after being asked if he was brave enough to admit error and apologise, if his 'anomalous' shadows that face each other could be easily duplicated.

2. Why did FoosM not respond when he was busted for editing his quotes:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead?

3. Why has letthereaderunderstand not responded to this image:
img219.imageshack.us...
that does a rather good job of duplicating the 'anomalous' image in question?

Again, kudos to truthquest - who has now had a good look at the image in question. I very humbly apologise if I misread you on this, tq, but I would still point out that you need to do this sort of research before, rather than after...


4. Why did FoosM not address the facts posted by jra:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
in regard to the 'anomalous' lunar rover track issues? He gets very upset when people do not address all the red herrings HE throws up...

5. When will dragnet53 acknowledge that Hubble and the earlier spacecraft (before LRO) sent to do lunar mapping did NOT have the required resolution to resolve the Apollo remnants? (I mean, even Exuberant1 has conceded that one..)

6. When will dragnet53 cite his sources for his statement that Jaxa 'didn't fully believe NASA", which he has repeated in various forms several times now, eg:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

7. Why does dragnet53 continue repeating his incorrect claim that the "scaling is wrong' in JAXA earthrise clips:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
- does he not realise this proves he doesn't even understand the effect of focal length on perspective? (hint - what does a FISHEYE lens do, and why..)

8. Why does dragnet53 make claims here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
like:
"you need perfect lighting and exposure to make a good quality photo" (there are bazilions of great images where the lighting/exposure was 'technically' poor)
"moon surface is supposed to be highly reflective"
(no, it's about the same as worn ashphalt/concrete, but it's brightly lit by the Sun...)
Dragnet53 then implies that because there was bright light, the astronauts would take more 'bad' photos than they did, and that they needed a "huge rock that casted a shadow to block the light" to get good images. Has he told that to any beach or snow photographers, who work with similar bright ground surfaces, and manage perfectly well? (In fact, these conditions are great, as the bright ground throws up plenty of light to fill in shadows (thus debunking another denier claim, btw). Did he actually listen, during his alleged photography classes, to the bit that talked about EV, and what camera settings would be required for a bright sunny day? (hint, the same settings that they used on the Moon, as it was a bright sunlit scene..)

Anyway, you can bet these issues will remain outstanding, and that's just the last few pages worth...

If anyone believes that us deBUNKers have not adequately addressed anything, please point it out, WITH YOUR OWN REASONING, not MINDLESS reposting of Youtube videos.

Thanks to all those helping to deny ignorance here..



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


My fault it was the resolution of Hubble telescope is why they couldn't take pictures of close up of the moon surface.

my bad!



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


you know I make mistakes and sometimes you guys confuse the hell out of me. I am getting tired of the same ol' bs arguments. To Err is human. But hey like I have stated our US government lies and does things behind our backs. I have very little trust in them. They lied about global warming and they lied about the RMS Lusitania. Hell, I also don't believe in the 9/11 official story or JFK assassination.

Also why does NASA continue to live in the 50's and the new shuttle looks like an old apollo ship? Boeing or Lockheed had an awesome design of the new shuttle and NASA said no. We are supposed to go ahead not backwards.

I know you are trying to lose my credibility. But it seems I hit a nerve.

[snip]

 


Removed un-civil comment



[edit on 21/5/10 by masqua]




top topics



 
377
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join