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: 623
377
<< 620  621  622    624  625  626 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
sorry - is this related to the OP in some way, or are we now just cataloging photos and replica's??


edit on 25-10-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


Come on, of course.
Why would they at Pinewood Studios build a replica of the Apollo LM under the guise of Diamonds are Forever?
When it wasnt even used? A film that points to the moon hoax.

Why would a life-size version of the LM be made at the UK ?
The place where Kubrick made 2001 (NASA EAST)?




posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Wow....


Van Allen was also against manned space travel as far as I recall.
No wonder he was so quiet during Apollo.
And no wonder he know defends it publicly.
Didnt want to get on that enemy list!





That one made me smile Foo!

Dr James Van Allen has been dead for 5 years!

And he obviously didn't want to get on Nixon's enemy list........even though Nixon has been dead for over 17 years.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Because it was originally been planned to be part of the movie, but was then canned?? It's not unheard of.

why can't you find this stuff yourself?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
 


Because it was originally been planned to be part of the movie, but was then canned?? It's not unheard of.

why can't you find this stuff yourself?



Source.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM
Wow....


Van Allen was also against manned space travel as far as I recall.
No wonder he was so quiet during Apollo.
And no wonder he know defends it publicly.
Didnt want to get on that enemy list!





That one made me smile Foo!

Dr James Van Allen has been dead for 5 years!

And he obviously didn't want to get on Nixon's enemy list........even though Nixon has been dead for over 17 years.


Oh I know they are all dead.
Still waiting for that info!



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Oh I know they are all dead.
Still waiting for that info!



Well of course you know they are all dead.................now that I told you!


As for waiting for that "info".

Hmmm as I recall you couldn't supply me a direct quote from Van Allen regarding shielding......I'm STILL waiting.

.......And there's your view on Jarrah's claim that Challenger was deliberately allowed to blow up to silence Christa McAuliffe.........you don't seem too keen to back up you friend JW on this issue.

edit on 25-10-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   


Just for you Foos.........this is page 17 of a detailed report called THE EFFECTS OF HIGH ALTITUDE EXPLOSIONS by Wilmot N. Hess .... Goddard Space Flight Center (Dated Sept 1964)


The final paragraph should be the "info" you are looking for.

If your browser has no zoom or magnifier or you can't quite read what it says then I copied the last part for you

"By the time the MA-8 flight took place, decay of the trapped particles had reduced the expected dose considerably, and the dose received was well under 1 Rad.This is less than is received in some x rays and is not a problem."

Note: MA-8 refers to Mercury-Atlas 8 flight in Oct 1962

Here is the access to the Full report.printfu.org...
edit on 25-10-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
 


Because it was originally been planned to be part of the movie, but was then canned?? It's not unheard of.

why can't you find this stuff yourself?



Source.



Let's see - it didnt' appear in the movie - right?? Any doubt about that?

And you've already seen statements in the last page or 2 saying it was made for Diamonds are Forever......

Ipso facto



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Pinke
 



Tell that to any number of criminals that have been convicted on such evidence; what you're saying is just such a media high school teacher response frankly.

Gee mate, obviously you're way smarter than me...

The question is, WHY did they need to enhance it at all??

If the resolution was 0.5m per pixel then why not simply post the pics as such?

It's really something they do in the entertainment of advertising industry, not in the scientific community..


Maybe not smarter. I don't actually think I'm smart at all! But I do know a few things, and I try real hard at what I do. I think I've just had a very different set of experiences from you, regardless of the fact you don't appreciate it.

The WHY question ...

Russ would probably say something like ... to assist communication and investigation maybe.

Sueten might say ... to allow others to perceive relevant information present in an image.

Both have contributed to books on the subject. Both advocate using scaling in the correct circumstances for visibility and comparison.

NASA might also say they don't want to be uploaded 4k or whatever raw images to the public. Which is understandable.

You could probably find the very original large LRO images, but there are compressed versions available if 'enhancing' upsets you, but if you don't want to go to the effort of getting the raw images you could then learn about the techniques used and experiment (albeit with lesser success) on the jpgs. I'm yet to see any of the strong hoax believers in this thread attempt to get copies of the original images.

Furthermore, blowing an image up in the entertainment field is generally avoided like the plague in most cases. However ...

Next time you see your neurologist perhaps you might tell them you do not want the entertainment industry looking for your brain tumor.

Scaling and alignment is used regularly for medical image registration such as combining PET, MRI, and CT scans together. They're regularly used to make 3D projections of medical data, and by surgeons for guidance. Sometimes there's even
transformations and morphing use to do comparisons of gastro scans and correct distortion due to patient movement etc and to collate follw up data in a visual time line. Morphing was used in the movie 'Willow' as well, and Agent Smith also used a lot similar techniques in the Matrix.

It's also used in X-rays for easier comparisons. It's used in microbiology to map cell networks that are too difficult to see by eye and to compare slides of microscopic things which like to move. It's used for astrophotography regularly and image stitching for planet photography, and to compare older images with newer ones. The military use it. In court rooms it's used very regularly.

At the moment I'm just talking about upscaling, but they also use subtractions/difference etc etc ... to isolate relevant information and a myriad of other more complex functions.

So either science has become part of the entertainment industry or ...



By all means, assert that you think the images are fake. That NASA placed equipment on the moon to pretend like it was there since the 60s then took some snaps. However, claiming that NASA is using unusual image processing is not a valid concern in my amateurish completely not expert opinion.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


None of that matters Pinke. Kubrick was known for his expertise in lenses. What are your thoughts on the lens? Is it special in any way? Would NASA have access to one? Could Kubrick have gotten the lens from NASA?


A former still photographer for Look magazine, Kubrick has become extremely knowledgeable with regard to lenses and, in fact, has taught himself every phase of the technical application of his filming equipment. He called one day to ask me if I thought I could fit a Zeiss lens he had procured, which had a focal length of 50mm and a maximum aperture of f/O.7.
Source www.visual-memory.co.uk...




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Because it was originally been planned to be part of the movie, but was then canned?? It's not unheard of.

No it doesn't look like the things used in the "Diamonds Are Forever" movie. It looks like the real Lunar Module.


AS11-40-5862



edit on 26-10-2011 by Ove38 because: link fix



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Ove38
 




The Lunar Module (")created(") by Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire is now at the Science Museum in South Kensington, London


I added those quotation marks....up there ^ ^ ^.

Why did you do that ?! It was really created by Pinewood Studios.

www.pinewoodgroup.com...




edit on 26-10-2011 by Ove38 because: link fix



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Kubrick's special lens :

The Zeiss 50mm and 36.5mm, f/0.7 lenses used to film candlelight sequences for "Barry Lyndon" without the addition of artificial light were originally still-camera lenses developed for use by NASA in the Apollo Moon-landing program, and modified by Cinema Products Corp..
www.visual-memory.co.uk...

Kubrick got a lens. What did NASA get from Kubrick?



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM

Oh I know they are all dead.
Still waiting for that info!




Hmmm as I recall you couldn't supply me a direct quote from Van Allen regarding shielding......I'm STILL waiting.


Think back further, you are supposed to come up with the info.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Because it was originally been planned to be part of the movie, but was then canned?? It's not unheard of.

No it doesn't look like the things used in the "Diamonds Are Forever" movie. It looks like the real Lunar Module.


And your point is what??



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Because it was originally been planned to be part of the movie, but was then canned?? It's not unheard of.

No it doesn't look like the things used in the "Diamonds Are Forever" movie. It looks like the real Lunar Module.


And your point is what??



Wow... I cant believe you are not capable of connecting the dots here.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Because it was originally been planned to be part of the movie, but was then canned?? It's not unheard of.

No it doesn't look like the things used in the "Diamonds Are Forever" movie. It looks like the real Lunar Module.


And your point is what??


That it is the real Lunar Module used by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
And not somthing made for the "Diamonds Are Forever" movie.

We would need Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrins airline tickets to London



A airline ticket from 1969
edit on 26-10-2011 by Ove38 because: new link



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


I don't think you're getting my point..

Yes, we use enhancement techniques in medicine aswell as in media etc..
I didn't think I needed to list every single instance..

But in all those cases there is a reason for it..
Better image for entertainment or easier to depict medical conditions etc..

NASA on the other hand has really not resorted to such methods much that I'm aware of..
They tend to stick to the raw facts and that includes images etc..

When people ask why the Astronauts didn't take pics of the stars or perform other events we are told it's because they are there on a scientific mission, not to entertain the public..

So therefore, IMO it is odd that the pics they release of the best images so far of the landing sites are admittedly heavily enhanced...

Just seems out of character given past traits and I really don't see why...



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 



We would need Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrins airline tickets to London


Congratulations. You have now proven that the Moon landings were a hoax by posting a picture of an airline ticket for an Oakland to Seattle flight. Apparently the person who gave you a star for that doesn't realize you're joking. All of your posts have been so childish, I can only assume you're laughing your head off at the hoax believers. Please show some respect.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Ove38
 



We would need Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrins airline tickets to London


Congratulations. You have now proven that the Moon landings were a hoax by posting a picture of an airline ticket for an Oakland to Seattle flight. Apparently the person who gave you a star for that doesn't realize you're joking. All of your posts have been so childish, I can only assume you're laughing your head off at the hoax believers. Please show some respect.

What do you have to say about the Lunar Module created by Pinewood Studios in London ?

Doesn't it prove that the Moon landings were a hoax ?

Do I really need to provide Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrins airline tickets to London ?



If this was only a model made Pinewood Studios made for a James Bond movie. Why would they make the detailed plaque and the exact same discoloration of the tinfolie ?


edit on 26-10-2011 by Ove38 because: new link



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 620  621  622    624  625  626 >>

log in

join