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: 63
377
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Niel Armstrong believes in conspiracy theories:



When are you going to stop lying Foos?

It does your side no good.

And we're still waiting for you to admit you were wrong (OK, er, mislead by JW's video) about JW's "expert"?




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest


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.



Forgot to say, well done tq.

I too apologize for any harsh language directed your way. Sometimes its hard to tell who is really looking for answers and who is just playing games.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DJW001
 



Pretty much off topic there.


Agreed. It is the 'scattershot' tactic. An act of desperation, indicated by the ever-increasing reach beyond the pale....a pathetic grab at ANY perceived whiff of a notion of an idea, to support an impossible position.


Indeed. I give credit to dragnet who is at least willing to debate some issues and answer a question or two. FoosM however has run away from every question, refused to acknowledge his innumerable errors, refused to explain his misleading 'quotes' and offtopic comments, and essentially proved his modus operandi...

My personal preference is for posting facts, relevant information and engaging in sensible debate... FoosM, maybe you should try that approach one day.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


No....terrible failure!!! (He plays the 'Kubrick card', and is shot down!!!)BUT, so glad you trotted those out, so I can rip them to shreds.

In case everyone is NOT aware, those stills used by FoosM are from Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I say 'masterpiece' a little loosely, though....because for whatever reason (stingy budget) the director and production chose not to actually GO to Africa to shoot the "Dawn of Man" sequences that opened the film, but instead employed a new (for its day, and little used since) method called "rear projection". Having acquired a great deal of still photos on location, they then profected these onto a scrim sheet, behind the standing sets, in foreground, to simulate the 'outdoors' on the African veldt.

IMO, failed miserably. One particular GLARING limitation in the technique is the camera...it MUST remain stationery, the entire shot, lest the 'seam between the fake foreground,and the rear projection be exposed.

Obviously, totally blows away ANY claims that such a technique was used in Apollo moon videos.

Only the less-than-well-informed would even dare to suggest it......



Ahhhh yes because in photography the camera moves.


but wait...





So Sherman asked me to work for him and we started a company called The Front Projection Corporation – where I became Vice President and General Manager and he was the President. There we created the only effective Front Projection Background System which we sold to commercial photographic and portrait studios around the world for advertising and wedding photography. We also created a version that worked for Television which permitted video backgrounds, panning and tilting while keeping the background realistic. These we sold to GE for their Television cameras and to movie studios around the world. This I patented in 1965.... Another pan/tilt version of this system was used by Rank Studios then working on Kubrik’s Space Odyssey as well as many James Bond films “Diamonds Are Forever” and “You Only Die Once” as well as Superman and other American films


Ok, so now that the cat is out of the bag, lets start connecting dots...

Sherman Fairchild:


After my years at Popular Photography I joined forces with Sherman Fairchild who had founded many companies including Fairchild Camera, Fairchild Semiconductor and many more than I can mention. But despite being one of the richest and most famous men in the world -- he was a hugely avid Amateur photographer and because of his stature, was able to invite many celebrities and famous actresses to his huge château (Imported stone by stone from France – like the considerably larger San Simeon of William Randolph Hearst) Among them was the very young Sophia Loren.

But his great desire was to be able to provide backgrounds of any place in the world, when shooting some of the many beauties who showed up at his “castle” on weekends.

He had become enamored of a very crude projection system that created ghastly looking backgrounds..



His Company:


The history of the Fairchild Corporation dates back to the Fairchild Aerial Camera Corporation founded by Sherman Mills Fairchild in 1920. A few months before his death at the age of 74 in March 1971, the Smithsonian Institution honored him on the fiftieth anniversary of Fairchild as a leader in the aviation industry... In the mid 1960's, the company undertook the building of satellites for NASA, and its name changed to Fairchild Hiller to reflect the acquisition of Hiller Aircraft. Shortly thereafter, the company acquired Republic Aviation, a major manufacturer of military aircraft. In the 1970's, its corporate identity became Fairchild Industries, Inc., when the decision was made to pursue a strategy of diversifying its operations


Computers


The AGC was one of the first computers to use integrated circuits. During 1963, the MIT Instrumentation Lab consumed 60 percent of the integrated circuit production in the United States. By 1964, Fairchild Industries had shipped more than 100,000 ICs for use in the Apollo program. Approximately 2000 man-years of engineering were consumed in the development of the Apollo computer hardware.


Cameras


The Lunar Mapping Camera was a multiple camera system, which consisted of a terrain (or metric) camera, a stellar camera and a laser altimeter, all integrated into one unit...Mapping camera photography was used amongst other things to produce topographic photomaps of the lunar surface




Now for the big top off:



Wernher von Braun (b. 1912, d. 1977)

Came to the United States in 1945 to conduct missile research for the Army. He directed the Pershing and Jupiter rocket programs before leading work on the powerful Saturn. Von Braun was Director of the Marshall Space Flight Center from 1960 to 1970 and NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Planning, 1970 to 1972. He is now a vice president with Fairchild Industries.




Wow...




Lets get more people involved here:




Sodium Screen Bigger, Older, Tougher and much more expensive

This was the technique – which the Disney Studios used for the wonderful movie Mary Poppins and others – which let them combine live action with cartoon characters in motion and in the same scenes.

In fact it was on that huge movie set where Fairchild and I met with Walt Disney and Ub Iworks, who purchased one of our Front Projection System to eliminate the need for this huge, complex and costly studio.


Thats right Disney



It is uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey parallels the Apollo program. The film production started in 1964 and went on to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in1968. Meanwhile the Apollo program also began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon landings on July 20th 1969.

Also it is very interesting to note that scientist Frederick Ordway was working both for NASA and the Apollo program and was also Kubrick's top science advisor for 2001: A Space Odyssey.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
NASA is one of the biggest frauds our government ever created. LMAO@Using 50 year old technology still to go to space "officially"

give me a break.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


So where are the hot spots?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I take it that this is how i should read your post:

"oh look, some dude that did some cool photography"
"oh now he's working with some rich guy. Rich guys are trouble"
"the rich guy had dealings with NASA!!!"
"including Apollo...and apollo used cameras!!! OMG this is getting better and better"
"von Braun, he sounds German. Must be sneaky...and he's dealt with NASA too, and the rich dude!!!"
"OMG now Disney is involved, Kubrick too!! I think my head is exploding!!!"


1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 10...zOMG conspiracy!!

_____________________________________________

Unfortunately thats not how it reads.

All you've done is provide (once again unsourced) quotes with snippets of information. Whether any of it is relevant is unclear. Whether you have a point that you actually understand is unclear.

Its as if you believe that simply linking names and companies together is enough to prove conspiracy. You have provided no evidence that front projection cameras have anything to do with Apollo. No evidence that they were used, no evidence that they could be used to produce any kind of realistic "moon" effects and no technical material to demonstrate their capabilities.

The link between von Braun and Fairchild has no impact on your argument. you may have a case for demonstrating favouratism among NASA contractors but thats it.

Frankly, you should put it in a youtube video because thats how poor your argument is. Maybe Jarrah can run with it (or has he already?).

Its people like you, while trying to demostrate the "hoax", that convinced me that the moon landings were real. Absolutely ridiculous arguments.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by zvezdar]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by zvezdar]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I fully believe we have been to the moon.
how we got there and what we've done is another matter.
and I question why Neil Armstrong has been so quiet on the subject.

Also I question why the need for the secret astronaut core.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Please stay on topic. What does any of this have to do with anything Jarrah White has ever done? Oh, wait! Are you Jarrah White?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
The second significant claim (IMO) the Moonfaker series makes is in the following Youtube videos:




Two minutes into the first video, Jarrah White states that NASA released footage on July 18th 1969 1:15AM to 1:30AM GMT. He also claims that because of that timeframe, footage should therefore not have been able to be released until July 19th in the newspapers which take a day to print. So, by his estimation NASA released the video before it was even shot.

The problem with the statement is that is is a faulty date. The video lists day 198 as the date for the footage. I went on the internet and found a calender and counted out 198 days (though it didn't go slowly since I used a calculator to add up the numbers in all months except for the one including the 198th day). Day 198 turns out to be July 17, not July 18. Therefore, the time-frame that the video was released in was in fact consistent with when it was shot.

Also, an issue with the study is that Jarrah White calls the West Australian newspaper to ask what time they print their newspaper, but should have asked what time they printed their newspaper in 1969 which was the time period in question.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
The problem with the statement is that is is a faulty date. The video lists day 198 as the date for the footage. I went on the internet and found a calender and counted out 198 days (though it didn't go slowly since I used a calculator to add up the numbers in all months except for the one including the 198th day). Day 198 turns out to be July 17, not July 18. Therefore, the time-frame that the video was released in was in fact consistent with when it was shot...


Indeed. The most telling part about this, is that Jarrah's mistake was pointed out to him almost as soon as that silly video was posted. And yet it is still there, and he continues to make excuses... If *I* blew it like that, you would not hear the end of my apologies and embarrassment..

Also, Jarrah White doesn't seem to have even the faintest glimmer of what it was LIKE back at the time of Apollo 11. I can't speak personally for the USA, but here it was as if the whole of Australia stopped, and focused on the topic (to get an idea, watch the dvd "The Dish"
). It was incorporated into school curriculum and the entire populace (including every scientist, engineer, investigative reporter...) were reading about it in newspapers, watching on TV, listening on the radio - literally millions of people were absolutely glued to the media to see if they would actually make it. And not ONE of them, not a single scientist, reporter, engineer, or even a keen-eyed schoolkid Apollo-addict like me, noticed any sign of anything being mis-reported. To even consider that all those folk wouldn't notice a 24-hour reporting error in a major newspaper is just BEYOND CREDIBLE BELIEF. Yet Jarrah believes it...

(or does he?)


Truthquest, I applaud you for doing the hard work and properly investigating this stuff, but might I request that as this is already a very long thread, you keep the number of Youtube links to a minimum? The first would have been plenty - and it has to be said that Jarrah does in fact make money (thankfully not much) from any hits we direct his way. I don't think he should be encouraged.. but that's just me.

(Oh, and don't forget to check the entire thread to ensure that you aren't re-raising issues.)

Nevertheless, nice work, and do carry on!! You're made of sterner stuff than me to endure those videos..


[edit on 21-5-2010 by CHRLZ]


jra

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Remember... its background



How do you explain the parallax effect I get when I flip between these two images?

AS17-146-22367
AS17-146-22402



Both photos were taken at Geology station 8. And East Massif changes between the two frames. It's clearly not some simple background.


Originally posted by FoosM
Cameras


The Lunar Mapping Camera was a multiple camera system, which consisted of a terrain (or metric) camera, a stellar camera and a laser altimeter, all integrated into one unit...Mapping camera photography was used amongst other things to produce topographic photomaps of the lunar surface




It should be noted that the Lunar mapping camera was first used on Apollo 15.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
How do you explain the parallax effect I get when I flip between these two images?


It's just a warp effect. There's no new information in the background being revealed. You can actually do this to many 2D images to quite a degree before people notice something's not right.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by jra
How do you explain the parallax effect I get when I flip between these two images?


It's just a warp effect. There's no new information in the background being revealed. You can actually do this to many 2D images to quite a degree before people notice something's not right.


Would you care to demonstrate that warp effect, using the HR versions of the images in question, and match the two landscapes?

Would you also like to elaborate on what *other* effects that warping will have on the image, and how it could be detected?

As usual, I have a reason for asking...



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
When looking into the Apollo hoax, the possible players have to be considered,
In my last post I revealed how Fairchild, Disney, von Braun, Kubrick, etc. where connected, and I will continue to reveal connections and possible players in the scam.

But I want to address this idea about not going back to the Moon for the last 40 years.
Presently we are seeing the fall of NASA. I mean, the US will probably have to ask Russia, of all countries, to help ferry their astronauts. How did that happen? Russia went through an economic collapse, its states broken into independent countries, and of course, they had lost the space race


NASA to Pay Russia $51M Per Manned Launch


As the U.S. space agency prepares to retire the current fleet of space shuttles, it knew there would be a price to pay for relying on the Russian space agency for space travel. That price is estimated to be $51 million USD for each trip from Earth to the International Space Station (ISS), several Russian news agencies have reported.

Roskosmos charged NASA $21.8 million for a flight to the ISS in 2006, but space tourists now pay upwards of $35 million for a two-week stay aboard the ISS. Even though Russia will be responsible for ferrying NASA astronauts into orbit, the agency will continue to take paying tourists into space.

When NASA officially retires the shuttle next year, each partner nation will also be forced to rely on Russia to transport astronauts into space. The next-generation Ares I/Orion space technology isn't scheduled to be released until 2014 – at the earliest – so NASA will need to purchase multiple trips into space aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft.



Not going to the moon because the public wasn't excited for it has been the lamest excuse put forward. The public didnt want expensive wars and adventures in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, either, but did the government listen, no.

I can tell you, there was a generation of children, myself included, who wanted to grow up to be astronauts and scientists because of the moon landing. We thought commercial space travel was going to be the norm by the time we hit the 21st century.
But that didnt happen, thanks America.

I mean, in terms of expense, it should be cheaper to go to the moon today! By now mining for ore or water would have made the trips pay for themselves. But I guess thats what happens when you send soldiers into space instead of scientists:

1. Neil Armstrong NASA (former Navy)
2. Buzz Aldrin Air Force
3. Pete Conrad Navy
4. Alan Bean Navy
5. Alan Shepard Navy
6. Edgar Mitchell Navy
7. David Scott Air Force
8. James Irwin Air Force
9. John W. Young Navy
10. Charles Duke Air Force
11. Eugene Cernan Navy
12. Harrison Schmitt NASA (He worked at the U.S. Geological Survey's Astrogeology Center at Flagstaff, Arizona)

What really strikes me is the idea that the US would allow a communist country like China to land a man on the moon without having boots on the ground before they do.
How does that make any sense, unless, they know its impossible? As a matter of fact, its not only China, is several nations!

Check out the list of planned manned lunar landings:
India 2020, proposed by ISRO (2009)
Japan 2020; moonbase 2030, proposed by JAXA (2006)
Malaysia 2020
China 2020–2030 suggested by various scientists
Europe 2024 Aurora programme
Russia 2025; moonbase 2027–2032, proposed by RFSA (2007)

Thats all within 10 to 15 years, yet where is the US?
Why isnt the US concerned... why?




Chairman Rockefeller then said to the astronauts, “I want to understand the value of human space flight.”

Cernan responded to Rockefeller by saying that today’s communications technology was born from space exploration. “The technology that I have in my iPhone today is technology that was given birth to 30, 40, 50 years ago,” said Cernan.

“Exploration drives technology, innovation, not the reverse,” he said. “You can’t lock a group of the most smartest young men and women in the world in a room -- engineers, scientists, technicians -- and say, ‘go develop technology,’ for what? There has to be a purpose, just like there has to be a purpose in life.”

Cernan also said that when there is an established space flight mission, NASA creates new technologies to accomplish its goals and society benefits from its work.

“They have to know what they are trying to accomplish, what their goal is, what the problems are, and then develop the technology that gets the job done,” said Cernan. “Going to the moon – the technology that we developed to go to the moon, whether it was material – look at, walk in our hospitals today. Walk in our classrooms today. Does that benefit our, is that a benefit to us humans here on this Earth today? I like to think it is.”



Rockefeller responded to Cernan at the end of the hearing by suggesting that not all exploration is “glorious.”



“I just want to say in parting, not to rebut anything that’s been said, that exploration is a broad word,” said Rockefeller. “The American search for newness finds many outlets, most of them quite glorious, but not all of them.”


So what does a Rockefeller know that we dont?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
In response to truthquest:




Two minutes into the first video, Jarrah White states that NASA released footage on July 18th 1969 1:15AM to 1:30AM GMT. He also claims that because of that timeframe, footage should therefore not have been able to be released until July 19th in the newspapers which take a day to print. So, by his estimation NASA released the video before it was even shot.



You should have included the addendum



[edit on 22-5-2010 by FoosM]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


You should have included the addendum




Why? Jarrah is just too stupid to realize there were more than one video (not video film, as he continues to state) broadcast. The one from the quote he uses is from when they were in lunar orbit. How can he miss something so obvious?

Do you have a real, live (not youtubed) response for the error JW made in the dates? Is day 198 the 17th or 18th of July?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


There is also no shadow difference in the two images. If there is a time difference between the two images, we should see a shadow difference as well. In this two images, the illumination of the background is exactly the same.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by ppk55
 


There is also no shadow difference in the two images. If there is a time difference between the two images, we should see a shadow difference as well. In this two images, the illumination of the background is exactly the same.


Actually, you wouldn't expect to see any appreciable differences in shadows for any mission. A lunar day is 28 days long, so the movement of the sun in the sky over the course of an earth day is practically nil.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I can't believe THIS nonsense gets people to give it stars ???


I wrote in haste, and from memory, so for everyone who reviews my original post, which is "quoted" in full by FoosM (poor form, BTW...try editing once in a while)... When I referred to Kubrick's "rear"-projection technique, and called it 'new' for that day, I had it backwards...it was a FRONT projection technique, and THAT was innovative.

I used to have a book about the MAKING of that motion picture (lost it somehow) so I'm going from memory, having read it a few times, many years ago.

Essentially, it required EXTENSIVE coordination with the lighting director, and cinematographer, because of the 'front' projection technique, so as not to over-light the "real" foreground, the sets and the actors and props.

But, in my opinion, it LOOKS fake!! It always has, to me...because it was filmed on a SOUNDSTAGE in London!!!

Like I said, would have been stunning to have actually been shot on location (think Lawrence of Arabia, in a primate suit...). But, alas....in the real world of motion picture making, budgets rule, usually. And, I think they meant to shoot their wad on the stunningly beautiful space sequences, which WERE brilliant for that era, using NO CGI!!!

Anyway, despite the attempts by FoosM at the continued obfuscating (which is is fond of, and is growing tiresome to the rest of us) to suggest that Kubrick somehow worked along with NASA to fake the Lunar surface video?? THAT shows the levels of stupidity and audacity, desperation and sheer --- dare I say it?
--- lunacy that exists on the side who still wish to cling to this "hoax" nonsense.

BECAUSE, as I've mentioned (and anyone who wishes can rent the bloody movie to see this) when the FRONT projection technique was used, to simulate the African savannah in the background, the camera had to be 'locked down'. When you're engrossed in watching, you usually don't notice the editing of the film, so you sometimes have the impression of camera movement. Alternately, there are shots, (still speaking of the "Dawn of Man" sequences) that, still shooting in studio, did NOT employ the front projection, as the backgrounds were rock cliffs, and caves and such, which allowed traditional camera dollies and pans.

EDITING, FoosM....editing. Something that is VERY common in motion picture crafting, but NOT SEEN IN ANY APOLLO LUNAR SURFACE VIDEOS!!!!!

(rather thank re-linking an example, I invite everyone to search within this thread, or anywhere else for that matter, and view the many, many actual surface EVA lunar videos that were shot and transmitted, FROM THE MOON, in real-time (less the ~1.6 seconds light speed travel time) to the EARTH. WHILE THEY WERE IN MOTION! Such as, when driving the LRV...OR, when MCC would pan the camera remotely. Many examples of this exist.



PS...as may have noticed, amongst my many and varied skills, interests and passions is the art of motion picture making...I have but a layman's understanding, but a full-on interest in the craft.






[edit on 22 May 2010 by weedwhacker]




top topics



 
377
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join