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: 64
377
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Foos, why should we believe you when you are obviously being paid to post Jarrah's videos? If you are an agent sent by someone else to flog his stuff, I think it disqualifies you as a poster.




posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

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.


Excuse me, but how is it practically nil? it's 28 times slower than Earth, but it's not nil.

Picture 22367 was taken at 166:53:35, whereas picture 22402 was taken at 167:11:55 of EVA-3/GS-8, which means a difference of roughly 19 minutes. Within that amount of time, a change in shadows on Earth is very highly visible, and so on the moon there should have been a very slight variation. We don't have even that slight variation in the pictures posted above.

Even if we take two pictures that are a long time apart:

AS17-140-21387 taken at 164:10:41.

AS17-143-21941 taken at 170:30:00.

We see the astronaut's shadow is roughly the same length.

The time between the two photos is roughly 6 hours and 20 minutes. On Earth, within 7 hours, a person's shadow can grow from 0 to 2 meters (let's say from 12 oclock where the shadow of a man is 0 meters from its body to 7 oclock in the evening where the shadow of the man is roughly 2 meters). On the moon, we should see 1/28 of that change within the same time period, i.e. 200/28 = 7 centimeters.

Now 7 centimeters is not a very big difference, but on little rocks that are roughly around the same size, we don't see any difference in the shadows! For example, in the two pictures I posted above, there is a little rock under the flag which has almost the same shadow in the two pictures!

Even with this little difference within 7 hours, the pictures of the hills in the background are extremely identical, when it comes to shadows. There is no practical difference in the shadowing of the hills. In fact, in each and every photo, the hills' shadows are extremely unchanging.

Please also note the distinct lack of any features on the hills. It's like hills have no boulders and rocks on them! For example, have a look at the picture 21387: there are numerous visible rocks up to the base of the hills, but there are no rocks on the hills!



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   


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 true believers lets get back to connecting dots.
Sure it doesn't directly prove the hoax, but it goes a long way
to understanding context, motive, opportunity, and of course the players possibly involved.

So Fairchild started with George Margolin the The Front Projection Corporation whose technology was used in "2001", and whose technology conspiracy believers believe was used for Apollo photography and possibly even the filmed sequences.



- According to researcher Bill Wood, NASA heavily subsidized Stanley Kubrick when he produced the movie "2001". Wood claims 2001 was used to develop the special effects needed to fake a lunar landing and its purpose, when it premiered in 1968, was to show the public what a real lunar landing was supposed to look like.



This technology, Front Screen Projection, was also used for "Diamonds are Forever" '71. As you many you may or may not know, there is a scene in the film where:


...Sean Connery (as James Bond) breaks into a secret facility in Nevada where fake moonwalking is being filmed. Some people believe Apollo moonwalking could have been filmed at the Nevada Test Site or inside a hangar at nearby Area 51.


This is somewhat interesting in that:



Bond's escape through a moon landing "movie set" refers to the popular conspiracy theory of the time that the real moon landings were faked. The scene is filmed in a Johns-Manville gypsum plant located just outside of Las Vegas. During filming the wheels kept falling off. In one scene where a car turns over you can see one of the wheels that had broken off the buggy rolling in the foreground. In 2004, Sean Connery bought the moon buggy for approximately $54,000.


So this could mean that not everyone believed that man landed on the moon. But considering how fast this "conspiracy theory" made it to screen, was it possibly whistle-blowing?



Actor Ed Bishop played the part of a Lunar shuttle captain in Kubrick's 1968 movie "2001: A Space Odyssey." Interestingly, Ed Bishop also played the part of Klaus Hergersheimer in the 1971 movie "Diamonds are Forever" (and his part was uncredited in that movie.) Ed Bishop is the actor who hands Sean Connery a dosimeter after Sean Connery (as James Bond) breaks into a secret facility in Nevada where fake moonwalking is being filmed.


And then there is:



Ken Adam, production designer on "Dr. Strangelove" and "Barry Lyndon", said he was not asked to work on 2001 because Kubrick had already worked for a year with experts from NASA and had done a lot of research; Adam said he would have been "too far behind." (Note: Ken Adam did production design for the 1971 movie "Diamonds are Forever" that includes a moonscape.


Interesting coincidences, lets dig deeper into the "Diamonds are Forever" which is a loose adaptation of the novel of the same name.

Willard Whyte & the Whyte House


James Bond traces suspicious activity back to the recluse Willard Whyte, who resides as a recluse in his penthouse apartment in the Whyte House in Las Vegas, Nevada...

The character of Whyte takes several traits from eccentric industrialist Howard Hughes such as the similar name, his multi-billionaire status, the ownership of aerospace corporations and his reclusive behavior. Around the time of filming, Hughes too, was secluded at a Las Vegas hotel, similar to Whyte's character. The Hughes-owned Landmark Hotel and Casino, since been demolished, was used for the scene where Bond scales the hotel's outside elevators.

Hughes was a friend of Bond Producer Albert Broccoli, who created the Willard Whyte role after dreaming that Hughes had been kidnapped. In real life, Hughes was a great help to his friend in the production of Diamonds Are Forever; as he is known to have used his considerable influence in Las Vegas to facilitate the location film crew. Even so, the production team (especially Jimmy Dean, who was employed by Hughes as a casino entertainer at the time) was worried that that their publicity-shy patron might be offended by such a similar portrayal of himself in the movie. Reportedly, Hughes was pleased with the outcome when he saw the finished project.


Enter Howard Hughes


Howard Robard Hughes, Jr. (December 24, 1905 – April 5, 1976) was an American aviator, engineer, industrialist, *film producer*, *film director*, philanthropist,

Who probably if you dig enough will find connections with all kinds of weird stuff. Like a Nixon scandal. He also has a connection with NASA:


Surveyor 1 was the first lunar lander in the American Surveyor program that explored the Moon. The program was managed by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, utilizing spacecraft designed and built by Hughes Aircraft.


Now Im not claiming he personally directed the project, but he could have been a valuable associate producer


Nixon:
1969–1974
Nixon Doctrine / Vietnamization:
1969–1972
Apollo Landings:
1969–1972



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 

Apollo 17 Sun angles:
EVA-3

* Start: 163.50 GET, 39.0º
* Finis: 170.75 GET, 42.6º
history.nasa.gov...


Between 164:10 and 170:30 the sun moved less than 3º. You aren't going to see much of a difference in shadow length.

I don't see any shadows on the mountains. It looks like they're in full sunlight to me.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Here is another picture that shows the ridiculous hill syndrome:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

The hill seems to be extremely close, and up to its base the lunar terrain is normal, i.e. as we know it so far. But on the hill, the terrain is totally different. There are no craters on the hill, and very minuscule rocks.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by FoosM
 


Foos, why should we believe you when you are obviously being paid to post Jarrah's videos? If you are an agent sent by someone else to flog his stuff, I think it disqualifies you as a poster.


You dont have to believe me...

Believe your eyes:


look closer:


also

NASA discovers two Earths and dont tell nobody



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp


Excuse me, but how is it practically nil? it's 28 times slower than Earth, but it's not nil.


A few degrees is practically nil if you are trying to compare shadow lengths.



Picture 22367 was taken at 166:53:35, whereas picture 22402 was taken at 167:11:55 of EVA-3/GS-8, which means a difference of roughly 19 minutes. Within that amount of time, a change in shadows on Earth is very highly visible, and so on the moon there should have been a very slight variation. We don't have even that slight variation in the pictures posted above.


19 minutes when a lunar "day" is around 350 HOURS? What are you using to take your measurements, a micrometer?


Even if we take two pictures that are a long time apart:

AS17-140-21387 taken at 164:10:41.

AS17-143-21941 taken at 170:30:00.

We see the astronaut's shadow is roughly the same length.


Quite a feat considering the second picture has the astronauts (shadow) head cut off.


The time between the two photos is roughly 6 hours and 20 minutes. On Earth, within 7 hours, a person's shadow can grow from 0 to 2 meters (let's say from 12 oclock where the shadow of a man is 0 meters from its body to 7 oclock in the evening where the shadow of the man is roughly 2 meters). On the moon, we should see 1/28 of that change within the same time period, i.e. 200/28 = 7 centimeters.

Now 7 centimeters is not a very big difference, but on little rocks that are roughly around the same size, we don't see any difference in the shadows!


That's because any difference would be around an inch or two. Impossible to measure to any degree of accuracy.




Even with this little difference within 7 hours, the pictures of the hills in the background are extremely identical, when it comes to shadows. There is no practical difference in the shadowing of the hills. In fact, in each and every photo, the hills' shadows are extremely unchanging.

Please also note the distinct lack of any features on the hills. It's like hills have no boulders and rocks on them! For example, have a look at the picture 21387: there are numerous visible rocks up to the base of the hills, but there are no rocks on the hills!


Uh, you do realize those mountains (North Massif) are over 2 kilometers away?!

Good luck seeing rocks at that distance.

Apollo 17 map

(misspelled "Massif")

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Here is another picture that shows the ridiculous hill syndrome:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

The hill seems to be extremely close, and up to its base the lunar terrain is normal, i.e. as we know it so far. But on the hill, the terrain is totally different. There are no craters on the hill, and very minuscule rocks.


That's because, as I said before, it ISN'T close. The lack of atmosphere on the moon means no haze, and therefore no way to gauge distance. Those mountains are a long way in the distance.

They many "seem" extremely close, but they aren't.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


Masterep, here's a much better map, an overlay, that shows each station in relation to the mountians surrounding the LM. I know it's hard to believe but those "hills" are actually mountains.

Apoll 17 Map

cheers.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

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.


So how do you explain this:




and

this




posted on May, 22 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

So how do you explain this:



Differences in exposure and very selective cropping.

For those interested in the continuing dishonesty of Foos, here are links to the actual, untouched, pictures:

history.nasa.gov...

history.nasa.gov...

history.nasa.gov...

You've already proven beyond a reasonable doubt you know nothing about photography, so I don't doubt the changes in exposure, along with the massive distance changes mean nothing to you.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

So how do you explain this:



Differences in exposure and very selective cropping.

For those interested in the continuing dishonesty of Foos, here are links to the actual, untouched, pictures:

history.nasa.gov...

history.nasa.gov...

history.nasa.gov...
You've already proven beyond a reasonable doubt you know nothing about photography, so I don't doubt the changes in exposure, along with the massive distance changes mean nothing to you.


Just as I thought, I gave you a little rope and you just hung yourself.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Just as I thought, I gave you a little rope and you just hung yourself.


Masterful. Now what exactly do you think you've just proven?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

You aren't paying attention.
Victory has been declared. What more do you need?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



reply to post by DJW001

You aren't paying attention.
Victory has been declared. What more do you need?


My bad.



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

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DJW001
 

You aren't paying attention.
Victory has been declared. What more do you need?


Yep, it usually takes him a day or two after declaring victory to figure out exactly what that victory was.

I wonder who he's emailing to get the links to the videos and pictures?

Jarrah? You around? Come on in, the water's fine!



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Phage
 



reply to post by DJW001

You aren't paying attention.
Victory has been declared. What more do you need?


My bad.


Hey, I didn't get a "harrumph" from that guy!

Come on, give the gov, er, Foos a "harrumph".....



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I have watched Exhibits A, B and C and the C Moon rock videos. Does anyone know if there is place to get all the videos on a dvd? I want to keep watching them but they are hard to follow on You Tube because I don't know what is supposed to be coming next.

I must say, I have been a believer in the Moon Hoax for some time and much of this is old hat but it's interesting the way Jerrah but this together and he has come up with a few things I haven't heard. he has done some very good research and seems to want to ask all the right questions to get to the bottom of the issues.

Even if you don't believe everything, there is enough questions that NASA can't answer to reasonable satisfaction to make me think there is something to this. I was really impressed with the Exhibit C videos debunking Apollo 13.

One that really got me was when Apollo 13 was thousands of miles from earth and you could clearly see blue skies outside several of the windows facing in the other direction from where the earth was supposed to be.

To me this means this earth shot was clearly faked in near earth orbit.



[edit on 22-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


Ok your expecting a shadow change in a mere hour on the moon so lets talk about the moon since you compared it to earth. Earth day is 24 hrs or 1 day lunar day is 29 days, 12 hours or a grand total of 708 hours. So lets think even 24 hrs later still is not going to change the height of the sun drastically enough for you to notice. And posting the pictures are just stupid unless the object doesnt move! There is no way to compare shadows because ground changes which can elongate or shorten shadow! So my god think about what you post your bigest mistake is thinking the moon is earth its not.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Exhibit D is very interesting. I'm on part 6. talks about the moon rocks possibly being man made. they do contain water as was told before was impossible for a moon rock.

And ESA when it crashed into the moon has confirmed the mineral materiel from the moon is different from the rocks the astro-nots supposedly brought back. Which we were also told could not have happened.

It seems NASA didn't think everyone would bother to actually go up an compare the moons composition with the so called Apollo moon rocks.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join