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: 640
377
<< 637  638  639    641  642  643 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

Tycho Crater Mountains

Why doesn't NASA supply us with a photo like this of an Apollo landing site with surroundings ?


edit on 1-11-2011 by Ove38 because: text fix


This image. It's so clear. It's so wonderful.

It must be Japanese. Am I right?




posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


a simple question :

have you ever observed divergent shadows on earth ?

if not - why not - have you never been outside ?

if so - why do you believe divergent shadows on the moon are suspicious


jra

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
It must be Japanese. Am I right?


Nope, it's from the LRO.

link 1
link 2
edit on 2-11-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 

Good eyes! Thanks.


NAC oblique view of Tycho crater. The central peak complex is about 15 km wide southeast to northwest (left to right in this view) [NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University].

To add: link here is a bigger version although it is labelled small2?

on www.lroc.asu.edu...


edit on 11/2/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: to add link



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Back to business.


As we can see in this LRO picture the astronaut footpaths are approximately 1 meter wide, or more.
In this picture we can see dark trails left by the astronauts on the surface of the moon. The trails appear darker because they have been "enhanced" by NASA.

If anyone disputes this then they can feel free to post a non-enhanced version because I have not seen any posted in this thread yet.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 


a simple question :

have you ever observed divergent shadows on earth ?

if not - why not - have you never been outside ?

if so - why do you believe divergent shadows on the moon are suspicious


No we already know the answer shadows confuse Foosm we have seen that before



Haven't we Foosm



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Here is a little video link for clown prince foosm



Now if you get to the 18 sec mark you see the shadows of the turbine blades on the ground now Foosm and others that believe him watch the shadows FOLLOW the contours.

Now this video was shot with ONE light source same ONE as on the Moon ie the SUN.

Now since Foosm just cant grasp the concept of a shadow falling on the ground something a junior school kid would know about, this is the level of hand holding he needs a bit like JW!

I mean Foosm at no point in your life have you been out in DAYLIGHT and your shadow stretches out in front of you and onto an obstacle say a wall and it changes a goes from horizontal on the ground until it meets the wall and thens goes up the wall OR did you think NASA was changing your shadow real time



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by backinblack
Cmon Bird, they NEVER denied the pics were enhanced more than double their actual resolution actually..


They (NASA) never doubled the resolution. They have always shown the images at their normal resolution. When the LRO first entered Lunar orbit in 2009, it was in its commissioning phase with an orbit of 30km x 199km (with the periapsis over the south pole) and it took images of the Apollo sites at ~1m/pixel. Then they lowered the orbit to 50km and the LRO began taking images of the of the Moon and the Apollo sites at ~50cm/pixel. And then just a few months ago they performed some station-keeping maneuvers that brought the LRO down to as low as 22km and they imaged some of the Apollo sites at 25cm/pixel. Due to the lowered altitude and the increased speed, that cause some blurring of the images, so those ones did need to be resampled, but they were not enhanced beyond there normal resolution.

The only LRO Apollo images that have been deconvolved and enhanced is from a youtube user by the name of "GoneToPlaid". Perhaps that is what you were thinking of?



I'm talking about pics posted on "THIS" thread and everyone is an enhanced version..

That means it has at least 4 times the detail of the original pics...

If there was an original pic posted then I must have missed it but I doubt it because the originals don't really show that much.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Here is a little video link for clown prince foosm

....

Now since Foosm just cant grasp the concept of a shadow falling on the ground something a junior school kid would know about, this is the level of hand holding he needs a bit like JW!



Holy crap, someone NOT retarded? Who knew? +1

Finally some non completely retarded people are coming out of the wood-works to back me up. I like that.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


And yet you who knows so much said this,

especially since we can see the landing site from earth.


then posted an LROC image...

Are we really to believe you know what you are talking about??

Personally I think too many on here pretend to be far more knowledgeable than they actually are..
I certainly don't pretend to know a lot about Apollo and clearly state my posts as opinions, not facts..

Maybe others should try to be a little more humble..

Oh and while I'm in rant mode, how about everyone [on both sides] cut out the childish insults and focus on the debate??



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


How about this, if I concede you are correct about the image, and I miss-spoke(in my defense, back when I saw it on google news when it came out I remember it saying earth) will you concede EVERYTHING else I have said to be 100% correct? As a matter of fact, it doesn't even matter if it was taken from earth, the LRO or out of my a**, what matters is the fact that it's a picture of one of the Apollo landing sites. You can go on and on about how it must be fake and yada yada yada, but that would just make you a fool.

Now if you would like to hold Foosm's hand and help him provide the proof he said he could from my last couple posts on the previous page, I'd love to see it.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki
reply to post by backinblack
 


How about this, if I concede you are correct about the image, and I miss-spoke(in my defense, back when I saw it on google news when it came out I remember it saying earth) will you concede EVERYTHING else I have said to be 100% correct? As a matter of fact, it doesn't even matter if it was taken from earth, the LRO or out of my a**, what matters is the fact that it's a picture of one of the Apollo landing sites. You can go on and on about how it must be fake and yada yada yada, but that would just make you a fool.

Now if you would like to hold Foosm's hand and help him provide the proof he said he could from my last couple posts on the previous page, I'd love to see it.


Still with the childish little insults..
They really don't add to your credibility in fact just the opposite..

I don't need you to concede you were wrong..
Everyone here already knows that to be fact..

No, I would NOT concede that everything you've said is 100% accurate..
I doubt that anyone on this thread has been 100% accurate, I know I certainly haven't been and freely admit that..
As I have clearly stated, the majority of this thread is merely opinion based, not factual..

Every LROC pic I have seen on this thread are heavily enhanced..
I have never said they were fake but they do add detail that is NOT actually there..



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
No, I would NOT concede that everything you've said is 100% accurate..


Then, as I have challenged Foosm, I would like you to please review my posts on the previous page, and provide proof, from reputable sources of course, why every single piece of information is either fake or incorrect. Please do not skip over the ones you feel inconvenient.

I think I will be waiting a while, beings I'm 100% sure what I have challenged you to undertake is impossible, but I will have fun watching you try.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki

Originally posted by backinblack
No, I would NOT concede that everything you've said is 100% accurate..


Then, as I have challenged Foosm, I would like you to please review my posts on the previous page, and provide proof, from reputable sources of course, why every single piece of information is either fake or incorrect. Please do not skip over the ones you feel inconvenient.

I think I will be waiting a while, beings I'm 100% sure what I have challenged you to undertake is impossible, but I will have fun watching you try.


Mate, it wasn't YOUR post..
It was a link to a Wiki page..

All them items have been discussed multiple times in this thread already and I'm not about to jump because the likes of you carries on like it's all new info..

Time to grow up.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Mate, it wasn't YOUR post..
It was a link to a Wiki page..

All them items have been discussed multiple times in this thread already and I'm not about to jump because the likes of you carries on like it's all new info..

Time to grow up.


I realize it's a wiki page, I even mentioned in my post that I didn't have to do hardly any digging to find it. Also I would like you to provide proof for all the things Foosm was talking about in his post I quoted. If literally all the items have been discussed, then surely it wouldn't be that hard to simply repeat it now would it? Mate.

And who's telling who to grow up? You're the one that believes the moon landing was a hoax, not me.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



a 'Company' of Lies and Blackmail


Just as a matter of form, I will quote your own source for you:


So while, in the end, Garrison was correct in stating that some of Oswald's former co-workers had resigned from Reily and gained employment at the NASA installation in Michoud, the number turned out to be not four, but two -- Alfred Claude and John Branyon -- and one was hired at the Chrysler plant, while the other found a job at Boeing.

If Frank Klein did report to Jim Garrison that "Anyone who ever had any connection with Lee Oswald left the Reily Company within a few weeks after Oswald," that report would have been false. In fact, the three Reily employees who had the most contact with Oswald -- Emmett Barbe, Arturo Rodriguez and Charles Le Blanc -- all seem to have still been with Reily well after Oswald's departure.

In summation, Anthony Summers' assertion that "four of [Oswald's] colleagues at Reily did move to NASA within weeks of Oswald's departure" seems to have originated with Jim Garrison's erroneous claim, first published by William Turner in 1968. From what we now know, a reasonable inference about the relationship between NASA and the Reily employees might be that the newly opened Michoud plant was hiring for better wages than those paid by the Reily Coffee Company, and, if Adrian Alba's recollections are correct, it's possible that Oswald was planning to apply for a job at NASA.

If, on the other hand, the remarks Alba attributes to Oswald were actually spoken by another Reily employee of Alba's acquaintance, it would explain why this individual was so optimistic about his future at NASA, somewhere Oswald never even applied for a position. It would also explain why he said, "I have found my pot of gold at the end of the rainbow," a statement which does not sound much like the Oswald we know, who denounced capitalism and complained to his friend George De Mohrenschildt that his wife was too materialistic.


Your own source.

We now return to our regularly scheduled bickering.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 



And who's telling who to grow up? You're the one that believes the moon landing was a hoax, not me.


I'm suggesting you grow up and stop the childish little insults like saying I'm a fool..
They do not add to the debate and IMO do make you look childish..

Suggesting I should grow up because you ASSUME I believe the moon landings were a hoax is pathetic..

Firstly I have NEVER said they were a hoax.
I am on the fence and quite frankly have NOT been convinced either way.
Secondly, to suggest someone is childish for simply not agreeing with you is childish in itself..

Now you can carry on with the childish, insulting attitude or grow up and debate in a mature manner..
I don't really care either way..
But DON'T continue with this demanding answers that have already been addressed BS..
It's boring..



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 



And who's telling who to grow up? You're the one that believes the moon landing was a hoax, not me.


I'm suggesting you grow up and stop the childish little insults like saying I'm a fool..
They do not add to the debate and IMO do make you look childish..

Suggesting I should grow up because you ASSUME I believe the moon landings were a hoax is pathetic..

Firstly I have NEVER said they were a hoax.
I am on the fence and quite frankly have NOT been convinced either way.
Secondly, to suggest someone is childish for simply not agreeing with you is childish in itself..

Now you can carry on with the childish, insulting attitude or grow up and debate in a mature manner..
I don't really care either way..
But DON'T continue with this demanding answers that have already been addressed BS..
It's boring..


You do realize that calling me childish because of name calling is ironically a hypocritical oxymoron. You can't call someone a child for name calling without being a child yourself. I don't care what gender you are, be a man, and suck it up like all the other grown-ups in the room.


But DON'T continue with this demanding answers that have already been addressed


Is that your final answer? You do realize I will take this as evidence to the contrary (that you don't have any), just like all the other childish moon hoaxers, right?


Firstly I have NEVER said they were a hoax.
I am on the fence and quite frankly have NOT been convinced either way.


You know, it's one thing for me to be split down the middle on the Alien conspiracy, because not only is that not hurting anyone, but the lack of evidence isn't evidence to the lack there of (which is one of the very few instances that term is valid btw), which explains the clear 50/50 split. However, there is plenty of evidence to support my side of the moon landing, but very little, if any, evidence on the hoaxers side. So what's the deal? You'd rather tarnish the reputations of the thousands of people involved in the Apollo space program, the honesty of one of the most powerful nations to ever rule the world, and the legitimacy of one of the most historically important, and defining moments in mankind on little to no evidence whatsoever?

Sounds very childish to me.
edit on 2-11-2011 by JohnnySasaki because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 



Is that your final answer? You do realize I will take this as evidence to the contrary (that you don't have any), just like all the other childish moon hoaxers, right?


Another childish concept.
Twisting the FACT that everything you've asked has already been addressed into a confession from me that I don't have an opinion on the matters you question..

I tried to get you to debate maturely but it's obviously a waste of breath..

Have fun with you antics and don't expect a reply to further childish posts..



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

I doubt that anyone on this thread has been 100% accurate, I know I certainly haven't been and freely admit that..
As I have clearly stated, the majority of this thread is merely opinion based, not factual..

Every LROC pic I have seen on this thread are heavily enhanced..
I have never said they were fake but they do add detail that is NOT actually there..


Sorry I have to disagree there have been many things posted on this thread that are 100% accurate first of all many of the statements re the photographic process that JW and Foosm seemed to be confused with.

Now as for your comment above, photographic software like photoshop etc can ONLY enhance information that is already contained within the image it DOESN'T add detail it allows it to be shown.

What you see in programs like CSI on tv were blurry half dozen pixels on a car tax disc from a cctv camera a hundred feet a way can be blown up so you can see every detail that's BS and that's not what you see posted.

So detail is not added, hidden detail is shown there is a difference!!!!

edit on 2-11-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 637  638  639    641  642  643 >>

log in

join