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: 657
377
<< 654  655  656    658  659  660 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Why are the astronauts so small in comparison to the average person?


The mannequins look just fine and to scale.



How do you figure?
If I had posted that image, you guys would ask me the same thing.
If you need an explanation of how men standing in front of mannequins of themselves can be indicative that the scaling is correct, there is no hope for you. Of course, I doubt this is anything more than your reflexive gainsaying while you scramble to find an actual counterpoint to make or your latest collection of links, pictures, Youtubes, and text walls to razzle-dazzle us with.




posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

edit on 11/15/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-11-2011 by Gemwolf because: Fixed tags


I missed the point where a picture of a man eating an ice cream cone is evidence of a conspiracy. I'd ask you to explain, but I've had little luck with that method in the past.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Whoa...this has turned into a total TARD thread since the last time I looked at it.



No use arguing with someone that can't understand. It's like arguing with an extreme religious fanatic....regardless of how much evidence you point out about things being debunked you can never get them to see it.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


In other words, an intensely valuable artifact was cordoned off in a museum.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Well, nothing except you avoiding PsykoOps pertinent question.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by FoosM
 


The term is called Dwindling size perception.

My dog is not smaller than my thumb. The mannequins are not smaller in the pictures in question.


What does that have to do with the photos I posted?
I purposely choose photos to minimize that effect.
JRA choose one where that effect was enhanced.

And how can you determine the mannequins are true representations of the astronauts' height
based upon "dwindling size perception"?

How about that UV camera model:

how tall is that?



Ok, here are your original links to your pictures:


Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
We know that Apollo is fake. That's why they have a Keepout Zone. And fake LEM's at the National Air & Space Museum.




Why are the astronauts so small in comparison to the average person?












www.armaghplanet.com...


Now here is a novel idea. Can you give any proof that the mannequins are the improper size/scale, or just wrong other than just saying they look wrong in these photographs? The burden is on you to prove your statement. I have given evidence of why they look smaller than an average person in perspective. Proudbird has given proof that they are the original suites worn by the team on the moon.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


This site settles it..

www.aulis.com...

The same backdrops!! How does the LM position change and the backdrop remain the same?

Everyone take a look at this site www.aulis.com...

Will it be a staged release of the truth? How will the American people react?

Some interesting times ahead! or has there since been a real moon mission.. which will only be declared when it becomes impossible to deny the 1969 hoax?



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



This site settles it..

www.aulis.com...

The same backdrops!! How does the LM position change and the backdrop remain the same?


It's called "parallax."

en.wikipedia.org...

Aulis counts on people being completely ignorant of the world around them. You'll have to do much, much better than that.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 




Parallax ! The photo is taken at the same point.. notice the ground to the left!

You will have to do better than that !

To all readers we are talking about the bottom two photos on this page www.aulis.com...

Welcome input to explain this.. If it was a case of Parallax the foreground would change.. the background would remain the same..



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


www.aulis.com...

Aulis relies on people being enlightened to the world around them.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


What does the US intend to do when China gets to the moon first.. insist they edit the footage to fit in with the hoax photography?

This is going to be awkward.

edit on 16-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



Parallax ! The photo is taken at the same point.. notice the ground to the left!


The foreground does change. For one thing, notice the absence of the Lunar Module! I am now thoroughly convinced that you are a troll who is mocking the Hoaxies. No-one could possibly be so stubbornly ignorant by nature. At least some of the people on this thread do some actual research, flawed though it usually is. All you do is post links to other sites and fire off silly one liners. Then, just to taunt the other side, you make jeering comments about China winning the "space race." Grow up.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Look at the foreground.. to the left.. Do you see ? They are the same.

You get so mad when you are backed into a corner!

Have another look at the photo.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Background isn't the same. Foreground isn't the same. Wtf are you trying to do here? Troll us to submission?



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



Have another look at the photo.


You have another look at your source:


Unlike many other Apollo skeptics, the Aulis authors are NOT claiming that astronauts from Earth have never walked on the Moon.


www.aulis.com...

You can't seemed bothered to do even the most minimal fact checking.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Now in 1965 NASA Gemini 4 | NASA's achieved second Ever Space Walk - Narrated By Ed White (June 3, 1965)

The footage is in color and great quality. This is the quality that was available in 1965.

www.youtube.com...

Now compare with 1969 'moon landing'

www.youtube.com...

Damn! shame they hadn't packed that old camera! The new one is rubbish.. and we seem to have gone back to black and white.

Now I am sure there is some elaborate explanation for this..


jra

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
How do you figure?


Just look at it. The real astronauts look larger since they're obviously closer to the camera, but it's not hard to imagine them being about 3 meters further back and being roughly the same size.


If I had posted that image, you guys would ask me the same thing.


You mean, if you posted this image and claimed that the mannequins are too small? Then yes, I'd be questioning you.


Originally posted by mockrock
This site settles it..


Hardly. Jack White's nonsense has been debunked countless times.


The same backdrops!! How does the LM position change and the backdrop remain the same?


Like DJW already said, it's parallax. Moving from the LM to a few hundred meters away isn't going to drastically change the appearance of a distant mountain. There will likely be some subtle changes. Why not take the two photos into an image editing program like photoshop and put one over the other to see if their are any differences?



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


As others have noted, there are two options:

"Trollery", or;

A distinct possibility that someone is unable to fully comprehend science, perspective, photography and reality.


In the case of each and every aspect of the "aulis" website, with all the effort put forth by its author, "trollery" seems unlikely. Just hard to imagine anyone going to such extremes as a joke.

SO, must presume that the person behind it is deluded enough to actually believe what he posted there.

Which brings us to the damage it causes to logic and common sense, and whether anyone who reads that nonsense, and falls for it truly is posting here on ATS to affirm that belief, or is making a mockery of the "aulis" website. This is far more difficult to determine.

In the case of the latest "effort" posted in this thread - - this has been addressed repeatedly. And, one could very easily re-create the conditions shown in the Apollo photos here on Earth. Not with Astronauts and Lunar Modules, but other familiar items....as long as you have a scene with mountains or hills in the distant background.

Because, in the case of the above links to the "aulis" site and it's"examples", that is what is occurring. The hill in the Lunar distance is many, many kilometers away. What people who are not thinking clearly do not understand is that in a vacuum, there are none of the normal visual cues we grow accustomed to, here on Earth.....the cues caused by our atmosphere that we subconsciously use to help us realize when something is far distant. The atmosphere has a "haze" effect, increasing with increasing distance. This is absent when on the Moon.

Here is a video example. Shot by a camera mounted on the LRV during Apollo 15. Watch, and listen carefully to the narration and the points addressed.







edit on Wed 16 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


The foreground is the same... It has been debunked by argument but not by reality of the evidence, you can clearly see the ground to the left is the same.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



Parallax ! The photo is taken at the same point.. notice the ground to the left!


The size shape and angle of the crater to the left is different. There is a crater missing beyond it. The lay of the ground is different. The lunar rover tracks and footprints are different. Stop making silly assertions that anyone can see are just plain wrong.



www.aulis.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock
Now in 1965 NASA Gemini 4 | NASA's achieved second Ever Space Walk - Narrated By Ed White (June 3, 1965)

The footage is in color and great quality. This is the quality that was available in 1965.

www.youtube.com...

Now compare with 1969 'moon landing'

www.youtube.com...

Damn! shame they hadn't packed that old camera! The new one is rubbish.. and we seem to have gone back to black and white.

Now I am sure there is some elaborate explanation for this..




I see you don't want this one to be the last post..

Compare 1965 great quality Space walk footage..

www.youtube.com...


Damn we forgot the color video camera.. it only cost a few billion $s to get here..
.. Houston we have a problem!

..just sketch lots of little pictures of the landing in a corner of a book.. then flick the pages.

or try etch o' sketch i.dailymail.co.uk...

Why did camera technology go backwards from the 1965 spacewalk.. ? The video camera points at the sun, so clearly the technology was there to protect it from any radiation, surely technology had to have evolved to get to the moon in the first place.. a conundrum.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 654  655  656    658  659  660 >>

log in

join