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: 662
377
<< 659  660  661    663  664  665 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock

This should be interesting, vanishing LEM... There will be some scientific explanation more akin to voodoo magic!


See this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


What kind of garbage picture is that? It's a jumbled mess of nonsense.

You have been shown the proper relationships of the photos, before....now, you are just making crap up.

DO it properly, or don't do it at all...what a waste of time.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki



You want to know how they could have faked the landscapes?
Is that a serious question? The same way these guys did it:



They only had about 10 feet of set. To fake the moon landing, and get the footage they have, you would need miles of set.



Miles of set... so show us these miles you are talking about.
I still haven't seen it. And prove, that its miles.
And while you are at it, whats so difficult about creating miles of set outdoors?







How did Kubrick fake his landscapes and planets?



Most of the time, he didn't. On the video you presented however, it does look like he did, and I'll tell you how he did it. A back drop. Artists drawing of a landscape cleverly positioned behind actual ground to make it look like it goes on forever. Good for movie sets that require little to no movement, because once you start moving the camera too much you can start to see the lack of any depth perception.



So you are saying the backgrounds behind the dawn of man scenes are real, and some are drawn in?
And that explains the lack of depth perception, lol.
Basically, you dont know how they did it do you?
And we are talking about film made back in the '60's.
Old technology.



Could they have done that on the moon? Sure, for some shots probably, but for the shots that were moving in the rover, it would have been impossible.


Why?






I understand your problem.
If we didn't land men on the moon, it kind of puts a damper on all the UFO stuff as well.
It means that space travel is practically impossible.


No problem. Like I said, I fully acknowledge the possibility that Aliens are not visiting us. I said I was split 50/50.


So you actually believe that aliens are visiting us. And I suppose you need proof that they are not?
Well why dont you and Capt. Obvious ask them if we humans landed men on the moon?
They should be able to go check the landing sites easy.



UFO's on the other hand are fact based solely on their definition. It doesn't state anywhere that UFO's have to be alien.



UFO's are not interesting topics for conversations if they are not related to extra terrestrials.
So stop hiding behind the definition. Because if you are really making an issue about not being able to identify Earth based aircraft, birds, or bugs, well thats a personal issue you have and it doesn't need to be brought up in this thread.


Does someone else want to take this one? I'm sick and tired of teaching FoosM 1st grade logic, and second grade physics, only to have him turn around and ask me kindergarten questions.

Also, I want to show you that it's not just me that knows the answers to these questions, it's pretty much everyone.

So yea, can someone else please pinch hit for me on this one? I really just can't be bothered. I'm sure he's stupid enough to take this as proof I don't know the answers to his questions, but I frankly don't even give a sh!t anymore. I've already made up my mind he's not going to understand anything I post, but that last post just put me over the edge. I almost couldn't believe I was reading it.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Why just you continually lie, in order to attempt to keep your delusions alive?


Miles of set... so show us these miles you are talking about.
I still haven't seen it.




YOU have been shown this, and many others that are similar. DOZENS of times.

SO, why keep lying?



And prove, that its miles.


Apollo 15, EVA 2 up above. Drive from Station 6 to Station 6A.

See the Apollo 15 EVA Traverse Map



And while you are at it, whats so difficult about creating miles of set outdoors?


Hilarious!!! Thanks, again for showing the true idiotic nature of the typical HB!



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


"Debunking the claims of hoaxers is a little like playing soccer against eleven traffic cones, but I do it in the hopes of preventing others who are new to this from being misled by conspiracy theorists who really don't know what they're talking about."

Oh, how I wish I had coined that sentence, it is spot on!!

Here, for those who are perspective-challenged, and cannot understand, nor grasp, the concept of real-life distance, and how moving in a local area can drastically alter local views, but NOT greatly change the view of a very distant range of hills:




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by mockrock
 


What kind of garbage picture is that? It's a jumbled mess of nonsense.

You have been shown the proper relationships of the photos, before....now, you are just making crap up.

DO it properly, or don't do it at all...what a waste of time.



Calm down dear, compare the top and bottom image the missing LEM proves the images are a hoax.. staged.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by FoosM
 


"Debunking the claims of hoaxers is a little like playing soccer against eleven traffic cones, but I do it in the hopes of preventing others who are new to this from being misled by conspiracy theorists who really don't know what they're talking about."

Oh, how I wish I had coined that sentence, it is spot on!!

Here, for those who are perspective-challenged, and cannot understand, nor grasp, the concept of real-life distance, and how moving in a local area can drastically alter local views, but NOT greatly change the view of a very distant range of hills:




Repelling the truth that the Apollo landings were a hoax must be like bailing water from a sinking ship..

The LEM is in the background on the top image... Therefore it should appear on the bottom image.

Your explanation can only work on objects in the foreground..

Don't get in a tangle, focus on why the LEM on the top image does not appear in the wider field shot which shows the area where the LEM stands in the top image..
edit on 17-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



The LEM is in the background on the top image... Therefore it should appear on the bottom image.


You just don't have clue do you? How can it be so difficult to understand.....unless, of course you have another agenda here.

As many others have suggested.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by mockrock
 



The LEM is in the background on the top image... Therefore it should appear on the bottom image.


You just don't have clue do you? How can it be so difficult to understand.....unless, of course you have another agenda here.

As many others have suggested.




Again your explanation only works on objects in the foreground, why is the LEM not in the bottom photo? No agenda just the truth and a more optimistic future not based on lies which damage the progress of humankind.. so Yes I do have an agenda.
edit on 17-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



Again your explanation only works on objects in the foreground, why is the LEM not in the bottom photo?


Is it actually possible that you have no ability to think? In three dimensions??

Or, that you have no clue as to how parallax works? How can someone go through life, grow up, learn to read, write and speak English, to use a computer, know how to type on the computer, and not have this basic, basic understanding?? (I say it's impossible.....and that people who promote the Apollo "hoax" are faking and lying and trolling).

Try reading and absorbing this


Look at these four photos taken in Denali, Alaska (Part way down the page posted by member "sts69"):

Fun with parallax

Do you understand, yet?

If not....HERE is another example. Jeeze, this is so, so basic.......:bnghd: :bnghd:

This is obviously "staged", because the penguin disappears

Sigh......



edit on Thu 17 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by mockrock
 



The LEM is in the background on the top image... Therefore it should appear on the bottom image.


You just don't have clue do you? How can it be so difficult to understand.....unless, of course you have another agenda here.

As many others have suggested.



See my frustration? F**cking retarded chimps could understand this sh!t. Literally. Retarded chimps.

Then you have FoosM over here thinking I'm some member of the Illuminati because I figured out there was no way in hell he graduated from High School. I mean, my powers of deduction don't need to be that impressive to figure that out after reading some of his posts.

What's sad is that he looks to have sidekicks that seem to have similar levels of processing power. I'd say I wouldn't be too far of if I guesstimated the total IQ of all the hoaxers in the room would add up to less than 100. Literally making me 1.4 times smarter than all of them combined.


I'm assuming this will get flagged for being off topic, but if you think about it, this couldn't be any more ON topic.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I think you are confused, this can only explain objects vanishing in the foreground.. The LEM should appear in the background on the bottom photo, try and stay calm you are doing your best..

Do you want me to explain parallax? See this www.astro.ljmu.ac.uk...

The LEM should appear in the background of the bottom photo.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


Here come the tantrums and insults.. stick to the debate. Stay cool.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock
Uploaded with ImageShack.us" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



Use the scroll bar on the image to look to the right.. The Parallax explanation does not explain the missing LEM

Hoax... notice the matching background.. the LEM should be seen on the bottom photo.. This means the photos were staged, whether the U.S later got to the moon is a different question.

But as you can see hoax/staged photographs.
edit on 17-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)




Look at the image.. the LEM appears on the top photograph near the mountain backdrop.... therefore in the bottom photo the Parallax phenomenon does not apply.. It should appear in the background on the bottom photo.

Very clear.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


For the last time, no:


The LEM should appear in the background of the bottom photo.


The bottom photo is of the Astronaut next to the massive boulder. He has moved, and the camera has moved, so that the LM cannot be seen in the field of the camera view any more, not in the direction the camera is pointed.

You didn't even look at the post you just replied to. You have nothing, but are demonstrating well-known troll tactics.

What a shame, when someone thinks it's "funny" to play a punk on the Internet. And, how so very, very sad.......

BY the way....(for the benefit of posterity, as future school children read this) it is a violation of ATS protocols to post those images (repeatedly, I might add) without sourcing them with proper attribution.

Which mission?? What photo numbers?? If that information is given, then a proper examination will be made, and ALL of these nonsense claims dispelled once and for all.



edit on Thu 17 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by mockrock
 


For the last time, no:


The LEM should appear in the background of the bottom photo.


The bottom photo is of the Astronaut next to the massive boulder. He has moved, and the camera has moved, so that the LM cannot be seen in the field of the camera view any more, not in the direction the camera is pointed.

You didn't even look at the post you just replied to. You have nothing, but are demonstrating well-known troll tactics.

What a shame, when someone thinks it's "funny" to play a punk on the Internet. And, how so very, very sad.......



On the contrary I have never once used an insult.. Are you looking at the correct image? Look above the LEM should appear near the mountain backdrop in the bottom picture.. Ignoring evidence and resorting to insults is closer to the beast that is troll than anything I have done. If we can proceed in a calm manner and debate like grown-ups please..
edit on 17-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)



You could walk a mile in either direction left or right and the LEM should still be nestled in front of the mountain backdrop. Because it is in the background.. not foreground.


edit on 17-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I think you are confused,


Oh man I almost sh!t myself on that one.




The LEM should appear in the background of the bottom photo.



The LEM is in the foreground chief. It might appear to be in the background because it's seemingly far away, but background and foreground are very relative. In relation to the mountain, the LEM is in the foreground. If you move right or left a couple feet, so as to have the LEM out of the picture, the mountain would appear in the same spot because the distances are so great it is very hard to tell any difference.
edit on 17-11-2011 by JohnnySasaki because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 




You could walk a mile in either direction left or right and the LEM should still be nestled in front of the mountain backdrop. Because it is in the background.. not foreground.


What are the photo numbers? Which mission?

And, when you walk that distance left, right or backward.....what is your new elevation, relative to where the LM is sitting? When I said that some people can't think. In three dimensions. This is an example.

What is the elevation of the camera, after moving? Is it now lower than where the LM is? Is there any higher sloping terrain, blocking the camera's view of the LM?

Of course, on order to fool the gullible to keep this "hoax" going, these questions, details and facts have to be left out or ignored.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, and simple "insults" do not define an Internet "troll".

This explains it perfectly, in many cases



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


Okay, mockrock, if you want to play games there need to be rules. One of the rules is that you have to link to the source of the pictures you post. That's not just a rule of the game, that's an ATS Term and Condition. Violating the ATS T&C can get you banned. Now, please, pretty please, what are the mission, magazine and frame numbers for those photos? Oh, and where did that big boulder in the foreground come from? Why aren't you bothered by that?



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



One of the main points that I have is that the Apollo lunar landings all took place under Richard Nixon's presidency. And that deserves many asterisks **********



But I never referred to Richard Nixon as the devil.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Since you are so excellent at quote mining can you find where I said that Richard Nixon was the devil?
I will leave this thread alone if you can find a quote by SayonaraJupiter which shows that I used the word "devil" in describing Richard Nixon.

But my expectation is that you, DJW001, will stare silently into space with a frown on your face.




new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 659  660  661    663  664  665 >>

log in

join