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: 75
377
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp

My question is: where is the uneven ground in the above picture? there is no uneven ground to justify the shadows not being parallel enough.


The second of those images is AS11-40-5961.jpg, as jra has pointed out.

This is the last of a partial panorama that Neil Armstrong took from the edge of little west crater. If you look at the images that make up that partial pan, it may help give a better idea of the terrain where Neil was standing.

The descriptions, with links to the images, beginning with:

www.hq.nasa.gov...




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
can we please, please, please, (with sugar on top) try to remember this:

Multiple lightsources are not the cause for shadows not being parallel

Multiple lightsources are a cause for multiple shadows

So until you find a apollo picture with multiple shadows, let them be.


Besides that: That vid of shatner is obviously a fake. Why? Simple: Riker and Kirk never met. Picard met Kirk once, and Kirk died when that happened, so all 4 of them cant be sitting with guinan. Besides that spocks ears are all wrong.
Also Weedwhacker: I must correct you. Shatner never directed a Star Trek movie. They just somehow miscounted and jumped from 4 directly to 6.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Also Weedwhacker: I must correct you. Shatner never directed a Star Trek movie. They just somehow miscounted and jumped from 4 directly to 6.


I think it is tradition or something to skip numbers on sequels. Highlander did it also when they jumped from One to Three.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


I am being 100% serious here if YOU cant see how the ground is uneven on those pictures you posted please get your eyes checked.
If you look back in the thread someone else thought like you set up a mock up with 2 light sources the object then had 2 shadows.

You can try it yourself go to some uneven land puts some objects or friends in various location and see how the shadows look

Here is a good example on a fairly flat piece of land.

www.apollo-hoax.me.uk...

Have a look at this video see how much a shadow can change due to the terrain it falls on.

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


What would you do with evidence if you committed a crime?
I dont know about you, but the first thing I would do is destroy it.


So you have nothing of any substance upon which to base your beliefs. Excellent.



Why would they risk their lives and careers?


On the contrary, if you had the ability to blow open one of the world's great conspiracies and make a lasting name for yourself, wouldnt you do it? Especially since many of those involved with Apollo have come to (or passed through) old age...there would no longer be any risk to their careers.



Many parts of this "studio" are in plain sight.


Where? Point it out, dont just make assertions without backings them up. You stated in this same post that all the evidence was destroyed. So which is it? Was it destroyed, or not? If not, show us all the evidence!


No it wouldnt.
Your just making it larger than it is in your head.


Another assertion without any kind of justification.

There are mountains of data. Hours of footage and audio. Thousands of photographs.

There was independent tracking of the spacecraft. At least 3 radio telescopes received signals from Apollo 11 from the moon, one of which wasnt part of the NASA network. Pictures in Australia did not go through the NASA channels in Houston, but were decoded in Australia for Aussie audiences. There was media at the radio telescopes when the pictures were being beamed down, they watched it live off the dish before anyone at NASA got their hands on it.

Tidbinbilla in Canberra, which was dropped as one of the broadcast dishes before the launch, was tracking the orbiter. Its dish was also able to pick up the signal from the LM at times when the orbiter and LM were in close proximity, and so they watched the broadcast without NASA's knowledge.

The only way to fake all of that is to have pre-recorded the audio and footage and rebroadcast it from the LM. The LM also needs to have landed on the moon, since that is where the images came from.

So in your alternate reality, NASA needed to pre-record footage and beam hours of it from the LM to Earth. Separately, they needed to have pre-recorded audio in the orbiter once again to rebroadcast during the entire trip. The LM needed to make a landing on the moon both to broadcast footage form the right spot and also to place the reflector All of this needed to be accomplished even to fake that humans had set foot on the moon.

The only bit missing from there is the humans themselves being inside the craft.

See where i am getting at?

if you disagree, then explain to me how else they could have faked Apollo 11 given all the data and tracking that occurred.



Yes they have, that includes the photographs.


What is there other than the photograhps? And i mean physical evidence, not other audio or video "anomalies" that prove little to nothing.


Look for yourself


I thought your precious Jarrah White was supposed to be presenting this compelling evidence! So where is it?



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar
There are mountains of data. Hours of footage and audio. Thousands of photographs.


You know what, those thousands of photos just might be the problem. There's too many.

I think they took around 6000 of them during the moon landings, and just about all of them are perfectly exposed, framed, focused, etc.

Check out this time and motion study of whether it would be possible to shoot that many or not and make up your own mind.

www.aulis.com...


jra

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
I think they took around 6000 of them during the moon landings, and just about all of them are perfectly exposed, framed, focused, etc.


No they aren't. There are lots of photos that are not perfectly framed, or focused. Besides, it's not hard to get what you want in frame, even with the lack of a view finder. You simply point at it at your subject and shoot. This is made even easier as they used a lens that was slightly wide angle.


Check out this time and motion study of whether it would be possible to shoot that many or not and make up your own mind.


That study by Jack White is a joke.

Here's a post I made regarding his calculations a few years ago. I'll quote the relevant part.


Originally posted by jra
But back to Jack Whites PPM calculations. His method makes no sense. With Apollo 11 for example, I see no good reason why he takes the 31 minutes out of the total 2h31m EVA to calculate the PPM (other than to skew the results to his liking of course). Seeing as how the 121 photos were taken throughout the entire EVA, it would make sense to use the full 2h31m time for the calculation don't you think? And when you do that, you get 0.8 PPM instead of 3.90 PPM. Plus the later mission, both astronauts shared the task of photographing and documenting, so if you redo the calculations for Apollo 17, which has the most photos taken for it's 3 EVA's, and you use the total EVA time and divide that between the two astronauts then you get 0.75 PPM instead of 2.35 PPM.

Jake White does what ever he can to skew the results in his favour. I find him to be a very dishonest person.


[edit on 28-5-2010 by jra]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Do you really not see all the obvious flaws in this study? For one thing, he doesn't account for the fact that there are TWO astronauts performing the various tasks and taking photos. That doubles the time right there. Another charlatan.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Hopefully he takes on 9-11 next!


Actually, the Moon hoax is a no brainer for most of us and its wasted energy once the point has been made. MUCH BETTER that the young researcher turn his attention to the more critical area of 9/11 research. All that the Moon thing does is to set forth in the consciousness of ordinary citizens that YES the government is capable of propaganda on an immense scale. The 9/11 deception and propaganda is far more important so let us spend our valuable time there - its far more significant to the cause of survival of our nation and our very freedom. The truth of the Moon fraud is really not that critical at this point - in the future it may serve in a positive way as a 'clincher' for the true skeptic and 9/11 aetheist



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Do you really not see all the obvious flaws in this study? For one thing, he doesn't account for the fact that there are TWO astronauts performing the various tasks and taking photos. That doubles the time right there. Another charlatan.


Wow, one little post and pounce, everyone's on it in seconds.

From all the hours of videos I've watched and transcripts I've read, I have to agree with this section from the source www.aulis.com...

10. It is important to know that although each man had his own camera, they ALMOST NEVER USED THEM AT THE SAME TIME. Usually one of them was photographing the other doing some task. Therefore having two cameras DID NOT TRANSLATE TO TWICE AS MUCH TIME FOR PHOTOGRAPHY, as one might surmise.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


But he doesn't figure that into the tasks, now does he?



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Check out this time and motion study of whether it would be possible to shoot that many or not and make up your own mind.
www.aulis.com...


Unbelievable stupidity. Er, that link I mean....

PPK55, as pointed out by JRA, did you not notice that he sort of deliberately forgot there were TWO astronauts, and that were er.. slightly more than one camera used in each mission?

Not notice that many of the shots were REPETITIVE, rapid-fire panoramas, or multiple shots of landscapes, or taken ALONG their travels? In other words, Jack Whites STUPID claim that:

Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel..

is not just misinformed/dumb, but a SHAMELESS BALD FACED LIE.

Did you also not realise that just about every single image is recorded in the journals, many on video/film footage, and that they ALL match up? That you can easily browse through all the thumbnail galleries and see for yourself how the timeline works out?

Although admittedly it can get a little tricky (for someone who can't count astronauts/cameras, at least..), as at most times, there were TWO cameras in use, so the shot sequences overlapped somewhat.

Now, frankly, YOU should have known all that - especially the bit about TWO astronauts, TWO cameras. I mean, are you seriously that lacking in observation skills?

So you have proved AGAIN, that you are throwing up (aka vomiting) unsupported, ill-researched and misleading garbage.

And that you are willing to believe every bit of lame stupidity you find.
And that you can't research anything to save your life.
And that you are happy to mislead this forum.

OR I guess it could be that you know dam well this is garbage, but are trying to help sell it as you have a financial interest. Feel free to tell us which it is..

But whatever - I'm getting REALLY sick of it.

By the way, the summary of your claims in this thread - which I will be posting later, is NOT looking good. Maybe you could recover a little cred by apologising for this latest 'effort'. ('Effort'?? - that term used here extremely advisedly.)

Let's call a spade.. and I'm being quite kind here - Jack White is FULL OF IT, and his site is a pile of steaming offal.

ADDED:

Therefore having two cameras DID NOT TRANSLATE TO TWICE AS MUCH TIME...

I see you've now found an important proviso - well done, almost..
But you didn't notice that he didn't go back and revise his numbers?

SIGH - Do you not understand this at all???? It doesn't freaking matter that (in his opinion) they were never used simultaneously - IT STILL DIVIDES HIS RIDICULOUS CALCULATION BY TWO. And that's before you consider the other factors properly.

PPK, you are incredibly easy to mislead. The Jack White's of our world rely on people like you to buy their garbage. It used to be snake oil, and weird creatures on display, or selling bridges.. A new ppk is born every minute, thankfully...

[edit on 28-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Not notice that many of the shots were REPETITIVE, rapid-fire panoramas, or multiple shots of landscapes, or taken ALONG their travels?


So now we've got too many photos taken in the time available. (see time and motion study link above)

AND, the sequential frames they did take, mostly from the moving rover, are all perfectly in focus and no hint of blur.

Maybe they happened to be driving over some nice smooth surface, unlike much of the 16mm footage proves.

This is just one of many pages.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

How did they time it so perfectly that the camera wasnt bouncing around when the photo was taken ? amazing !



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
You're just burying yourself. But, if that's what you enjoy...


Originally posted by ppk55
So now we've got too many photos taken in the time available. (see time and motion study link above)

Did you not read anything that was said? Use a blindfold except when at Apollo denier sites?


AND, the sequential frames they did take, mostly from the moving rover, are all perfectly in focus and no hint of blur.

Why would they be out of focus? You do understand things like depth of field, presets and hyperfocal range? NO, obviously you DON'T.

And what shutter speed was it agoin? Oh yes, 1/250 second. For a wide angle lens, that's a pretty much guaranteed no-motion-blur situation.

Do you know ANYTHING about photography, or how these cameras were used? Because that would probably help you to avoid this - it's not a good look.


Maybe they happened to be driving over some nice smooth surface, unlike much of the 16mm footage proves.

Or maybe they used 1/250 sec shutter speed and a wide angle lens, and maybe they even LOOKED at the terrain so they knew when *not* to shoot, over the worst bumps. Maybe this sort of thing is why THEY went, and not.. someone like you.


How did they time it so perfectly that the camera wasnt bouncing around when the photo was taken ? amazing !


Yes, I guess it is 'amazing'.. when you have that little knowledge of the topic.



[edit on 28-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
maybe they used 1/250 sec shutter speed and a wide angle lens, and maybe they even LOOKED at the terrain so they knew when *not* to shoot
[edit on 28-5-2010 by CHRLZ]


Maybe they didn't take all those 6000 photos as the time and motion study seems to prove.

For anyone who's tried to take a photo from a car going over medium bumps, even at 1/250 shutter speed, you're still going to get a blurred shot.

Not so with images posted in the link above. Maybe you're right, maybe they looked at the terrain, and waited .. then waited, and then went, NOW.

edit: I've tried doing that in the car, didn't work.





[edit on 28-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by zvezdar
There are mountains of data. Hours of footage and audio. Thousands of photographs.


You know what, those thousands of photos just might be the problem. There's too many.

I think they took around 6000 of them during the moon landings, and just about all of them are perfectly exposed, framed, focused, etc.

Check out this time and motion study of whether it would be possible to shoot that many or not and make up your own mind.

www.aulis.com...



Thats a poor effort IMO.

The number of photos taken seems perfectly reasonable: i've rattled off hundreds of photos in an hour plenty of times. It uses hardly any time to take a quick snap, and after a bit of practice you can get a decent frame without having to try very hard at all. Anyone who takes photos in crowded areas can tell you it only takes a second to get a good frame and take the photo. Add a few seconds to adjust the settings (which were very simple, its not like a modern SLR) and there you go.

If you say 10 seconds per photo (which is very very conservative, it wouldnt take that long in practice) Apollo 11 astronauts spent around 20 minutes between them taking photos. They were each on the moon for 2.5 hours, so total exposure of 5 hours or 300 minutes (each astronaut had 2.5 hours of time available). That means they spent less than 7% of their total time taking photos.

Extending that to all the Apollo missions, assuming 10 seconds per snap, no apollo mission spent more than 12.5% of its time taking photos (Apollo 17, which had the longest time on the moon and so the greatest opportunity for photos). When you express it in percentage terms it looks reasonable enough to me.

He's tried to make his numbers as sensational as possible. Including adding activities that were either automated (like establishing contact with Earth: they were in constant contact) or required little effort (switching on the TV camera which involved pressing a single button for Apollo 11). The astronauts spent a few hours inside the LM during Apolo 11 before setting foot on the moon in preparation time.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by zvezdar]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
BTW, here's a story on the tracking of Apollo 11 from the Parkes radio telescope in Australia. It details how the broadcasts were received and by whom, how it was relayed back to NASA and who/what was tracking the mission at any given time.

www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...

Its a fantastic read.

And note all the agencies outside of NASA that are involved. I think a lot of the people who believe Apollo 11 was a hoax dont understand how many people were really involved and how difficult it would have been to hoax. This gives some perspective on the difficulties in hoaxing a video transmission from the moon that was tracked and picked up by multiple stations.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by zvezdar]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
You know what, those thousands of photos just might be the problem. There's too many.

www.aulis.com...



Originally posted by zvezdar
Thats a poor effort IMO.

The number of photos taken seems perfectly reasonable: i've rattled off hundreds of photos in an hour plenty of times.


Yes, but did you have to adjust high and low gain antennas ?
how long did it take them to do this ? How did this impact on how many photos they could have taken ?

Why have I never seen them adjusting these antennas in any of the TV recordings ? just saying.


[edit on 28-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Yes, but did you have to adjust high and low gain antennas ?
how long did it take them to do this ? How did this impact on how many photos they could have taken ?

Why have I never seen them adjusting these antennas in any of the TV recordings ? just saying.



exactly what adjustments were they required to make to antennas? The high gain on the LM was directional, but computer controlled. The low gain wasnt even directional.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar
The high gain on the LM was directional, but computer controlled. The low gain wasnt even directional.


Why is the low gain then pointed in the same direction in every picture as the high gain ? Someone had to adjust it.

eg. AS17-146-22294



So if they're busy doing experiments, adjusting antennas, making sure their environmental conditions, suits, etc are ok, talking to mission control. how does that leave time for the 6000 photos ? ( time and motion study link above )

[edit on 28-5-2010 by ppk55]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join