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: 83
377
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter



Trusting one email which claims to be from his teacher?



The screencap is at the link, if you would bother following it. The email is real, the name is real, she admits to being Jarrah's teacher. What more do you want?

And if our discussion isn't up to your standards, you are more than welcome to bring up any hoax proof for discussion.

So pick out what you think is the best proof of the hoax and we will see what happens...




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter


Here's a interesting though, tell me then if we really made it on the moon, explain how the cameras were already on the moon waiting for the capsule to land eh?



What are you talking about!?! You mean the camera that filmed Armstrong coming down the ladder? It was attached to the LM and lowered into place before he came down.

My God, if you don't know that you are truly lost.



and as always radiation would burn the 1960s cameras in matter of seconds.




Oh really? Do you have proof for that statement?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter


Here's a interesting though, tell me then if we really made it on the moon, explain how the cameras were already on the moon waiting for the capsule to land eh?



What are you talking about!?! You mean the camera that filmed Armstrong coming down the ladder? It was attached to the LM and lowered into place before he came down.

My God, if you don't know that you are truly lost.



and as always radiation would burn the 1960s cameras in matter of seconds.




Oh really? Do you have proof for that statement?



as always skeptics staying away from that topic, on the moon there is and was radiation, why do you think we are skipping the man manned missions?


Oh and look you got one star for being an attention seeker



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

And he posted it on the internet as if she was a true expert!

Here is the email in question if anybody has any doubts as to the dishonesty of Foos and Jarrah:



Hi Dave,

What really fascinates me, is the amount of interest that conspiracy theories re: the moon landing generates.

Movies, documentaries etc it is a fascinating phenomena in itself.

You should take into consideration the background to Jarrah’s work, he made this documentary as one of his class assignments, as such students have to create a piece with little or no resources at their disposal. Jarrah is particularly interested in things technical, and based most of his works that particular year, around the concept that the lunar landing was faked. He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line he wished to persue, and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment. I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’. The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer, the interesting thing is that when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher).

What would be useful to you would be to get an analysis done by a true optical / physics specialist who could factor in things like: lense distortion, surface refraction, light angle, light source distance, surface curvature etc. I am sure that your is evidence that a similar photo can be taken with one light source that is equivatent [sic], can mount an argument to disprove Jarrah’s but it would require a specific type of lens, which is claimed not to be the lens used by Nasa for these photos.

Regards

Jenny


Foos, in a world of dim bulbs, you are a veritable black hole.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Tomblvd]


Oh god you are dense.

What did she call herself in the video Tomblvd?
Why dont you quote that too?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter


Here's a interesting though, tell me then if we really made it on the moon, explain how the cameras were already on the moon waiting for the capsule to land eh?



What are you talking about!?! You mean the camera that filmed Armstrong coming down the ladder? It was attached to the LM and lowered into place before he came down.

My God, if you don't know that you are truly lost.



and as always radiation would burn the 1960s cameras in matter of seconds.




Oh really? Do you have proof for that statement?



as always skeptics staying away from that topic, on the moon there is and was radiation, why do you think we are skipping the man manned missions?


Oh and look you got one star for being an attention seeker



What kind of radiation are you talking about and how much is there?

What kind of radiation "burns" cameras?

And what camera do you claim was already on the moon before the landings? (hint: it isn't an entirely inaccurate statement)

edit:change "melt" to "burn"

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Oh god you are dense.

What did she call herself in the video Tomblvd?
Why dont you quote that too?



I don't quote the video because she admits she was pretending!

How many times do I have to say that?

Are you really that dense?

Her DIRECT QUOTE:


He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line he wished to persue, and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment. I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’.


She admits to knowing nothing about photography, yet JW passes her off in the video as an expert, and you STILL believe it. Even after your "expert" admits she isn't!

What's even more funny is her subsequent statement:


The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer, the interesting thing is that when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher).


Yep, if its in a video, some people will believe ANYTHING.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Oh god you are dense.

What did she call herself in the video Tomblvd?
Why dont you quote that too?



I don't quote the video because she admits she was pretending!

How many times do I have to say that?

Are you really that dense?

Her DIRECT QUOTE:


He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line he wished to persue, and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment. I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’.


She admits to knowing nothing about photography, yet JW passes her off in the video as an expert, and you STILL believe it. Even after your "expert" admits she isn't!

What's even more funny is her subsequent statement:


The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer, the interesting thing is that when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher).


Yep, if its in a video, some people will believe ANYTHING.




look at tom run from the truth, look at tom run from a challenge!


Your calling Jarrah a liar, back it up. Quote his video. Come no excuses! Here is your chance to sink him. I bet you havent even watched the video have you?

let me help you just press play:


and write the quote



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Un4g1v3n1
 


Thank you for engaging the topic. You certainly posted a lot of scary statements, mostly about cosmic radiation. Deadly cosmic radiation is everywhere, including on the Earth's surface. That's just how it is. The risks of dangerous exposure do indeed increase as you have less atmospheric shielding, but clearly there were no extinction level events during the 1960's or 1970's. It was a calculated risk. As for the issue of solar radiation and the charged particles trapped in the Earth's magnetosphere, that, of course, is a different story. Shooting from the hip, I seem to recall that the inner belt is composed principally of beta particles and the outer belt of alpha particles. Perhaps you can further jog my memory... Am I totally off base here?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

look at tom run from the truth, look at tom run from a challenge!


Your calling Jarrah a liar, back it up. Quote his video. Come no excuses! Here is your chance to sink him. I bet you havent even watched the video have you?

let me help you just press play:


and write the quote


Are you really this stupid?

I'm being serious here. Do you not understand what is going on?

The woman admits what is in the video is not accurate! Here is what the woman in that video wrote AFTER THE VIDEO WAS POSTED:


Hi Dave,

What really fascinates me, is the amount of interest that conspiracy theories re: the moon landing generates.

Movies, documentaries etc it is a fascinating phenomena in itself.

You should take into consideration the background to Jarrah’s work, he made this documentary as one of his class assignments, as such students have to create a piece with little or no resources at their disposal. Jarrah is particularly interested in things technical, and based most of his works that particular year, around the concept that the lunar landing was faked. He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line he wished to persue, and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment. I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’. The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer, the interesting thing is that when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher).

What would be useful to you would be to get an analysis done by a true optical / physics specialist who could factor in things like: lense distortion, surface refraction, light angle, light source distance, surface curvature etc. I am sure that your is evidence that a similar photo can be taken with one light source that is equivatent [sic], can mount an argument to disprove Jarrah’s but it would require a specific type of lens, which is claimed not to be the lens used by Nasa for these photos.

Regards

Jenny


These are the FACTS from Jenny Heller's email:

-Jarrah does a video for a "class assignment".

-as a requirement for the assignment he must include "footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line".

-he was unable to find an expert.

-so he asked the teacher to fill in as an expert "as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’."

-she pretended to be an expert on photography even though, as she admits "I am not even a professional photographer"

-in closing she states that for the picture in question it would be "useful to you would be to get an analysis done by a true optical / physics specialist".

Now all of this is admitted by the person in the video. It was done as a class project and obviously accuracy was not at issue.

And Jarrah never points that out. He posts that video as true, EXPERT analysis of the picture.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between reality and fantasy.

For some reason, if you see something that is on video, it takes precedent over anything else. Even if a participant in that video admits it was all made up.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Un4g1v3n1
 


As you yourself pointed out, the cfi index is no longer available at the NOAA link you provided. Fortunately, there is this:

isgi.cetp.ipsl.fr...

Now, let's test your statement. Apollo 11, July 16, 1969 - July 24, 1969:


INTERNATIONAL QUIET AND DISTURBED DAYS 1969


Month Quietest Days 1-5 Quietest Days 6-10 Most Disturbed Days 1-5
Jul 29 5 4 19 3 20 24 18 25 17 27 26 1* 14* 13*


Sorry for the sloppy formatting, but I'm hopeless with Excel. If this were aligned properly, you would more readily see that the 17, 18, 19, 20 and 24th were among the ten quietest days for solar activity that month. Four of the five "most disturbed" days that month had Kps below 20 (hence the asterisks). Do we need to do this for every mission?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Do we need to do this for every mission?


DJ, if yours is anything like mine, not only will you have to do it for every mission, but you'll have to put it in a blender, get it nice and smooth, and spoon-feed it to them.

I guess with some people, when you're proven wrong, instead of admitting it, the thing to do is ignore the evidence and pretend it never happened.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

...

And Jarrah never points that out. He posts that video as true, EXPERT analysis of the picture.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between reality and fantasy.

For some reason, if you see something that is on video, it takes precedent over anything else. Even if a participant in that video admits it was all made up.


Thats alot of blah blah Tomblvd. If you talk the talk, then walk the walk.

See folks, he cant even bring himself to quote the video!
I mean whats that all about? How can you have an honest debate when
your opponent wont even watch or read the source materials?

What are you afraid of Tomblvd? Because your running around like a chicken who just got its head bit off from a geek.

quote the source material.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Ok Moon landing believers, explain this video, by just listening to the voices

1#First video i am going to post
www.youtube.com...



At 2:19 Houston says, "Well planned Pete", then you hear everyone at Houston burst out sarcastically laughing.





After climbing down the LM ladder, the Astronaut says at 1:23 "Boy that Suns bright, thats just like somebody shining a spotlight in your head" At 1:59 the Astronaut says overjoyed and laughing,



#2
or explain this video then
www.youtube.com...

My goodness NASA laughing rather then been cheerful?


laughing comes if your faking out something, or gossiping about it.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Thats alot of blah blah Tomblvd. If you talk the talk, then walk the walk.

See folks, he cant even bring himself to quote the video!
I mean whats that all about? How can you have an honest debate when
your opponent wont even watch or read the source materials?

What are you afraid of Tomblvd? Because your running around like a chicken who just got its head bit off from a geek.

quote the source material.


"Let's ignore what our photos have to say. Lets' ask an expert on perspective."

-Moonfaker: Exhibit A. PART 1 (8:55)



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Ok Moon landing believers, explain this video, by just listening to the voices




Uh, no. There are still some questions regarding radiation and cameras that you have yet to answer.

Please answer those and then we can move on.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Ok Moon landing believers, explain this video, by just listening to the voices




Uh, no. There are still some questions regarding radiation and cameras that you have yet to answer.

Please answer those and then we can move on.



For the last time, the radiation on the moon would have burned the spacesuits, and the camera, i am not going to urge with a newbie seeking stars or seeking for attention.

causes, that's what your doing here at the thread.



Since i have noticed the only threads you post are on the subject of the moon landing fake.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 



For the last time, the radiation on would have burned the spacesuits, and the camera, i am not going to urge with a newbie seeking stars or seeking for attention.


causes, that's what your doing here at the thread.


Would you like to explain what sort of radiation is capable of burning up cameras? Can you cite specific levels of this radiation during the missions? Or are we supposed to believe this simply because you said so?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I got a girl named Boney Maroney, She's as skinny as a stick of macaroni



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter



For the last time, the radiation on the moon would have burned the spacesuits, and the camera, i am not going to urge with a newbie seeking stars or seeking for attention.




I agree with DJ. You're just handwaving here.

We are supposed to take your word for it just because you say so?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
GO TO google and search for the Radiation survey of Apollo CSM 107

This should explain the answer



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join