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.
Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Duh!, I gave you proof!...He is the man with the foreign accent in the video I linked to, basically saying he has no explanation for how it could be.
Originally posted by captainpudding
Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Duh!, I gave you proof!...He is the man with the foreign accent in the video I linked to, basically saying he has no explanation for how it could be.
Unfortunately, as we've seen time and time again, moon hoax pushers love to lie, Sibrel did it in order to stalk his victims, and got a punch in the mouth for his troubles, when Jarrah White can't find an expert to appear in his video, he gets someone to pretend to be an expert. .
This has nothing to do with Jarah White...The guy in question appears in the Fox Conspiracy Theory documentory I posted earlier. There is a longer version of it available somewhere on youtube where he is introduced as the guy who designed the cameras for the Apollo missions.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
Sigh, you are repeating the same stuff we've heard about a million times over. All of which has been debunked here and other places btw. Like this little gem of apollo 11 confrence. Never mind the tens of photos of smiling and laughing and obviously happy astronauts after they landed.
Beating a dead horseedit on 30/1/2013 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
OK, now imagine how you would have felt if it were you sitting there, and you had genuinely been to the Moon and back.
What emotions would you have? Joy?, Eurphoria?...You would certainly feel great relief that you made it there and back completely unscaved.
Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
BUT...Look how miserable they all are, their guilty expressions and stumbling, slurred words!
Originally posted by PsykoOps
By definition when something is proven to be false it is a lie. You're spouting off stuff that has been proven to be false more times than I can recollect.
So who is living a lie? Try again?
Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by PheonixReborn
I think both sides of the debate can agree that attacking a typo is just poor form. We all know what they meant.
OK, can you prove Man went to the Moon? If so where is your irrefutable evidence?
Originally posted by PheonixReborn
Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by PheonixReborn
I think both sides of the debate can agree that attacking a typo is just poor form. We all know what they meant.
Oh, I give up. I'm going to make an issue of this. I'm just too tired of the ignorant to put up with them with civility anymore.
He claimed the cross hairs were called "Recticles."
Now, I'm only an amateur photographer but I know they're called reticules.
Thats not a typo. Its a fundamental misunderstanding of the word. One letter out of place and I could understand it but "recticles?" I don't think so!
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
OK, can you prove Man went to the Moon? If so where is your irrefutable evidence?
Oh dear. Please define what you mean by "irrefutable evidence."
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
Well you can start by proving the photographic evidence false.
Then there's the LRO.
Then there's the mirros.
The soil samples
If you can prove any of them fake then I'll be the first to call the press. People and internet loons have been trying to do that for decades. They have always failed miserably.edit on 30/1/2013 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)
A reticle (or reticule) is a net of fine lines or fibers in the eyepiece of a sighting device, such as a telescope, a telescopic sight, a microscope, or the screen of an oscilloscope. The word reticle comes from the Latin "reticulum," meaning "net." Today, engraved lines or embedded fibers may be replaced by a computer-generated image superimposed on a screen or eyepiece. The term graticule is the synonymous term from French, coming from the Latin craticula for gridiron. Both may be used to describe any set of lines used for optical measurement, but in modern use the term reticle is most commonly used for gunsights and such, while graticule is more widely used for the covers of oscilloscopes and similar roles.
There are many variations of reticles; this article concerns itself mainly with a simple reticle: crosshairs. Crosshairs are most commonly represented as intersecting lines in the shape of a cross, "+", though many variations exist, including dots, posts, circles, scales, chevrons, or a combination of these. Most commonly associated with telescopic sights for aiming firearms, crosshairs are also common in optical instruments used for astronomy and surveying, and are also popular in graphical user interfaces as a precision pointer. The reticle is said to have been invented by Robert Hooke, and dates to the 17th century.
In imaging technology, a fiduciary marker or fiducial is an object used in the field of view of an imaging system which appears in the image produced, for use as a point of reference or a measure.
A Reseau plate is a transparent plate with fiduciary markers placed at the focal plane of a camera just in front of the film to provide a means of correcting images to enable them to be used for precision measurement. The crosshairs visible in photos taken on the Moon are an example of this usage.
The photographers we consulted agreed that the fiducial washout was almost certainly the result of bright areas of the emulsion "bleeding" over the tiny fiducials. The fiducials are very thin, only about 0.004 inch thick (0.1 mm). The emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much -- less than the thickness of a human hair -- in order to completely obscure the fiducial.