Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

I tell you what why don't you explain one of your arrows say the blue arrow next to the gnomon shadow that points from bottom left to top right up the slope please explain the logic of that arrow that should give everyone a

And here I thought that people who blindly swallow government propaganda were good at following instructions.

Look I dont want to have to look back to find your instructions so why dont you explain your logic of this blue arrow, you of course may not want to do that because it may show your an even bigger idiot than JW is when it comes to this subject!

reply to post by WWu777

im sorry but i dont agree with the hoax theory
what i think happend is they never thought
about the effects of radiation on the camera
so when they sent the images of them on the
moon they had no evidence so they had to do a quick mock up
and thats where all the flaws come to play
THATS JUST MY THEORY.

Then Foosm we always have this shot first posted by jra now if its been photoshopped I sure that would show up.

So here is a still comparing a frame from the DAC film taken as Apollo 17 left the Moon next to the LRO image of the site some may not have seen this. Taken almost 40 years apart.
Top half DAC bottom LRO.

Compare locations of objects, craters and trail left by Astronauts movements.

reply to post by FoosM



so all the rocks on earth are the same all over the planet
come on they are different all over
same as on the moon

Hello All. At first i wanted to create my own moon hoax thread but then thought i might as well just try to contribute to this monster thread instead. But I am horrible at uploading video and pictures so please Ats, help me out. I apologise if this has been pointed out/talked about before but if it has, I have not seen it. Please someone if you could, upload the clip of the astronaut who fell down and shot back up with ease. I believe my friend has found new evidence of wires on the moon. Thank you





Edit to add: No replys so I'm heading to bed, hopefully when i wake there will be some.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by FoosM

 

Yes. Did you post a wrong video or did I just go ADHD?

My bad, the wrong video was posted

12:10:

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Then Foosm we always have this shot first posted by jra now if its been photoshopped I sure that would show up.

So here is a still comparing a frame from the DAC film taken as Apollo 17 left the Moon next to the LRO image of the site some may not have seen this. Taken almost 40 years apart.
Top half DAC bottom LRO.

Compare locations of objects, craters and trail left by Astronauts movements.

So whats different about them?

Originally posted by jazzguy

files.abovetopsecret.com...

LOL.
To be fair, there is a metal frame under those paper thin sheets of aluminum (that you can poke your finger through)
Though, from what I understand, and what JW brought up in an interview, between the sheets and
the steel frame, there is no vacuum or insulation against heat. So the sun, directly hitting the surface, would radiate heat through and thus cook the astronauts like a baked potato sans air conditioning (which you have to wonder if it would be sufficient against such heat). Now of course, I assume they would turn off this air conditioning during EVAs.

And it brings up a problem for the cold experienced in Apollo 13.

reply to post by FoosM


I remember seeing some image of the LM wherein it appeared to be suffering heat damage.

I'd post the image if I could find it, but I just thought you should know. For what it's worth and all.

Originally posted by BluePillOrRedPill
Hello All. At first i wanted to create my own moon hoax thread but then thought i might as well just try to contribute to this monster thread instead. But I am horrible at uploading video and pictures so please Ats, help me out. I apologise if this has been pointed out/talked about before but if it has, I have not seen it. Please someone if you could, upload the clip of the astronaut who fell down and shot back up with ease. I believe my friend has found new evidence of wires on the moon. Thank you

What mission? It would be helpful.

Also, if you want to upload videos, its quite easy.

For example Youtube.
If you see a video on Youtube you want to post.
Press the SHARE button (usually under the video) and you will get a link, for example:

http ://youtu.be/knq6zXOqlaY

What you want to do is copy the last sequence after the "/"
So in this case "knq6zXOqlaY"

You can also identify and copy these codes from your navigation bar which will always be inbetween the "=" and the "&" sign.

For example:
http ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knq6zXOqlaY&feature=channel_video_title

(sometimes you might just see: http ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knq6zXOqlaY

So you take that code and copy it.
Go back to ATS and press the button (VID:YOUTUBE) and paste that code in the box that pops up and press OK.

If you preview your POST you should see a black box where the youtube video will appear after you reply.

Originally posted by FoosM
Now wait a minute.
Are you saying that the light source in that picture you provided is the actual sun or a model of the sun?

I'd say the answer to that question is quite obvious, so I'll skip to the important parts.

- This is something you can do by yourself quite easily
- Rendering is modelling actual light. There is nothing special about the sun, or that makes shadows generated from the sun particularly hard to model.

Maxwell Render is unbiased, so no tricks are used to calculate the lighting solution in every pixel of a scene; the result will always be a correct solution, as it would be in the real world. Maxwell Render can fully capture all light interactions between all elements in a scene, and all lighting calculations are performed using spectral information and high dynamic range data.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

I bolded the bit that's important.

- The more accurate the simulation gets, the worse it will likely be for the shadow theory. However, I'm just going to point out right away that changing the distance to an unscaled distance will not change your results, so you're better working in some reasonable ratio. I'm open to the idea a simulation might prove you correct, but it would be highly unlikely at this stage.
- You can model atmosphere to see the difference between Earth lighting and moon lighting. This rules out any filming in deserts, or other locations with atmosphere on Earth.
- First step would be to produce a scene that you are familiar with, perhaps a place near your house. You won't need to accurately model everything, but you can if you like.



- Then apply that knowledge to recreating a moon photo with the correct information from the sites. If you've done it correctly and your theory is spot on you will have 100% accurate proof that the moonlandings are fake.

If this is something you're very interested in (ie you actually want answers) I can probably point you in the right direction privately, or at least give you the appropriate places to find help. If we're just going to be fertilizing this massive troll thread I'm afraid I have a day job.

Originally posted by BluePillOrRedPill
the clip of the astronaut who fell down and shot back up with ease. I believe my friend has found new evidence of wires on the moon.

If it's to do with weight distribution, or 'light pings' or various other things with this clip ... This particular clip has been uploaded probably around 4 - 10 times in this thread alone in various incarnations. I'd double check on youtube as well to see if it's the same information from the documentary that has been doing the rounds.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Edit: BTW a "TAFE" in aus is not something to do with Theatre and Film Entertainment - it stands for Tertiary and Further Education - in the old days they were technical colleges and polytechnics run & funded by the states and territories rather than by the Federal Govt.

edit on 24-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Work with TAFE students regularly.

TAFE does not teach deep theory in general; it teaches practical theory. It's the equivolent of calling a baker an expert in pastry heat dynamics. A TAFE course will teach rule of thirds, file management, and basics like this. TAFE courses are entry level as far as the industry is concerned.

I havent bothered posting in this thread for a while, because as far as i can tell its been going around in circles. But there is something new to post now:

www.news.com.au...

In that article, you'll notice that they talk about Neil Armstrong talking through a video of the final 3 minutes of the landing. I happen to have a couple of friends who attended that dinner with Neil ($550 was too rich for me!), saw the video and heard Neil speak.

The video was a side-by-side view of the moon landing as shot on Apollo 11, and a recreation by Google using LRO data they used to compile Google Moon and the trajectory of the LM. The Apollo 11 footage and Google's LRO footage are an exact match, and in fact the Google footage was described by Neil as the first time he has seen the journey as it looked when he landed the LM (ie not just the grainy video shot through the window of the LM). He basically re-lived the landing moment by moment.

I cant wait for that recreation to be released to the public, because it will show very clearly that the footage shot from the window of the LM was the actual moon, and the landing as described in historical records is exactly as it should be given the trajectory of the LM over the moon. No doubt the likes of Foos will reject it through cognitive dissonance (and probably declare Google to be in cahoots with NASA) but for anyone with firing neurons it should prove to be a compelling piece of evidence.

Oh and Neil described as one of his proudest moments receiving a letter from Russia's Cosmonauts congratulating Neil and NASA for making it to the moon. Yeah, the Russians knew it was real.

reply to post by FoosM


Curious that he actually says that he has years of photography behind him. Never would've believed. As of now I still dont see these anomalies and what has been posted here have all been explained already. Not to mention the whole multiple lights thing. That didn't raise any confidence.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by FoosM
Now wait a minute.
Are you saying that the light source in that picture you provided is the actual sun or a model of the sun?

I'd say the answer to that question is quite obvious, so I'll skip to the important parts.

It wasnt.
Anyway, to put an end to the discussion, why dont you create a scene similar to the picture in
question, so we can see how the shadow and lights falls?

reply to post by FoosM

It wasnt.
Anyway, to put an end to the discussion, why dont you create a scene similar to the picture in
question, so we can see how the shadow and lights falls?

Better yet, FoosM, why don't you do it? That way, you can't say "I don't believe you, you cheated." Oh wait, that's why you don't do it. You are too close minded to perform any experiment that might challenge your deeply held beliefs. I couldn't even get you to time how long it took you to turn around in your seat!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

It wasnt.
Anyway, to put an end to the discussion, why dont you create a scene similar to the picture in
question, so we can see how the shadow and lights falls?

Better yet, FoosM, why don't you do it? That way, you can't say "I don't believe you, you cheated." Oh wait, that's why you don't do it. You are too close minded to perform any experiment that might challenge your deeply held beliefs. I couldn't even get you to time how long it took you to turn around in your seat!

Why should I do it? I dont see anything wrong with my first example.
Somebody wants to challenge my work, then they can come up with an example to show where I was wrong.
Its that simple. If Pinke is well versed in the program he is working with, and he can quickly render objects in similar positions as the photo, with shadows, and state the position of the light source, by all means I welcome his efforts. Why would you stop him from doing it?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM

 

I remember seeing some image of the LM wherein it appeared to be suffering heat damage.

I'd post the image if I could find it, but I just thought you should know. For what it's worth and all.

I would definitely like to see that photo.