Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by ppk55


As I had posted pages ago:


You are not the first on the internet to bring up image AS17-141-21608! Some person in Europe posted about this image a 1.5 years ago, so stop saying you found this "issue" first.

You posted your thread about 15 months after it had been beaten to death on 10 different forums.

Can you even find you own material to debunk or do you have to find stuff that has been covered already repeatedly?

Anyway so much for YOUR find...

Originally posted by FoosM
He posts two photos where
1. The ground is level

The ground is never level. There are always small dips and rises all over the surface. In the 17409 photo taken at station 13. The surface looks like it rises upwards towards the right. Looking at the previous photo (AS16-106-17408 which is looking in that direction. You can see that the surface does indeed rise up. There's a hill right there. Looking at a panoramic image of station 13 (here). You can clearly see that the surface is anything but level.

3. Photos from the same mission, possibly even the same EVA, though that shouldnt matter with the length of the lunar day.

They're from seperate EVA's. 17797 is from EVA 1 station 1 and 17409 is from EVA 3 station 13. From the start of EVA 1 to the end of EVA 3, the Sun moved 26.5 degrees.

and clearly he shows us that we have two shadows of with extreme differences in length!
So what do we have two SUNS?
JRA, do we have two suns??
Whats going on there?
Whats that... what did you mumble?
Fake photos you say??
Thanks JRA, I should give you a STAR

You claimed all shadows should be long. But obviously that's not the case. Sun angle combined with an uneven surface can easily distort shadow lengths. That is a fact and it's easily testable here on Earth.

You really need to get out more and observe the world around you.

reply to post by jra


Only if the parole board will let him becuase look at his post he is insane.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by jra

 

Only if the parole board will let him

becuase look at his post he is insane.

That does explain his copious use of the .

I think we've moved from argumentum ad youtubum to "argument by lols".

Face it, it's all he's got.

reply to post by Tomblvd

Face it, it's all he's got.

Wait he actually has something?

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Face it, it's all he's got.

Wait he actually has something?

I'd rather look at line after line of shaking heads than ten or fifteen Jarrah White youtube videos posted with no comment or explanation.

Just "well what about these, huh?"

That needs to be banned. If you cannot be bothered to summarize what's on a ten minute video, don't post anything.

Although, given Foos' "two sun" stunner, maybe he should go back to posting vids.

reply to post by Tomblvd

That needs to be banned. If you cannot be bothered to summarize what's on a ten minute video, don't post anything.

Agree the spam that has been posted on this thread is gross, just gross!


How many times and different ways does the same stuff have to be proven either misinterpreted or just wrong?

And don't get me started on the videos, what a waste of ATS space!

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
He posts two photos where
1. The ground is level

The ground is never level. There are always small dips and rises all over the surface.
-----

I think you would agree that small dips and rises are not going to shrink or elongate a shadow of two feet to six feet.



You claimed all shadows should be long. But obviously that's not the case. Sun angle combined with an uneven surface can easily distort shadow lengths. That is a fact and it's easily testable here on Earth.
You really need to get out more and observe the world around you.
-----
Oh I get out enough, dont worry about that. But you, tom, weed, etc have offered no proof that:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4521d866d5f.jpg[/atsimg]

should not have a longer shadow.
The shadow basically makes a right angle to the astronaut, or whatever that dude/thing is. So the ground does not slope up. If it did, the shadow would also angle up. No instead we have a fat squat shadow that should be long and lean.

So sorry guys, the proof is right there for everyone to see. You cant explain it away. And the more you try to do it, the more you reveal yourselves as ignorant propagandists.

I saw somewhere on google earth that they got this giant statue or buidling erected at area 51 in the shape of a film strip...to signify the filming of the hoax on that site.

reply to post by conspiracyguru

I saw somewhere on google earth that they got this giant statue or buidling erected at area 51 in the shape of a film strip...to signify the filming of the hoax on that site.

what?? Are you serious? My my again, I know this thread is long, but sheesh, more spam on a thread already spammed to death!

Originally posted by FoosM

So sorry guys, the proof is right there for everyone to see. You cant explain it away. And the more you try to do it, the more you reveal yourselves as ignorant propagandists.

Sorry Foos. You don't know what a panoramic picture is or how it is made. Nothing you say about photography can be taken seriously.

Originally posted by FoosM
I think you would agree that small dips and rises are not going to shrink or elongate a shadow of two feet to six feet.

Of course, but I noticed that you ignored the rest of what I wrote. Showing that station 13 wasn't even close to being level ground. I can only assume you agree with that.

But you, tom, weed, etc have offered no proof that:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

should not have a longer shadow.

The shadow in that image probably is longer than it appears, due to the fact that we're looking at a reflection on a convex surface.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

So sorry guys, the proof is right there for everyone to see. You cant explain it away. And the more you try to do it, the more you reveal yourselves as ignorant propagandists.

Sorry Foos. You don't know what a panoramic picture is or how it is made. Nothing you say about photography can be taken seriously.

Sorry Tom, that I have twisted your brain into a pretzel that you dont know how to read posts anymore.



That was especially for you


I saw what you wrote earlier about me and once again its baseless nonsense. Try all you want, your on record once again proving to these raders that you dont know what you are talking about. Im glad I only know you through the internet, because in real life, I wouldnt trust you as far as I could throw you.

reply to post by FoosM


Well you should do some checking.

If you do, you might come across print-outs of the models that were being used at the time. The only ones available to the public are from a later mission(s).

These 3D models were done in wireframe and allowed the operator to see what things would look like from a particular vantage point on the landing site.

They would enter in the coordinates on the model and would be able to see what the astronauts would see when they were standing there. These models were quite accurate in that regard.

Supposedly, they were done to help simulate the missions, not fake them... You know the score there.

And as you also probably know; these accurate computer models would allow one create accurate Moon sets where all the set pieces and simulated terrain/topographical features are positioned in such a way that the view for cameraman on set would be remarkably similar to what one would see on the part of the moon upon which the simulation is based.






[edit on 18-6-2010 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
the view for cameraman on set would be remarkably similar to what one would see on the part of the moon upon which the simulation is based.

Exuberant1, (champion of fair debate that he is) has me on ignore, so he won't see me point out that, strangely, he hasn't posted any images of these 'models'.

Is that because images of these 'toy' landscapes don't exist?

No, quite the contrary - they are pretty easy to find.

In fact, I would challenge him to post them, so we can have a bit of a comparison of what those simulation landscapes looked like, up against the actual photography from the Apollo missions.


Now, here's a random sample of the REAL THING, from the Apollo 17 mapping camera:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
Warning, large images, site is sometimes slow - and you may find it hard to leave once you get hooked on images of that quality... Use the controls at right - Zoom in. Zoom RIGHT IN.....

Hands up if you think that's a model..............

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

So sorry guys, the proof is right there for everyone to see. You cant explain it away. And the more you try to do it, the more you reveal yourselves as ignorant propagandists.

Sorry Foos. You don't know what a panoramic picture is or how it is made. Nothing you say about photography can be taken seriously.

Sorry Tom, that I have twisted your brain into a pretzel that you dont know how to read posts anymore.

That was especially for you

I saw what you wrote earlier about me and once again its baseless nonsense. Try all you want, your on record once again proving to these raders that you dont know what you are talking about. Im glad I only know you through the internet, because in real life, I wouldnt trust you as far as I could throw you.

Then here is your quote from earlier. Please explain it.

So what do we have two SUNS?
JRA, do we have two suns??
Whats going on there?
Whats that... what did you mumble?
Fake photos you say??

We're waiting.

There seem to be a few (or is it just one?) persons having difficulty understanding the concept of a 'panorama'.

In this case, I mean a panorama in the sense of an image that shows a very wide angle of view.

Understanding of a panorama also involves *perspective*. Another concept that seems foreign to at least one person here. So, in the interest of education...

Here's a somewhat simplified diagram of me taking a panorama.

Can you see where the Sun is, and which way the shadows go?? (It's not to scale, but it will do...)

To capture the final wide view I want, I will be taking several photographs, starting with pic 1. You'll notice that the shadow of the tree (yes, it's a tree, can't you tell?) in pic 1 goes towards the RIGHT. Obviously. With me so far?

After I have taken pic 1, I turn a little to my left, and take pic 2. Then pic 3, and so on, until I have turned around completely, to take pic 6.

Now here's the tricky bit. As I am now facing towards the tree that was, originally, behind me, you will notice that to me (and the camera) the tree's shadow now falls to the ....

LEFT.

Really. Think about it. Look at the diagram and think about it. Why not go outside and try it yourself..?

So, BECAUSE OF MY ANGLE OF VIEW, I can magically make the shadows turn around!! Indeed, with a wide angle lens, you can get a similar effect in a single picture. That's what PERSPECTIVE does. (It actually does a lot more, but this is for Foosmanyone who doesn't understand, so I need to keep it simple.)

So, finally, to make my final panorama image I stitch all the images together. In my final image I end up with shadows going opposite ways, all in one wide view image. Sorta like this (pics 2,3,4,5 were a bit boring so I've left them out):



And, yes, when you are looking at a wide view...

.... PERSPECTIVE HAPPENS.


[edit on 18-6-2010 by CHRLZ]

reply to post by CHRLZ


You may have left out pics 2,3,4,5 because they were boring but they are not as boring as FoosM.

Lets see what kind of flawed logic theses guys come up with to argue about this they wont because they cant so they will ignore it.



[edit on 18-6-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Exuberant, are you seriously expecting people to believe in 3-D computer-assisted modeling technology in 1968-1972??

These 3D models were done in wireframe and allowed the operator to see what things would look like from a particular vantage point on the landing site.

OH..."wireframe"...well, that DOES describe very, very rudimentary early "computer terrain simulations"...would be interesting to do actual research into exactly WHEN such things were being devised...for instance, the airplane flight simulators of that era....the scenes that could be produced, to "simulate" things for the pilots? Lines...dots of light...etc, to show runways, their lighting arrangements (approach lights, runway lights, so forth) and basic blocky rectangular building shapes...THAT was the extent of the tech, back then...NIGHT simulations only.

To suggest that NASA somehow had some incredible technology, not yet invented, to simulate Lunar terrain images in daylight, computer-generated 3-D?? Somebody, as I said, needs to do some research...but, unfortunately, in a minority of cases, it is simply easier to spew rubbish on an anonymous Internet posting instead.....

They would enter in the coordinates on the model and would be able to see what the astronauts would see when they were standing there. These models were quite accurate in that regard.

What you are referring to were the painstakingly-made PLASTER models, actual scale models, built by hand, from reference photos from Surveyor missions, etc.

A CCTV camera (yes, they DID have that technology back then) was "flown" over the model, and the images were transmitted to the CRT screens, for the benefit of the pilots...THIS same type of device was ALSO used in some early airplane simulators, too....

(Where do you think they got the idea???)

Supposedly, they were done to help simulate the missions...

No "supposedly" about it. I could say "supposedly" about a lot of things...and I would, but that would tend to be too rude, since it would be a personal attack at an anonymous human target.....

And as you also probably know; these accurate computer models....

Back with the unsubstantiated claims of "computer models", eh??

But wait, it gets more creatively worse....

... would allow one create accurate Moon sets where all the set pieces and simulated terrain/topographical features are positioned in such a way that the view for cameraman on set would be remarkably similar to what one would see on the part of the moon upon which the simulation is based.

And these alleged "moon sets" were HOW LARGE, again?

(HINT: Take a gander at Apollos 15, 16 and 17 video, of LRV outings, to gain some REAL perspective, and to see just why these "sets" claims are rubbish...some people, I just don't understand where they get off writing obvious lies like this... :shk: Do they honestly believe that people will fall for it?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The research into this isn't difficult...here, just ONE source (handiest is Wiki, because it's available so easily...):

en.wikipedia.org...

Introduction of Visual Systems



The early visual systems used a small physical terrain model, normally called a "model board". The model board was illuminated, typically by an array of fluorescent light tubes (to avoid shadowing), and a miniature camera was moved over the model terrain in accordance with the pilot's control movements. The resultant image was then displayed to the pilot. Only limited geographical areas could be simulated in this manner, and for civil flight simulators were usually limited to the immediate vicinity of an airport or airports.

Also, one can look into the manufacturers of full-motion flight simulators (NOT the 'home versions") ...two come immediately to hand, Rediffusion and C.A.E.....

The type of terrain reproduction shown in the linked image is similar to the process used for Apollo training, in the LM simulators.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(I believe I may share the dubious honour with CHRLZ regarding Exub's iggy list....)



[edit on 18 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hi weedwhacker

Found one for the Exuberant1

ps2media.ign.com...