Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by ppk55



This is aimed at YOU and FoosM

Explain this still waitng for an answer.

DAC/LRO
files.abovetopsecret.com...

One half DAC video (still) taken by Apollo 17 leaving the Moon other
from LRO almost 40 years later.
None of the objects or craters can be seen from Earth with any telescope.
The crew shot the film as they left the Moon so if this was fake
how can they match the LRO images including the tracks.

Jaxa

dogsounds.files.wordpress.com...

The Jaxa scan of the Apollo 17 site again almost 40 years
after the Apollo 17 mission the Terrain matches the pictures taken by the Astronauts


Also as you have mentioned telescopes taking pictures ONCE again for example.

The Hubble can resolve objects somewhere between 260-300ft across
on the Moon so landers WONT show is that simple enough for you.

This explains what you need to know but to be simple SO even
you two will understand a mirror about 100mtrs dia
would be required to resolve the landers Hubble is 2.4mtr.

More info here for the HARD OF LEARNING

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

When the LRO pictured the landing sites although the landers
were only a few pixels square they were at the postions
corresponding to documents and photographs taken by the Astronauts on the surface!!


I will also ask this again as its very telling that you have AVOIDED this question MANY times now.
Are you the person who claimed to be a cinemaphotographer YES or NO its a simple question!


Like I said if you are you know VERY LITTLE about photography!!!!!




[edit on 20-6-2010 by wmd_2008]

Here is the fundamental weakness in the "Moon Hoaxer's" case: they are trying to prove a negative. It is their belief that a well documented series of historical events did not happen. When they try to attack the science, they fail, so they are reduced to chipping away at the historical documentation, but without the rigor of an actual historian. Proving a negative is virtually impossible: ask anyone who has tried to convince a "believer" that George Adamski could not possibly have visited the planet Venus on a flying saucer. As I said in an earlier post, the "Hoaxers" will never score a point until they have a positive, falsifiable thesis and apply rigorous historical methodology. Here is a useful analogy:

Let's say Mr. A gets it in his head that the Battle of Bosworth Field ("A horse! A horse!") never took place. For some arbitrary reason, he denies hundreds of years of accepted history and claims it was all a hoax. Holinshead's Chronicles? Lies, all lies. The arrowheads and bits of armor that get plowed up in the area all the time? Fake. Why did Richard III's reign end and why was he replaced by a Tudor? Prove that Richard even existed! Ha! Gotcha! Mr. A would be labeled a "crank." But England loves eccentrics, so he could probably start an "Anti-Bosworth Society" that would attract a few members, but no historian would ever take him seriously.

Now let's take Mr. B. He claims that Bosworth Field is over-rated. Why? Because Richard probably wasn't there... and certainly didn't die there. Why? Because, being a good historian, Mr. B has dug up some interesting documentation. (What follows is hypothetical.) At the same time that Bosworth was allegedly happening, there was a civil uprising in London. The archives of the City of London, still in their parchment binding confirms that. A letter from the Lord Mayor beseeching Richard to come in person is dug out of the British Museum. Now people are warming up to the idea that maybe Richard wasn't there. Further digging produces some personal journals attesting to His Majesty's display of force in quelling the rioting... on the very day of Bosworth. All this solid historical evidence causes historians to re-examine their assumptions about Holinshead's account. But wait, there's more! Other researchers now start rummaging through the surviving correspondence of the period and turn up cryptic letters exchanged between the Lord Mayor, Lord Stanley, the Bishop of Ely and Harry Tudor. They suggest that Richard would be lured to London and imprisoned in the Tower. Four of Richard's bodyguards are named as being willing to do the deed. After Henry Tudor's ascension, all are knighted and given rewards.... you get the idea. Poking around in the Tower turns up graffiti that proves someone styling himself "King Richard" was imprisoned there. Mr. B's theories eventually come to be accepted by the academic community, although Shakespeare's play remains popular.

Do you see the differences in approach? One is negative, the other positive. Do you see how this applies to JW?

Originally posted by DJW001
Here is the fundamental weakness in the "Moon Hoaxer's" case: they are trying to prove a negative. It is their belief that a well documented series of historical events did not happen.

Do you see the differences in approach? One is negative, the other positive. Do you see how this applies to JW?

You are only looking at the semantics of the question though. It comes down to the logic of the language you use for the question you ask.

You see proving a negative, that the pro-hoaxers are saying the moon landings "did not happen", even though are dealing with evidence of the event.

What the pro-hoaxers are saying is that the US' portrayal of the moon landings, which did happen - i.e. the evidence, has been falsified.

[edit on 21/6/1010 by Krusty the Klown]

[edit on 21/6/1010 by Krusty the Klown]

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by FoosM

 

No you would not.

Thank you!

The rest of your post is irrelevant and a lame attempt to salvage your yourself:

Originally posted by -PLB-
But you would immediately notice it because the edges would not fit. The top or bottom would not be aligned (if you align top, the bottom would be wrong an vice versa, thats why you need to scale and deform the images). Some part of area would be shown twice (thats why you need to crop and deform the image). The colors would be different intensity (thats why you need to do brightness and contrast corrections.

This is like telling someone that 1+1=2 or the earth is a sphere. Can't you really think of all this yourself?

[edit on 20-6-2010 by -PLB-]

Let me ask you something, are NASA scientists or artists?
If I want a true representation from a supposedly scientific endeavor would I accept work that has been retouched? No. Could I pass off any retouched work as original work? No. Should I tell people that retouched work be used as a basis for observational studies? NO.

And that was my whole point all along. Lack of evidence of the sun in the PAN meant it was a fake not original work and that fake should not have been used as a basis for making scientific observations. That simple, get it now?

Next time dont jump into an discussion if you dont know what the discussion is about.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by FoosM

 

No you would not.

Thank you!

The rest of your post is irrelevant and a lame attempt to salvage your yourself:

No it is not. What I said applies to the panorama in question, not some halve baked totally flawed excuse for a panorama that we would get if we let FoosM do the job. Almost anyone would immediately know the difference. The fact that you lack the knowledge and/or intelligence to do so is irrelevant. Ignorance is not an argument.

Let me ask you something, are NASA scientists or artists?
If I want a true representation from a supposedly scientific endeavor would I accept work that has been retouched? No. Could I pass off any retouched work as original work? No. Should I tell people that retouched work be used as a basis for observational studies? NO.

And that was my whole point all along. Lack of evidence of the sun in the PAN meant it was a fake not original work and that fake should not have been used as a basis for making scientific observations. That simple, get it now?

Next time dont jump into an discussion if you dont know what the discussion is about.

Why do you need an unedited representation in order to recognize the properties of the landscape? Who was making any "scientific" observations? No one. You are just making things up. The shapes of the hills are still the same in the panorama, so for the purpose the image was intended it sufficed perfectly. You are just making this argument because you have nothing else to whine about, you know that the shape of the hills in the panorama is similar to the images proposed by BlasteR. Besides, the original images were also posted, so your argument is completely irrelevant, even if it would matter that the image is an edited composition of several other images. You fail miserably.

reply to post by Krusty the Klown

What the pro-hoaxers are saying is that the US' portrayal of the moon landings, which did happen - i.e. the evidence, has been falsified.

Have you even been reading this thread? Granted, there is a subset of people who think that the missions were accomplished using captured Nazi anti-gravity technology, but Jarrah White and his followers claim that the Moon landing was impossible. Deadly radiation belts, flawed lunar modules, brainwashed astronauts... any cheap excuse to deny even the possibility of the historical record being correct. You give them too much credit.

Isn't that right, Foos? The whole thing was a hoax. It never happened, right? Or do you want to back-pedal just a little bit? Maybe it really happened, but one or two photos were staged? Is that your story now?

reply to post by FoosM



Still avoiding this one I see.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I WONDER WHY

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ppk55

 

This is aimed at YOU and FoosM

Explain this still waitng for an answer.

DAC/LRO
files.abovetopsecret.com...

One half DAC video (still) taken by Apollo 17 leaving the Moon other
from LRO almost 40 years later.
None of the objects or craters can be seen from Earth with any telescope.
The crew shot the film as they left the Moon so if this was fake
how can they match the LRO images including the tracks.

Jaxa

dogsounds.files.wordpress.com...

The Jaxa scan of the Apollo 17 site again almost 40 years
after the Apollo 17 mission the Terrain matches the pictures taken by the Astronauts

I will also ask this again as its very telling that you have AVOIDED this question MANY times now.
Are you the person who claimed to be a cinemaphotographer YES or NO its a simple question!


Like I said if you are you know VERY LITTLE about photography!!!!!

[edit on 20-6-2010 by wmd_2008]

Oh not this again... Im getting dizzy from having to go in circles with you guys about this.

Well lets take this step by step to see where the problem lies:

Yes or No, was the moon mapped prior to the Apollo "landings" ?

Originally posted by DJW001
Here is the fundamental weakness in the "Moon Hoaxer's" case: they are trying to prove a negative.

Its like trying to prove to Christians there was no Christ, or Ancient Greeks or Egyptians there were no planet gods or sun gods, etc. But but... dey have many many books and textsts and stuff to prove dey did exi- exi- dat dey were realz.


You believe something happened, we dont. Simple as that.

reply to post by FoosM

You believe something happened, we dont. Simple as that.

You believe "nothing happened," despite the evidence. Some of us were alive and actually witnessed the events. If it's just a matter of belief, stop acting as though it were a matter of fact.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

You believe something happened, we dont. Simple as that.

You believe "nothing happened," despite the evidence. Some of us were alive and actually witnessed the events. If it's just a matter of belief, stop acting as though it were a matter of fact.

Actually witnessed, what were you on the moon when it happened?
Or you mean you saw it on TV?
You believe everything you see on TV?

reply to post by FoosM

Actually witnessed, what were you on the moon when it happened?
Or you mean you saw it on TV?
You believe everything you see on TV?

I certainly don't believe what I see on Youtube. But you're right, I wasn't actually on the lunar surface, so I guess the big rocket I saw (and felt) may have been empty, and just because I'm very good at spotting satellites doesn't mean I didn't somehow miss the CSM as it sneakily stayed behind in orbit, etc. Incidentally, have you ever been to the United States? You sound like you believe it exists... but if you haven't been there do you assume it's just a hoax? Why not?

reply to post by FoosM

You believe everything you see on TV?

Are we reduced to this, now?

Let's see....I've seen the Great Wall of China, on TV. Never been there, though...perhaps I should start a thread about that hoax? I mean, really...who would fall for such an obvious 'fake'? Only those "wall-tards" that believe it could have been built, way back then! Without computers, nothing!!

At one time I could have said that I only saw the Pyramids of Egypt on TV..but, I've been there, so that's no help, I suppose....although, they MIGHT have been holograms!! Yeah, that could be....

I saw a TV special about weird stuff at the bottomof the ocean, in very deep trenches...stuff that couldn't POSSIBLY be real!! Never been thre, either...

Guess relying on what people who HAVE done something isn't good enough, huh?

OK...back to the drawing boards, everyone. Turn in everything, but you can keep your stone tools...oh, and NO FIRE! Have to figure that one out all over again....

Hoaxers: We believe it didn't happen, despite the tons of evidence.

Normal people: We think it happened because of the tons of evidence, and the absence of any evidence that disproofs it.

If you wish to make an analogy with religion, hoaxers would be analog to young earth creationists.

Originally posted by FoosM






Oh not this again...

Im getting dizzy from having to go in circles with you guys about this.

Well lets take this step by step to see where the problem lies:

Yes or No, was the moon mapped prior to the Apollo "landings" ?

AGAIN you show how DIM you really are NONE repeat NONE of the craters on those pictures are LARGE enough to have been IMAGED by previous mapping missions IS that now plain enough for even YOU to understand.


In THIS picture

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Lots of the craters shown are only a FEW feet across far to small to have been pictured on ANY PREVIOUS mapping mission, also the tracks left by the Astronauts can be seen as well.

SO if you want to prove this wrong GO find the info YOU wont becuase you cant




PS FoosM remember the info you claim you can find would have to be before Dec 1972 ie the Apollo 17 mission to back up what you say!
I dont want you making a FOOL or should that be A FOOSM of yourself

[edit on 22-6-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by -PLB-
So hoaxers aren't normal just because you don't believe the hoax?
.
.
.
.

Just for the record, I haven't forgotten and will be back to continue the radiation analysis. Right now though, every time I visit this thread and witness the completely unsupported, often offtopic, often illogical, and always ill-considered rantings by hoax believers, I begin to lose the will to live...

It's a real pity, because there are a couple of interesting anomalies amongst the reams of Apollo evidence... but they haven't yet been spotted by these research-challenged self-described 'investigators'! Instead, the same old rubbish is recycled by folk without a clue who think Youtube is a source of wisdom.

It would be nice to have a challenging debate with someone who was well-informed enough to:
- spot the (admittedly very few) *really* difficult-to-explain issues
- know science/physics/optics well enough to argue with authority

But instead, we have FoosM, PPK55/JW et al... Sigh.

lol god I feel like I'm being called a holocaust denier or a birther when I'm called an Apollo hoaxer...

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL

lol god I feel like I'm being called a holocaust denier or a birther when I'm called an Apollo hoaxer...

Why do I suspect you know exactly what that feels like?

reply to post by DJW001
Maybe because you make assumptions, I don't know I don't know you...
.
.
.