Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Im sure you know about this right PPK?



This is still a worthwhile issue to explore.
I suppose the only way to confirm if this accusation is true
is to match the photos to the transcripts. Though I wonder if
all the transcripts are available.

I have shown in an earlier post that in the NASA journals
photos are missing from the transcripts.



By the way, anyone know what "belowtopsecret" is?

Originally posted by FoosM
Then lets get right to it.
You say that
"I really haven't seen a question that people have failed to answer for you on this topic."

yet you tell me to
"As for the whole thing with the window ... That's an easily investigated phenomenon on Earth. If you're sure the glass etc ... used would have no hope of blocking the radiation this should be easily proven in a physical experiment? Perhaps if you visit a local university?"

Yes, so you *actually* have a point. As opposed to just asking random questions and hoping something sticks. Any actual *point* you've brought up seems to get refuted, or kind of just circle around.

Thats your answer to my question about the CM window?
Go run an experiment?
What does that answer imply?
What are you REALLY saying between the lines?

If it's really that obvious the windows are a problem you should be able to prove it? Agent Smith did some real simple stuff that was compelling. And you can't say how people would react because you've never provided that kind of evidence.

Here is one, the blue glow around the astronauts in the photos.
Recently "answers" came back as smudges.
Yes, I got an answer quickly, but is that really an answer?

I wonder, since you work in visual effects would accept an answer like that?
You should be able to easily see if a picture had a lens smudge, or if a picture had a visual effects anomaly.
Knowing that smudges should obscure, distort and blur the images.
And this is not the case with the Blue Astronauts.

I'm surprised you havent gone after that one.
Can you substantiate smudges as an irrefutable answer?
Would accept that as an answer?
Or is that answer merely an opinion?
And if so, why dont you tell Apollo defenders "...Perhaps if you visit a local university?"

Your quote about smudges distorting or blurring is taken directly from a googled article, and doesn't necessarily show an understanding of what's going on. It's not a 'visual effects' anomaly - it's a naturally occurring one as far as I can see from a combination of hardware and environment. Furthermore what you're asking is the equiv of wandering up to a random scientist and asking them to explain how a random element is formed. Just having the qualifications doesn't make you a walking encyclopedia and expert in all camera models from all decades.

And no, I don't need to visit a local university ... I'm not saying anything about the blue glow as you are with the windows. Your assertion is glass doesn't block radiation sufficiently. You could research this and prove it if it is true. As for the blue astronauts ... if there is something wrong with it *you* have to prove it or at least indicate what you think the problem is.

Reasons why this doesn't contribute to your argument:

- if it was a VFX related phenomenon it would occur on more than one landing, or at least previous landings. It does not. Logic would dictate anomaly.
- Black makes such issues more noticeable than white or gray implying this is an in camera artifact. Possibly lens though a bit smooth/not correct shape ... but still internal - but maybe caused by many things.
- The particular article you're referencing ... does it acknowledge the many different causes of temporary lens damage?

Unless you have some form of hypothesis that ties this into your theories it's simply a random phenomenon. Many occur when making film especially when physical elements are involved. The look of such an artifact can be caused by the film, the plate, the lens, can be caused during the processing of the image (though this would be unlikely) ... You're actually tying together several different areas beyond visual effects for this. I've taken my own photos, and developed my own film - that doesn't mean I'm aware of every possible variation. Much like any complex industry, you gain experience.

Primarily I recreate in camera phenomenon, and I research what I'm asked to recreate. Reference is God, and if I was recreating this anomaly I would want to reference it, and I would maybe want access to the hardwares used to recreate it for my own use and testing. This anomaly has many layers to it ... the unique characteristics of the individual camera and the environment to summarize. I don't see anything that suggest it is out of the ordinary, however.

You see, there is this mindset that regardless what answer is given by an Apollo Defender.
It should be accepted as fact and a debunk.

No. There is this mind set behind yourself which is ... if it can't be explained 100% it must be evidence of a hoax. A camera anomaly is not evidence of a hoax. If anything a camera anomaly points to the lack of a hoax since they are generally counter productive to post work efforts.

Its not about finding the truth, its about defending Apollo at any costs.
Is that what you are all about PINKE?

If you have something to imply just say it. And one of us between you and me posts in other threads. It's not you.

If you actually have some kind of theory or point about the blue glow I'll welcome it and hear it. However, if you're just going to ask me to explain random anomalies ... well it's a waste of time. If anything such anomalies are evidence of nature and imperfect shooting conditions rather than anything sinister. I believe applying the razor to this one is the best course of action.

And just for the record ... not having intimate knowledge of a many decades old piece of hardware doesn't mean anything. You'd probably find that more persons would be able to identify that particular anomaly from sight back in the day those cameras were much more commonly used.

And seriously, my comments about visiting universities etc ... are genuine. Visiting a university regarding radiation and glass will produce results. Visiting a university and asking the local media department about an anomaly from a 50 odd year old camera will produce confusion at best. Please stop trying to imply that everything is a personal attack.

reply to post by FoosM


You need to see someone about your memory Foos, do we have to keep going over this?

1. There was more than one person taking photos
2. Contrary to the lie in the video, a lot of the photos are taken in succession.

It's quite easy to see if you look at the photos. Take the ones here for example:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

I believe all if not most of the photos are here for anyone that wants to check out this HB lie:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Why does HB 'evidence' time and time again prove to be either stretching the truth or be a complete lie? Surely if you had a valid point this wouldn't be necessary

So ...

PPK is saying they didn't take enough photos?
FoosM is saying they took too many?

Is that right? I can't watch the whole video on this connection but ...

This is what I find odd about this whole thing ...

Examples:

On one hand the astronauts are criticized for not jumping 20 - 30ft in the air. On the other hand they fall over too much.

On one hand they messed around too much and took too many photos, and on the other they didn't bracket enough since persons seem to think that shooting blind is particularly hard.

Thing is, anyone can pick up an SLR and test this theory. After a couple of hours practicing you should be able to find the focus range for most objects. Just because most people don't spend lots of time with cameras and take lots of out of focus shots just means joe public isn't good with cameras. I said it before, focus pullers for TV have to do it by distance, on call, and fairly perfectly.

And Smith is right, cameras actually work fairly quick. You're more likely to be taking a handful of shots quickly that add up a fair bit than snapping ... lining up ... snapping ... lining up ... Plus more than one astronaut taking a photo ... In one four hour shoot I've taken over 200 - 300 photos at a time. Not that anyone would care but I have the camera data to prove it.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by FoosM

 

You need to see someone about your memory Foos, do we have to keep going over this?

1. There was more than one person taking photos

Not all the time, and not always at the same time- I bet hardly ever at the same time.
Good example: Apollo 11

You simply cant say take all the photos and divide by two.
And even so, its still not alot of time left do do many things like driving,
unpacking, taking samples, etc.

2. Contrary to the lie in the video, a lot of the photos are taken in succession.

It's quite easy to see if you look at the photos. Take the ones here for example:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Umm... EVA photography.
I assume that doesnt count the ones in the LM or CM.

I believe all if not most of the photos are here for anyone that wants to check out this HB lie:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Why does HB 'evidence' time and time again prove to be either stretching the truth or be a complete lie? Surely if you had a valid point this wouldn't be necessary

See how easily I destroyed your supposed debunk?
It makes you look like a liar as well.
As I said, the only way to know for sure is to connect the photos to the transcripts.
If that doesn't get done, then this argument will go around in circles, and thus will return.

As for PPK, he pointed out for important posed photos like alongside the flag, the Apollo 11 offerings is lacking.
You spend so much valuable time setting up a flag, to take only two photos? And of one Astronaut?

And why does it take two people to set up a flag anyway?
One person could have easily done it with a tripod.
Or wasn't the flag on the LM enough as a symbol?
Or leaving a plaque?
The whole landing is just bunk. LOL.

Originally posted by Pinke

Thats your answer to my question about the CM window?
Go run an experiment?
What does that answer imply?
What are you REALLY saying between the lines?

If it's really that obvious the windows are a problem you should be able to prove it? Agent Smith did some real simple stuff that was compelling. And you can't say how people would react because you've never provided that kind of evidence.

Sorry, that wasn't evidence.

Here is one, the blue glow around the astronauts in the photos.
Recently "answers" came back as smudges.
Yes, I got an answer quickly, but is that really an answer?

I wonder, since you work in visual effects would accept an answer like that?
You should be able to easily see if a picture had a lens smudge, or if a picture had a visual effects anomaly.
Knowing that smudges should obscure, distort and blur the images.
And this is not the case with the Blue Astronauts.

Your quote about smudges distorting or blurring is taken directly from a googled article, and doesn't necessarily show an understanding of what's going on. It's not a 'visual effects' anomaly - it's a naturally occurring one as far as I can see from a combination of hardware and environment. Furthermore what you're asking is the equiv of wandering up to a random scientist and asking them to explain how a random element is formed. Just having the qualifications doesn't make you a walking encyclopedia and expert in all camera models from all decades.

Wait wait.... HOLD UP.

Are you telling us that you dont know what a smudge on a lens will do to a picture?
In other words what you are saying, a smudge of dirt or grease one a lens will not

obscure, distort and blur the image?

Thats what you are claiming to us readers?
Because the average person would disagree with you.
You do realize that right? I see you didnt offer anything to back up this fantastic claim.
Are you suggesting that Hasselblads handle smudges on their lenses different than say Nikons, or Pentax cameras?

Or that being on the moon will make smudges act contrary to how they would on Earth?
Can you back any of this up?

Also, are you suggesting that because I quoted an article about the topic where the investigator explains what a smudge would do to a picture, its not a valid argument? So you are calling this person a liar?
And then you say its a naturally occurring phenomena based on what? Have you been on the moon and made pictures?
What are you exactly basing your opinion on?
And why do you so into defending that Apollo is not a hoax when everything is pointing to it being a hoax?

And no, I don't need to visit a local university ... I'm not saying anything about the blue glow as you are with the windows. Your assertion is glass doesn't block radiation sufficiently. You could research this and prove it if it is true. As for the blue astronauts ... if there is something wrong with it *you* have to prove it or at least indicate what you think the problem is.

I did.

Reasons why this doesn't contribute to your argument:

...if it was a VFX related phenomenon it would occur on more than one landing...
...Logic would dictate anomaly...
...Black makes such issues more noticeable...
...Possibly lens though a bit smooth/not correct shape ...
...but still internal -
...but maybe caused by many things...
...it's simply a random phenomenon...
...Primarily I recreate in camera phenomenon, and I research what I'm asked to recreate...
...Reference is God...
...This anomaly has many layers to it ...
...I don't see anything that suggest it is out of the ordinary, however...

Hmmm.... I see

...A camera anomaly is not evidence of a hoax...
...If anything a camera anomaly points to the lack of a hoax since they are generally counter productive to post work efforts....
...And one of us between you and me posts in other threads. It's not you...
...If anything such anomalies are evidence of nature and imperfect shooting conditions...
...Visiting a university and asking the local media department about an anomaly from a 50 odd year old camera will produce confusion at best...
...Please stop trying to imply that everything is a personal attack...

Yes of course...
in other words you cant disprove or deny its a S/VFX anomaly.

reply to post by FoosM

See how easily I destroyed your supposed debunk?

Where did you do that? Most of the photographs were pans, taken in quick succession. Others are of the astronauts performing the very tasks you listed. How many photographs do you think that they should have taken with the flag? The entire cassette? Why? Remember, they were keeping to a schedule.

As I said, the only way to know for sure is to connect the photos to the transcripts.
If that doesn't get done, then this argument will go around in circles, and thus will return.

This has been done. You've quoted the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals yourself!

By the way, FoosM, you might enjoy this:
Apollo 15 Transcript Viewer
Now, if this comes around again, it's not because it hasn't already been settled.
Stubborn link

i didnt read the 3 thousand reply but
to valid the theory about the moon hoax .. we have to ask ourself
why was it faked in the first place...
we already all know that we had the technology to make a perfect moon mission

I have connected the dots with this thread
National Hero and sixth man to walk on the Moon comes clean

The moon mission was cancelled at the last minute.."Alien/UFO's menacing presence to back off"
they had to succeed because of the Russians and because million on earth were watching live
a big corporation like Nasa .. they have to have a PLAN B in case of a failure
Astronauts didnt go on the moon .. they were terrified by the big base and alien big ships sight
there is already a big laps of time between answers.. im sure they added more edited time
but im curious ...
can somebody answer me this :
what was the laps of time between the live space transmissions from the astronauts to the public TV's
before they switched to their studio
i think only 15% was real .. especially the begining of the mission

Originally posted by FoosM
Sorry, that wasn't evidence.

Agent Smith's experiment proves glass effects radiation. It isn't perfect. It's a start.

Wait wait.... HOLD UP.

Are you telling us that you dont know what a smudge on a lens will do to a picture?
In other words what you are saying, a smudge of dirt or grease one a lens will not

obscure, distort and blur the image?

Thats what you are claiming to us readers?
Because the average person would disagree with you.
You do realize that right? I see you didnt offer anything to back up this fantastic claim.
Are you suggesting that Hasselblads handle smudges on their lenses different than say Nikons, or Pentax cameras?

No. Hyperbole aside FoosM ... there are all kinds of different reasons for a smudge on a lens ... one smudge will not have the same properties as another. There's the reseau plate, state of the lens (all lens are unique really) lots of things to take into account to test this ... No tests were done.

Look up some lens flares ... some like anamorphic flares look quite exotic. They are just anomalies.

And did you honestly think that's what I was saying???

Also, are you suggesting that because I quoted an article about the topic where the investigator explains what a smudge would do to a picture, its not a valid argument? So you are calling this person a liar?...

I'm saying the author of this article is throwing large numbers of opinions around. I don't care if the person is being honest or not.

If I didn't clearly state in my post I'll clearly state it now ... My whole point of my previous post is the evidence/suggestions you are making are not solid enough to warrant serious research involving acquiring an old camera, lens investigations and what nots.

Simple question ... I've dealt with piles of film with piles of unexplained anomalies that will not be researched. Does that make all this footage 'hoax' footage? How many films with anomalies are 'hoax' films? As in attempting to be something they're not? How many are just filtered reality through camera hardware? Statistics disagrees with you.

You have no idea how many times someone's developed a photograph and looked at it and went 'holy crap what the hell is that?!' (You're on a conspiracy/paranormal/alternate news forum which really makes me think you need to give up this moon hoaxie business for a while and wander into the rest of the forum. It's right there waiting for you!)

This evidence does not warrant thousands of hours of investigation to recreate a blue lens artifact.

Yes of course...
in other words you cant disprove or deny its a S/VFX anomaly.

Under what possible circumstances would a post process cause this artifact? Get the razor out.

You claim NASA had great VFX. You then go onto claim that on one landing their VFX resulted in them deciding to use a messy few hundred pixel glow with noise running through it on various pictures. This does not make sense.

I'll put it in narrative ...

We went to the moon landing set and we only took two pictures of the flag, because we knew they would be perfect because we're on a set. However, we couldn't go back to the set to fix the GIANT BLUE VISUAL EFFECTS ANOMALY.

OR ...

We went to the moon and took some pictures of the flag. They were fairly basic shots. Then we took some more pictures which had a GIANT BLUE ANOMALY in them and we couldn't go all the way back to the moon to take more photos.

^ Which of these is more likely?

And surely according to your own opinion NASA would be able to remove this anomaly. Why wouldn't they do it???

So ... I'll put it in a compromise ... I'll say ... I can't prove any more that this was a VFX/SFX anomaly any more than I can't prove in another thread that a fairy doesn't exist. Because fairies might not obey the razor approach ... they might not change brightness in shadow and dark ... It might be a magical fairy. Therefore I can't prove that the fairy isn't entirely real.

Common sense states this is a camera anomaly, and it is highly likely you're living a fantasy where this is a giant smoking gun that people *could* explain but choose not to because we didn't land on the moon and because you personally think everything points to the moon landing being a hoax when all everything points to is yet another instance of reality.

I think with this particular issue Foos you're believing in faeries.

Originally posted by FoosM
Are you telling us that you dont know what a smudge on a lens will do to a picture?
In other words what you are saying, a smudge of dirt or grease one a lens will not

obscure, distort and blur the image?

An oily finger print will distort and blur an image. Some grains of dust will not. They will just scatter light and create a hazy like effect. And the appearance of the haze will vary depending the amount of light being reflected into the camera.

And it's not just the astronauts that you see this glowing, hazy effect on. You can see it on every photo from AS12-46-6813 to AS12-46-6852. That's 39 photos with the haze/glow in the exact same area in every shot. In some shots it's harder to see, but it's there. The haze/glow is gone once they have re-entered the LM.

Given the evidence, the most logical conclusion points to it being dust on the lens.

The only way to end this thread is for the intelligent, informed people to stop posting entirely, and leave the ignorant and the trolls to enjoy their deluded little circle-jerk.

Nothing you can say will convince a mentally ill person that the symptoms of their disease are unreal. Learning this one precept, and learning it well, makes ATS a thousand times less frustrating.

reply to post by FoosM


let me post the correct link: It states removed by user.



But it is a strange oddity about so many photos taken and all so perfect.

reply to post by The Parallelogram


So which ones are the intelligent ones?

reply to post by dragnet53

But it is a strange oddity about so many photos taken and all so perfect.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a28951637d27.jpg[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bf5fbd7e779c.jpg[/atsimg]



Funny thing about newspaper and magazine editors: they only publish the photos that are in focus, or show something interesting.

reply to post by DJW001


ooooo two out of how many?

reply to post by dragnet53


I only needed to post one to refute your use of the word "all." How many bad photos would you like me to post? If you browse through the Apollo archives you will find dozens of bad photos in nearly every magazine. You're only familiar with the ones the editors of the world found printable. In fact, out of all the photos they took, I'll bet that you remember less than six from each mission, and half of those are probably stills from the movie cameras!

Originally posted by dragnet53

But it is a strange oddity about so many photos taken and all so perfect.

edit on 17-9-2010 by dragnet53 because: (no reason given)

You made the statement that "all" of the "so many" photos were "perfect".

You were easily proven wrong. And it is proof that it very easily found if you would have bothered to look. But instead you, as usual, depended upon a youtube video to spoonfeed you your information, and you took it hook, line, and sinker.

When will you people learn to do some research for yourselves?

Now, do you withdraw your statement?

Has the radiation question been resolved?

Or are we still awaiting the release of Foos' incriminating evidence?

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Has the radiation question been resolved?

Or are we still awaiting the release of Foos' incriminating evidence?

As for me, except for this post , I've abandoned this now ridiculous thread.

But I am collating all the radiation stuff with a view to posting the proverbial 'definitive' thread on Apollo radiation. It's taking a while.. but I offer no apologies for having a life, and not regarding a bunch of ill-informed Apollo deniers as particularly important in the scheme of things.

After all, they can't gather enough evidence to satisfy even a passing lurker, let alone a scientist, engineer or 'Erin Brokovich'-type.