Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Pinke
The photoshop examples were posted earlier in this thread.

How can you say this:

Without some effort going into tracking, and perspective matching etc ...

When you say this?

The 'shopped' layer itself is the wrong perspective to match the moon pictures.

In other words, how do you know the perspective is wrong?

And again, so what if its not exact?
Its about reviewing visual cues.
In this case, correcting the belief that the location of the landing was expansive.
When in fact it could have easily been replicated in large studio.
You work with VFX, you should know that, lol.








You could look up the other information about those images in this thread I suppose.

Originally posted by prepared4truth

We could do this all day but point being, there isn't enough evidence on either side to back up or dismiss this conspiracy theory.

Exactly!

Think about it, how can the single most greatest of scientific achievements not have enough evidence to back itself up?

reply to post by FoosM

This was selected as the particle flux necessary to produce a 1.0 dB riometer absorption in the sunlight polar cap.

In other words, it was a convenient cut-off point, allowing them to calibrate measurements taken on Earth using older equipment with more recent, satellite based observations. The purpose of the article was to extend the observational database, ultimately allowing them to use proxies like ice core samples. You would have known this if you had read the entire article.

Those are still the same little events from the NOAA database, weighing in with fluxes of 15 and 34. Compare these to the events four months later, with fluxes of 3,500 (8/7) and 86,000 (8/4). Now what do you think most people mean when they use an expression lake "major solar particle event?"

By the way, do you have a paid research assistant now? Finding and reading that PDF must have been quite a challenge... the font is scarcely legible!

reply to post by FoosM

Think about it, how can the single most greatest of scientific achievements not have enough evidence to back itself up?

What would you consider sufficient evidence? You've got eyewitnesses, documents, artifacts, data, rocks, photographs... what else do you want? Another Youtube video?

reply to post by DJW001


LOL so you are saying NASA is the great spirit? LMFAO

This just made my day. You guys can't even prove you went to the move via a challenge by president bush back in 2004. Meaning to go back again. Russia has accomplished more in firsts than NASA.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

and the so called experts of the moon landing couldn't even go back to the moon and got their constellation program canceled.

How did they "get" the program cancelled? It was a political decision, not a scientific one.

If you are going to blame anybody, blame Obama.

I personally get tired of the tiresome circle-jerk this thread gives as well as one group just giving itself stars.

"circle-jerk"? Like continually bringing up the totally-unrelated cancellation of constellation as proof of the moon hoax?

If you have real evidence, post it. Otherwise quit complaining and go away.

oh its so easy to blame obama. But here is the real reason:

Originally posted by dragnet53

oh its so easy to blame obama. But here is the real reason:

Who is the gentleman testifying in that horridly-edited video?

(please, those that know don't answer, the question is directed specifically at dragnet please)

reply to post by Tomblvd


horribly edited? MMMKkkayyy



NASA chief CHarles Bolden and he got drilled hard by congress.

Originally posted by dragnet53
Russia has accomplished more in firsts than NASA.

What would those be?

reply to post by maya2


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bb1c54370eb4.jpg[/atsimg]

Wow. That horizon sure looks close. Do you suppose this photo was taken in a studio?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/49b91c8b7804.jpg[/atsimg]

How about this one?

If you identify the mission your photo was taken on, we can take a look at the topo map.

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

horribly edited? MMMKkkayyy

Yes, you see the first video was 4 minutes, with most of the the questions cut out, and the second was 6 minutes longer.

Why not post the entire video in the first place?

NASA chief CHarles Bolden and he got drilled hard by congress.

Yes, Obama appointee Charles Bolden justifying cancelling the program. Pardon him if he embellished the situation a bit.

Now please answer the question. How is NASA supposed to go to the moon without the support of the executive branch or the proper funds?

reply to post by dragnet53

LOL so you are saying NASA is the great spirit? LMFAO

Are you saying you are? I would say that a group of the finest mathematical, scientific and engineering minds working together "for all mankind" shows a greater spirit than a social engineer who believes "there is no patch for human stupidity." Greatness is achieved by building one's self up, not tearing others down. If you believe that you are so much smarter than the collective brain power of NASA, prove it. Please explain exactly how they faked the entire Apollo program. In such great detail. After all, if it's a hoax, they did an awful lot of math to generate all that "bogus" data. Demonstrate how you would do it, and please show your math.

reply to post by FoosM

Thus, one can conclude that proton events above 10 million electron volts can be labelled as major by various scientists.

You still don't (or won't) understand the difference and relationship between particle energy and particle flux. 10 MeV is how much energy each particle is carrying. Flux is how many particles there are.

There are always protons above 10MeV. Right now GOES 13 is recording 10MeV protons at a flux level of about 4e-1. What makes it a major event is the flux.

The NOAA scale for particle events is as follows. Based on 10MeV proton flux.
S1-Minor: 10pfu
S2-Moderate: 100pfu
S3-Strong: 1000pfu
S4-Severe: 10,000pfu
S5-Extreme: 100,000pfu

The event recorded during Apollo 16 would have ranking as an S2 because the 10MeV flux exceeded 100 but did not reach 1000. 10MeV protons do not penetrate the hull of the spacecraft. The astronauts did not experience elevated radiation exposure.
www.swpc.noaa.gov...

reply to post by FoosM


Who knows the real story and who's to say where the real evidence is?

I just don't subscribe to this particular conspiracy theory of what happened. We've probably been on the moon for a much longer time, but there isn't enough evidence to support that either, is it?

Originally posted by FoosM
In other words, how do you know the perspective is wrong?

And again, so what if its not exact?
Its about reviewing visual cues.
In this case, correcting the belief that the location of the landing was expansive.
When in fact it could have easily been replicated in large studio.
You work with VFX, you should know that, lol.

Stop trying to appeal to the idea that I'm crap at my job FoosM. If I was crap at my job I wouldn't know the perspective is wrong. When you're comparing two plates/mattes for comping you look at if their perspective matches up. If it doesn't you have your calculations/tracking wrong ... Calculations which include knowing the lens of the camera and having a rough idea of where it was positioned. So in other words, the perspective is 100% wrong, and I personally believe you don't have to be an expert to work that out.

Taking two different images taken by different cameras with different lens distortions and asking why they're not the same is a bit like asking why my motorbike is blue instead of red. It doesn't warrant a well researched response does it? Why not get some topography data or something else and try to prove a point rather than comparing two completely different unrelated landscapes? If your assertions are correct this would be easy to prove.

And humans + cameras + visual cues = fail. Reality can look odd when it's whacked through a camera lens, and depth can be thrown way off. Look at hanging foreground miniatures, look at the ridiculous perspective some lenses can provide ... You'll probably just say hanging foreground miniatures are an example that proves this was all possible ... but we've been over all that.

As for the whole 'you should know this' comment. You don't know what I should and shouldn't know and this has been shown more than once since you use several terms interchangeably and don't seem to understand the profession. Which is fine ... but logically you should stop taking shots at me personally/my profession since you're wasting your time. (You seem to complain when it happens to you)

The conversation about if it's possible or not ... we've already had it. People can review other posts on the thread for this. This is circular.

I don't mind answering other person's queries, but won't answer the same ones from yourself over and over.

reply to post by FoosM

Wouldnt that be a form of 'argument from ignorance'?

No.

Apollo has never been disproven therefore Apollo must be true?

What do you mean by "Apollo" in that statement? And what would be considered proof or disproof?

Basically you are saying that there needs to be another moon landing to prove or disprove the supposed moon landing of Apollo. Which makes sense, But then I would ask you, prove that the Apollo moon landing actually happened in the first place. What makes it a fact?

If there were another Moon landing, what proof would you require that it was "real?" You have artificially created an epistemological dead end to serve your own agenda.

You persistently mis-categorize this discussion as a "scientific" one. It is not. It is an historical one. The standards of evidence in the "hard sciences," like physics and chemistry, differ from those in the "soft" sciences, like history and archaeology. All of the data from the Apollo programs passes the first scientific test: repeatability. Anyone with hundreds of billions of dollars can in theory repeat the "experiment," and would almost certainly obtain the same results. For example, if CERN discovers the "God Particle," the data would be considered acceptable proof, even though no other facility on Earth is capable of generating the same amount of energy. The experiment is repeatable in theory.

Historical proof is more inductive. It relies on the convergence disparate records, artifacts, secondary sources and so forth. What "proof" is there that the Franco-Prussian war ever happened? Did you see it? Did I see it? Is there anyone alive that saw it? No. Does that mean it didn't happen? No. There is extensive documentation: newspaper reports, memoirs, a few scraps of official records (most of the files seem to have been destroyed during the last two "World Wars!") artifacts such as cannons, uniforms, guns... In other words, the convergence of all the evidence, including the testimony of eyewitnesses currently alive (and even possibly posting on this very thread) is that the US space program was a genuine series of historical events that unfolded (more or less) in just the way that most sane, informed people believe that it did. Serious historians will re-examine the records from time to time and find new interpretations as they uncover new documents or view things from a new perspective. That is what historians do. But they will no more question the "reality" of the program than someone would claim that Sedan was a hoax!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Think about it, how can the single most greatest of scientific achievements not have enough evidence to back itself up?

What would you consider sufficient evidence? You've got eyewitnesses, documents, artifacts, data, rocks, photographs... what else do you want? Another Youtube video?

Eyewitnesses?
Im sorry, who else was on the moon?

Documents?
What makes them legit?

Artifacts?
From some ancient moon civilization?

Data?
Supplied by who?

Rocks?
Compared to what?

Photographs?
Prove what?

MoonFaker: What Proof Is Required

Originally posted by Phage

The event recorded during Apollo 16 would have ranking as an S2 because the 10MeV flux exceeded 100 but did not reach 1000. 10MeV protons do not penetrate the hull of the spacecraft. The astronauts did not experience elevated radiation exposure.
www.swpc.noaa.gov...

edit on 9/19/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

You guys can come up with all kinds of spin on this.
Point is, there were two Major Major Proton Events during an Apollo mission.
Some of you claimed there weren't any.


More to come.

Originally posted by FoosM


MoonFaker: What Proof Is Required

I'm on a slow connection, please tell us what the video says instead of just dropping it and running away.

reply to post by FoosM

No.
There were no major proton events during any of the Apollo missions. You have failed do demonstrate anything to the contrary.