It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Personally I especially like this chart and extract, I wonder why Jarrah didn't include it?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42d6cddf45f2.jpg[/atsimg]
Originally posted by FoosM
Now, who would be foolish enough to assume otherwise?
Provided proof for Apollo?
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
The only reason JW was using that information was to specifically
point out that the trajectory the Apollo craft supposedly orbited was
not the trajectory one would use to minimize the radiation hazard.
On the contrary, it was a hot zone.
Wrong. Why would he calculate the unshielded dose if he had the shielded dose available? The point of his video was not to demonstrate it was a "hot zone." None of his detractors ever said that it wasn't.
"Looks like we will have to out you as either somebody who doesnt pay attention to the details or someone who doesnt value the truth." — FoosM
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
Provided proof for Apollo?
This thread has never been about "providing proof for Apollo."
Well you are relegated in providing proof because as it stands, the Apollo Program has been outed as a hoax.
And this is due to JW's (and others) tireless efforts in tearing holes in basically every aspect of Apollo that proponents cite as proof. There is nothing left.
Originally posted by DJW001
The title of this thread is "Young aussie genius whipping NASA,etc." It is not about proving the accuracy of historical records, it is about exposing Jarrah White as a fraud and hoaxer.
....are desperate to poison the well now so that when these videos come out, they can quickly discredit....
Originally posted by DJW001
I have presented strong evidence that Jarrah White has willfully presented material that he knew beforehand was simply false.
Originally posted by DJW001
Using a technique beloved by propagandists and "main stream media," he keeps the camera moving around so that the viewer cannot read it for themselves.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/517511223522.jpg[/atsimg]
Originally posted by weedwhacker
The PHOTO EVIDENCE, so cavalierly dismissed by the above mentioned, and many others? Their last, sordid and tissue-thin shred of desperate "argument" left was the "radiation" issue.
Originally posted by Smack
Continuing this absurd thread is counterproductive.
Originally posted by ppk55I would suggest these flashes of wires were so fleeting, they passed the final check that allowed them to be published.
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by ppk55I would suggest these flashes of wires were so fleeting, they passed the final check that allowed them to be published.
I would suggest it's something to do with the camera.
If you watch that video, you'll see there are two little spots that flash well before the supposed "strings." The following animation shows the frame where those spots are visible. They are then highlighted in red. I then draw green lines from edges of the frame to these spots. The camera zooms in when the "strings" flash, so I take that frame and scale it down (to 86.95% of it's original size), to match the zoom level in the first frame, and reposition the frame with the "strings" so the terrain matches up with the frame with the flashes. Then I scale down the green lines to the same size (86.95%) and put those on top. You can clearly see the "strings" are in the exact same locations with respect to the edges of the frame, a very curious thing if they are attached to the astronauts who have moved with respect to the edges of the frame.
Originally posted by backinblack
So what caused the effect?
If not strings, what was it.?
They were definitly on the fim..
But the effect is in the same place with respect to the frame, and not with the respect to the astronauts, I'm quite certain whatever it is exists on the camera lens, sensors, or happened in future processing, and it was nothing physical in front of the lens.
Care to explain how you conclude it's not in the same place? My animation shows how it is.
Originally posted by backinblack
It's not in the same place with respect to the frame.
It doesn't however move left as much as the astronauts, but it DOES move..
Originally posted by nataylor
Care to explain how you conclude it's not in the same place? My animation shows how it is.
Originally posted by backinblack
It's not in the same place with respect to the frame.
It doesn't however move left as much as the astronauts, but it DOES move..