Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by backinblack

Is that really the same instrument in his left hand and then right hand?
It looks totally different in the two pics but I'm not familiar with how it works..

To be honest, I'm not sure. It does suggest he favors his left hand, however.

Digging a Hole
Part 1.

In his attempt to explain what is occurring in this sequence of photographs:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/453cb59c2a1a.gif[/atsimg]

DJW001 has given further evidence that these photos are fakes and therefore further throws into question the validity and credibility of the Apollo Space program:

Originally posted by DJW001

The other issue is that during this jump, Schmitt manages to PULL OUT a LRV sampler with his left hand, transfer it to his right hand, and then somehow make it disappear before the 4 seconds are over.

It was already in his left hand, FoosM:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ec0be0c7461e.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's a photo taken just a few minutes earlier:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6f6349a4d5c4.jpg[/atsimg]
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal

So, if the timing is a red herring, why did you bring it up again? How dare you bandy the expression "intellectual dishonesty" around when you do things like this?

Before I get into it, I want to set the record straight that these three photos are of one event, one movement:

AS17-134-20452 Jack mounting LRV, sunstruck.
AS17-134-20453 The second of three photos Gene took of Jack jumping into the LMP Rover seat.
AS17-134-20454 Jack mounting LRV.

From www.thefreedictionary.com... the definition of MOUNT is:

v.tr.
1. To climb or ascend: mount stairs.
2. To place oneself upon; get up on: mount a horse; mount a platform.

v.intr.
1. To go upward; rise.
2. To get up on something, as a horse or bicycle.

So all three photos are of Cernan simply getting into this car (rover) .
But due to its design and their space suits, astronauts are forced to do small "jump" or hop to get seated.


NASA would have you believe that three photos were taken within the time of 0:19. Thats just not possible.

Now one thing you should notice is that the astronaut in the video hops into the seat is different to the photo sequence. In the video the astronaut is leaning forward, using his arms to get seated. In the photos, the astronaut is leaning back, arms are not being used. This by itself throws into question the validity of the photos which frankly reminds me of a doll in a toy car:


www.hq.nasa.gov...

Digging a Hole
Part 2.

DJW001 would have you believe that the astronaut, while sitting in the Lunar Rover, turned around to place his LRV Sampler behind him and turned back for the last photo.
This would have to take no more than a second between photos.
DJW001 ascerts this could be done in one second... because he did it with an umbrella after reading my challenge. DJW001 however does not provide any video evidence that he was able to do so.

We have to take his word for it, but I think he should provide proof to claim proof.
But I doubt he will do this.

But lets take DJW001's word that he managed to make that maneuver within one second, what he does not explain is:


1. WHY would Schmitt turn around so fast to place the Sampler behind him in the first place? Who would take such a unnecessary ridiculous action? Oh wait...

*Warning Strong Language*



2. How could Schmitt turn around at all?

Because of the limited flexibility of the spacesuits, it was not possible for an astronaut to place samples into a collection bag attached to his own backpack. Instead, he would place his samples into a collection bag attached to another astronaut's backpack

You see, astronauts wore something called PLSS which basically was a big block attached to their back. Turning around with a large block on your back is like trying to turn while keeping your back is against the wall.



Conclusion, he couldn't have even turned around if he wanted to, DJW.
What does this mean, it means we still have an unexplainable disappearance of a LRV Sampler.


www.lpi.usra.edu...

reply to post by FoosM

Before I get into it, I want to set the record straight that these three photos are of one event, one movement:

One event can consist of many, many movements.

2. To place oneself upon; get up on: mount a horse; mount a platform.

Do you mount a horse by "jumping?"

NASA would have you believe that three photos were taken within the time of 0:19. Thats just not possible.

I thought you said the timing was a red herring.

Now one thing you should notice is that the astronaut in the video hops into the seat is different to the photo sequence. In the video the astronaut is leaning forward, using his arms to get seated. In the photos, the astronaut is leaning back, arms are not being used. This by itself throws into question the validity of the photos which frankly reminds me of a doll in a toy car:

So now you're admitting that the video is real, so you can claim the photos are fake? Let's watch the video again:


Notice how the astronaut bounces around on his seat as he shifts his position? That is exactly what we see in the photographs.

Do you actually have a point, FoosM? This is getting tedious. Here is a summation:

First you claim that the photos were all taken in "about a second." The transcript itself proved you wrong. Then you claimed that the tool appeared out of nowhere, then disappeared. The tool is clearly visible in the first photo, so I worked out the timing to prove that it was possible for Cernan to transfer the tool from his left hand to his right then deposit it behind him during the four seconds the sequence took. Then you claimed the timing was a red herring, and decided the smoking gun was that the astronaut was not in contact with his seat. You yourself just now posted a video that confirms my contention that astronauts can bounce up as they shift their position in low gravity. Have I left out anything?

Digging a Hole
Finale.

Finally, lets get into DJW's new theory.

FIrst thing DJW, whats ID number for this photo, and where in the timeline does it take place in comparison to photo sequence in question:

Here's a photo taken just a few minutes earlier:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6f6349a4d5c4.jpg[/atsimg]

And... DJW001, can confirm you or can you not confirm that is actually the LRV sampler?

To be honest, I'm not sure. It does suggest he favors his left hand, however.

So "no" then.


But this is DJW wants us to believe.
He want us to believe that the astronaut jumped into LRV while clutching the LRV sampler.

It was already in his left hand, FoosM:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ec0be0c7461e.jpg[/atsimg]

If thats the case, either that Sampler can magically move through the Rover, or the Astronaut had to jump high and slam dunk the Sampler down into the rover. There is just no way that astronaut could jump into the rover while holding that long sampler in the hand without causing problems for himself. And why would he even do it? He is "on the moon", if he gets hurt, it could end his life! Same reason why you shouldn't run with scissors.

But besides being improbable, it was also impractical if not impossible because as I have shown, the astronauts needed to use their hands to get themselves seated into the Rover:



Conclusion:
The Astronaut was not holding the Lunar Sampler while getting into the Rover.
If NASA claims he did, then they have some serious explaining to do.

And if he didnt, they still have some serious explaining to do for how & why he was even holding on to it while in the middle of a jump?!

Originally posted by DJW001

Do you actually have a point, FoosM? This is getting tedious. Here is a summation:

First you claim that the photos were all taken in "about a second." The transcript itself proved you wrong. Then you claimed that the tool appeared out of nowhere, then disappeared. The tool is clearly visible in the first photo, so I worked out the timing to prove that it was possible for Cernan to transfer the tool from his left hand to his right then deposit it behind him during the four seconds the sequence took. Then you claimed the timing was a red herring, and decided the smoking gun was that the astronaut was not in contact with his seat. You yourself just now posted a video that confirms my contention that astronauts can bounce up as they shift their position in low gravity. Have I left out anything?

Retract those lies DJW001.
Because I will call you out on it.

**ENOUGH!!**

Off topic remarks, insults, personal attacks and requests for member information will stop now. Further posting behavior along these lines will result in warnings and further removal of posts.

Consider this fair warning that you are to discuss the topic and not each other.

Thank you and do not reply to this post.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator

Originally posted by EL1A5
It makes sense to "fake" the moon landing, during those times we were in a race with Russia to see who can do it first, that would be a perfect tactic.

"OPE! we got there first, looks a video of it too, haha WE WIN!"

it makes me think about all the other things that NASA along side with the great american gov. might be lying to us about, ie. missions to mars, images of other stars and planets, etc.

The trouble with that is at some point it would be proved fake 10,20,50,100 years down the line so what would be the point.

if it was fake Russia and China would have used that to make the USA look bad!

You can take pictures yourself of the stars and planets ! I saw a picture on the net a few weeks back of some amatuers who had built a 36" reflecting telescope that a good size PRO telescope!!!

Good god, the lengths people go to make fools of themselves. This guy is a clown. I can't believe this conspiracy theory is still around.

reply to post by FoosM


I want to ask, and I expect a decent answer as to WHAT is topical about the silly YouTube video that is the last one in the post that this "Reply TO" is addressing.....and, where is the relevancy of the other silly YT videos.....I recall, up-thread, one about a turtle --- and a clip from the movie "Pulp Fiction".

I will tell everyone in the audience a theory I have. Those videos were included, in attempts to distract. (Just as the equally off-topic diatribe, beating-a-dead-horse nonsense about the Apollo 17 LRV photos of Cmdr Gene Cernan).

I didn't see one of them that was pertinent to "Jarrah White".....did I miss where HE also made claims about turtles, in his ridiculous videos? Or, did he reference "Pulp Fiction"?? (I know that he rips off from James Bond, in his stock opening sequences....but, one movie does NOT make it relevant to another).


AS TO the latest one, bottom of the above (and most recent) post....was that oh-so-crappy display of poor puppetry a "Jarrah White Production"? Because, if not (and since I don't recall seeing any posted description to explain its reason for being included) I must say to the audience....:

"Please consider what you are witnessing in these various arguments, very very carefully, as you weigh their individual merits".

NOT just who posts in each example, but the content, quality, and relevance.


Summary: "Jarrah White"s videos in each and every instance display a singular lack of science credibility, and in a majority of cases, what seems to be intentional deception. A phrase that applies is "quote mining"....this is simply using selections from whatever legitimate sources cited, but in a way intended to alter the original meaning and context......to serve the deceiver's agenda and personal objectives.

Bamboozle is a "fun" word that is descriptive of the above, and apt here. Do not be fooled by any others in the "Moon Landing "hoax" HOAX marketing scheme being peddled by the likes of that scoundrel (and very, very naughty boy) "Jarrah White" and his (handful of) fans.


AS TO the claims of "Jarrah White"? He is an anachronism, already....at the ripe old age of only twenty-something. The proof of Apollo is there, for all to see, if they bother to look.

"Jarrah White"s fifteen minutes of "fame" are over....(they expired years ago, actually). He is a pathetic loser, and not worthy of any more attention.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

I want to ask, and I expect a decent answer as to WHAT is topical about the silly YouTube video that is the last one in the post that this "Reply TO" is addressing.....and, where is the relevancy of the other silly YT videos.....I recall, up-thread, one about a turtle --- and a clip from the movie "Pulp Fiction".

Very simple, Turtle was an example of how difficult it is to move with a large object attached to your back, like a PLSS.

Pulp Fiction (Sam Jackson's character) was to show how fast a one second turn looks like from a sitting position.

They were not used to distract, that would be silly since I was the one making the point.
There were used to help visualize my argument.

reply to post by FoosM


Your videos were more than relevant to the topic you were discussing..

But that's only if someone bothered to follow the posts and intelligently realize that rather than sprouting crap just for the sake of arguing..

And they got stars..
But we know they mean little in this thread..

reply to post by FoosM


HUH????

I "got" what you apparently "thought" was a proper 'demonstration' (I.E., the "turtle" example)....but, you clearly either refuse to acknowledge the REAL physics, OR? You used that "example" disingenuously. (??) I know what I think.....

Very simple, Turtle was an example of how difficult it is to move with a large object attached to your back, like a PLSS.

Disingenuously. I used that word, up above.

LOOK carefully at the "turtle". See any differences? When compared to an ASTRONAUT??

Take a LOOK at many, many Humans on Earth, carrying heavy BACKPACKS.....see how they "struggle"???

/sarcasm/

NOW....(and this is very important).....SHOW a video of an Apollo Astronaut on his BACK, "like a turtle"....

Just one will do.....ONE video. ONE. WILL. SUFFICE.

reply to post by weedwhacker

I "got" what you apparently "thought" was a proper 'demonstration' (I.E., the "turtle" example)....but, you clearly either refuse to acknowledge the REAL physics, OR? You used that "example" disingenuously. (??) I know what I think.....

Yes weed. we ALL know what you think..
The turtle video was an exaggerated example to show the awkwardness of movement with a rather large pack on your back..

It was a FAR better on topic video than MANY I have seen you post in this and other threads..
Maybe you should aspire to the same standards you expect from others.

Or maybe you are merely attempting to muddy the waters with this silly argument of yours.

www.ralphrenewaswrongmate.com...

This is a great site for all the crap that keeps coming up on this site again and again and again. very well researched and just fun to read lots a links and pretty much puts Rene and Jarrah in their places. have fun.

reply to post by Reaper2137

puts Rene and Jarrah in their places.

Sorry, I don't see much of that on the site..
Many links are under construction and there is little input from NASA with no names mentioned..

reply to post by FoosM


We seem to have a misunderstanding here. Let's go through the offending statement one point at a time. I would appreciate your honest feed-back:

I said: "First you claim that the photos were all taken in 'about a second.' The transcript itself proved you wrong."
This is why:

How long did those big jumps take?
About two seconds?
Smaller jumps about one?

Here we can see an astronaut jumping into a rover:
How long did that take? Less then a second?

Now anybody here know how fast the magazine could advance the film?
Would approximately ONE second sound about accurate?

Which means for any action that takes a second, you could only be able to capture it once.
Correct?

The first question:
How was that possible?
Three photos for a 1 second event?

168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.

Your first post. [Edits for brevity --DJW001]

It certainly sounds like you were claiming that the pictures must have been taken in about a second.

I also said: "Then you claimed that the tool appeared out of nowhere, then disappeared. The tool is clearly visible in the first photo, so I worked out the timing to prove that it was possible for Cernan to transfer the tool from his left hand to his right then deposit it behind him during the four seconds the sequence took."

Lets take a closer look at these photos.

in 20453
Jack has the LRV sampler in his right hand
Just like in the examples, we see it, The Sampler, in Jack's right hand as he is LANDING in his seat.
However, it doesnt start in in right hand.
It starts in his left, then its transferred to his right, and by the time of the last photo, it has disappeared.

Question: How did Jack managed to pull out, change hands and hide the LRV sampler while he jumped into his seat in ONE second?

Your second post.

I may have done you a disservice. I'm sorry, you didn't say that it appeared "out of nowhere." I hope you understand how confusing your statement was. First, you (or the website you were quoting) draw attention to the second photo in the series claiming that it's in the astronauts right hand as he is "LANDING" in the seat. You then correctly state that it started in his left hand. Why would you ask how he managed to "pull out" the LRV sampler if it was already in his hand? The question makes no sense. You also repeat the "one second" figure and use the word "disappear."

Question: How did Gene manage to change his position and take 3 photos in ONE second? And without causing any type of motion blur in the photos?

Your fourth post.

Can you see why I thought you were having issues with the timing? You seemed to think the photos were all taken in the space of one second.

Now since you are such an expert in photography,
I challenge you to inform us how these three photos were possible to make in one second:

There you go again!

But I did provide evidence that jumping in a Rover only takes but a second.
And we are not even talking about the take-off, what we see in the photos is the landing.

Go ahead, take your modern DSLR and shoot someone jumping onto a couch.
And tell that person while they are doing that to pick up a pipe with one hand, pass it to the other hand, and make the pipe disappear.

And again!

The photos however do not show the astronaut jumping up, hovering, and landing in his seat.
All three photos are after the initial jump. So basically you would have to say it took 3 seconds to land!
In those 3 seconds, the astronaut managed to pull out the LRV sampler, change hands, and made it disappear.
All this with no motion blur in the photos.

Its MAGIC look!

Different spin this time.

To which I replied:

Or three seconds to land, bounce, and shift his position. What exactly is the point of this exercise in photo mis-interpretation? I'm not at all certain what you think the issue here is, and the lines you are drawing all over the picture don't make any sense, as usual.

My post.

After much unwarranted taunting on your part, I produced the following response:

You still haven't explained what your issue with these photos actually is. Is it a question of timing? That seemed to be your original problem. Rather than work it out for yourself, you crowed as though your unstated opinion proved something. You did not even bother to look up the advance time in the camera until I challenged you. Knowing that, we can work out the timing. There are three factors that determine this:

1) The astronaut's reaction time, this is how long it would take him to trigger the shutter.

2) The shutter speed. This is how long it would take the camera to expose the film.

3) The film advance speed. This would determine the time between the exposure and the reaction of the photographer, allowing him to take the next photograph.

Now that we know all this, we can work out the timing of the sequence, Let us assume that Gene's reaction time is 0.25 seconds. In reality, it was probably better than this. Here's how the sequence would go:

t=0 seconds Jack starts to jump into the LRV
t=0.25 sec. Gene reacts to this and squeezes the shutter release
t=0.254 sec. Shutter captures first photo (1/250 = 0.004)
t=1.254 sec. Film advances
t=2.00 4sec. Gene squeezes the shutter release
t=2.008 sec. Shutter captures second photo
t=3.008 sec. Film advances
t=3.258 sec. Gene squeezes the shutter release
t=3.262 sec. Shutter captures final photo.

Total elapsed time: 3.262 seconds. What does the transcript say?

Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping in his seat. The three pictures are AS17-134- 20452, 20453, and 20454.

168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.

Four seconds? Oh, of course. It took Gene 0.25 seconds to realize Jack had stopped moving and decide to boast to him how many shots he got in that time. It is rather odd that he mentioned it, don't you think? It's almost as though the two astronauts were playing some sort of game. This might explain why Jack was doing his little juggling trick, to see if Gene could catch the rake in mid-air, er, vacuum. Why else would Jack ask if Gene were ready?

I know 3.262 seconds doesn't sound like a very long time, but if you count it out: "one hippopotamus, two hippopotamus, three hippopotamus..." it actually seems much longer. I've taken the liberty of creating a gif animation that shows these photos in their proper time sequence:

i.picasion.com...

The animation cycles over three seconds. Sure seems like it takes forever, doesn't it? Since you seem to be confused because the camera bobs up and down from frame to frame, I've created another animation that keeps Jack centered. Notice the position of his hands. In the first photo, his right hand is starting to angle towards his left. In the second photo, it has rotated further to catch the rake, while his left hand is raised, as though he has just tossed something to his right. In the final photograph, his right hand is palm down, as though he has just dropped something. Any questions?

i.picasion.com...

My post.

As for this statement: " Then you claimed the timing was a red herring, and decided the smoking gun was that the astronaut was not in contact with his seat." The "red herring" comment was in a post that was deleted for T&C, but I think I can quote a bit that's not offensive:

I said the jump took a second. You are the one stuck like a broken record player focused on how long it would take three photos. But thats just you using a red herring.

In fairness, you had been going on about the astronaut being in "mid-jump" for many, many posts, so naturally I was confused, especially given that you kept challenging people to jump into their chairs and perform a series of motions in under three seconds.

As you recall, it was always my assertion that astronauts can bounce out of their seats when they shift position. That's why I was surprised that you posted a video that confirmed it, hence: "You yourself just now posted a video that confirms my contention that astronauts can bounce up as they shift their position in low gravity."

I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.

reply to post by DJW001


I think the whole point of Foosm's posts is the disappearing sampler rod..
That hasn't been addressed and I'm not sure it can be..

If there's a pic just after this event it may show it on the ground or in the buggy somewhere..

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

We seem to have a misunderstanding here. Let's go through the offending statement one point at a time. I would appreciate your honest feed-back:

I said: "First you claim that the photos were all taken in 'about a second.' The transcript itself proved you wrong."
This is why:

How long did those big jumps take?
About two seconds?
Smaller jumps about one?

Here we can see an astronaut jumping into a rover:
How long did that take? Less then a second?

Now anybody here know how fast the magazine could advance the film?
Would approximately ONE second sound about accurate?

Which means for any action that takes a second, you could only be able to capture it once.
Correct?

The first question:
How was that possible?
Three photos for a 1 second event?

168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.

Your first post. [Edits for brevity --DJW001]

It certainly sounds like you were claiming that the pictures must have been taken in about a second.

I never said that the Hasselblad could take three photos in second.
On the contrary, I pointed out it couldnt.

What I said is that what is being portrayed in the three photos is a 1 second event.
And thats the contradiction.

There is no evidence in the pictures showing Jack bouncing, turning, or doing anything but landing.
None that I could find, none that has been pointed out.