Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

No, but they see more details..
Certainly better than the original BS NASA feed us, filming a screen and then transmitting that..

Are you saying that Star Wars doesn't look good on a color TV? That it doesn't have enough details? Don't you think that if NASA wanted to fake the TV transmissions, they could have done a better job of it? The picture quality of the transmissions improved because the quality of the television equipment they were able to send to the Moon improved.

You're really grasping at straws..
Star Wars was NOT released in the 60's or 70's so why are you using it as an example

reply to post by backinblack

Never verified to be a plane..
Strike one....

Never proven to be a missile. What makes you think it might be? You saw it on the internet! Seriously, if it were a missile, there would have been consequences in the real world, and you would have heard about it in no uncertain terms, like a declaration of war. As it is, the whole thing exists merely as an internet flap.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

Never verified to be a plane..
Strike one....

Never proven to be a missile. What makes you think it might be? You saw it on the internet! Seriously, if it were a missile, there would have been consequences in the real world, and you would have heard about it in no uncertain terms, like a declaration of war. As it is, the whole thing exists merely as an internet flap.

I respect your opinion which is all it is,,

Try some respect yourself unless you have better proof than was in that thread...

Edit: BTW, it was NOT started from the internet..
It was a TV crew remember?
Or has the FACT twisting started again with you??

reply to post by backinblack

Star Wars was NOT released in the 60's or 70's so why are you using it as an example

Since when is 1977 not in the '70's?

Star Wars is an American epic space opera film series conceived by George Lucas. The first film in the series was originally released on May 25, 1977, under the title Star Wars,

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by backinblack

Edit: BTW, it was NOT started from the internet..
It was a TV crew remember?
Or has the FACT twisting started again with you??

EXACTLY!!! One single local TV station airs a spot. Do you believe everything you see on TV? I certainly hope not. How did this practical joke come to your attention? You saw it on the internet! The internet is capable of magically transforming a shoddy piece of television reporting into an international panic! Just imagine how easy it would be to fool people back in the 1960's!

reply to post by DJW001


I stand corrected..Late 70's..

reply to post by DJW001

Just imagine how easy it would be to fool people back in the 1960's!

I think that was our whole point..
It was very easy.

reply to post by backinblack

I stand corrected..Late 70's..

Well said, sir. My point was that if NASA had bottomless pockets, which is always assumed by the hoax propagandists, they would have been able to create special effects to outpace any advance in consumer technology.

reply to post by backinblack

I think that was our whole point..
It was very easy

But people who understand a subject are not so easily fooled. Scientists and engineers would know something wasn't right, in precisely the way that people who understood international relations and military science knew there was something wrong about the war in Vietnam.

reply to post by DJW001


Or maybe they realized that fuzzy pics and a lack of details and data would no longer be acceptable..

There's an opposing view to everything...

IMO, one day someone will get independent verification or show it didn't happen..

Till then it will be just NASA's word..

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Helious
Bah, we went to the Moon. NASA isn't lying about going to the moon, there lying about what they saw and learned up there. In my opinion, any fake footage or photos is because very little of what they actually shot up there could be released to the public and while it would be monumentally hard to fake the journey there in whole, would be very easy to fake videos and pictures seeing that they already had a studio to do just that and a guy like Stanley Kubrick around.....

edit on 24-8-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)

If the photos and videos were faked, then whats left to prove they actually landed men to the moon.
For that matter, how do we know that they didnt tried to send men to the moon secretly and that they died on the way there?

Well, my feeling is they had a very real interest in getting there, I truly believe knowledge is power and I think there is alot of knowledge to be gained from sending men to the moon. I think it is unfortunate the knowledge is not shared with all but then again, who likes to share power?

I believe that either proof of extraterrestrial life or the true origin of mankind can be found on the moon, perhaps both. Either would change society on a very large scale and it is easy too see why they would want to keep these things from us. I also believe that NASA couldn't be happier that people think we didn't go because it keeps the focus off of the real issues they are hiding.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

I think that was our whole point..
It was very easy

But people who understand a subject are not so easily fooled. Scientists and engineers would know something wasn't right, in precisely the way that people who understood international relations and military science knew there was something wrong about the war in Vietnam.

The truth behind the Vietnam war was a conspiracy for decades until the truth leaked out..

So what are you saying?

reply to post by backinblack

The truth behind the Vietnam war was a conspiracy for decades until the truth leaked out..

So what are you saying?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the truth behind the Vietnam was a conspiracy." Everyone knew the war was going on and that the military was lying about casualty figures and the hopes for success. If you're referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, there were a lot of people who never bought the official story from day one. Eventually, the people who understood that "victory" was impossible got their way. Why can't the people who think that landing on the Moon is impossible get their way?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

A few pages back we were talking about possible damage to the suits well I would have been worried about damage from all those arrows.

Keep posting that photo, someday you will understand.

As a matter of fact, just print it, stick it on your fridge, and/or above your bed so you can stare at it for hours on end. At some point the subconscious will kick in and give your conscious a clue. You'll thank me later!

What this photo shows Foosm

I tell you what. Take the same photo:
AS17-141-21608

And indicate with arrows which direction the shadows should fall:
The Astronaut
The Rocks
The Boulder
It should be easy because there was one light source. I

Then we can compare the photos and see where I may have made a mistake.

I tell you what why don't you explain one of your arrows say the blue arrow next to the gnomon shadow that points from bottom left to top right up the slope please explain the logic of that arrow that should give everyone a

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/822cb62a7318.jpg[/atsimg]

^ Single light source, multiple directions of shadows. I've said before there are plenty of ways of investigating this. Jarrah does work with a 3D modeller. Why doesn't Jarrah produce simulations for his series? I suspect the results wouldn't be in line with the person's goals though.

As for the dark shadows ... the lack of atmosphere makes far away objects appear to have too much contrast. Shadows are dense and not soft or diffuse and it's really hard to judge the size and placement of things. The horizon will always seem too near. The moon has a smaller diameter also which means shorter horizon. However, it's primarily the atmosphere on the moon that I don't think persons understand.

Far away objects on Earth lose contrast (pushing towards grey) because of air which isn't actually 100% transparent as people think. Atmosphere is one of our main ways of judging depth, and if the majority of this element is missing on the moon of course it's going to look like a film set or tiny room. Even far away photos taken of the surface of the moon look odd. You can check this with any country that has taken photos of the moon. The shadows are always darker than those shot on a planet with a proper atmosphere and, because of that, everything looks closer.

As I've stated to persons like Foosm before, if this is something you're amazingly positive of why don't you do these simulations yourself and get world famous?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by darkcloak88
This debate is amazing how far its gotten. There's an easy way to solve this, just have amateur astronomers find the moon landings through expensive telescopes (probably not possible), and end the debate. If they left the things up there, they will exist and it did happen. However, if it is wrapped in a lot of stuff in order to elude people, its sort of the 'you went to that sort of lengths, really? oookkk'

Well here is the problem. Astronomers have said it is possible, but somehow are now pretending its not. Jarrah White had interviewed one in Australia that stated their telescope would get special optics for such a possibility.

Then we have the following statement (November 24, 2002):

Now astronomers hope to kill off the conspiracy theory once and for all by
using the Very Large Telescope (VLT) - by far the most powerful telescope in
the world - to spot the Apollo lunar landers.

Operated by European astronomers in the Chilean Andes, the VLT consists of
four mirrors 27ft across linked by optical fibres. It can see a single human
hair at a distance of 10 miles.

Trained on the Moon, such astonishing resolution should enable it to see the
base of one or more of the six lunar modules which Nasa insists landed on the
Moon between 1969 and 1972. Any images of the modules would be the first not
to have been taken from space by Nasa.

Dr Richard West, an astronomer at the VLT, confirmed that his team was aiming
to achieve "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites".

The first attempt to spot the spacecraft will be made using only one of the
VLT's four telescope mirrors, which are fitted with special "adaptive optics"
to cancel the distorting effect of the Earth's atmosphere. A trial run of the
equipment this summer produced the sharpest image of the Moon taken from the
Earth, showing details 400ft across from a distance of 238,000 miles.

www.freerepublic.com...

So what, exactly, would you expect the above effort to show ? What level of detail are you thinking would be achieved ? How much improvement from the 400' mentioned above do you think is possible ? You must have some idea as you're claiming "it is possible". I want to know what you mean by "it". Because if the resolution thus attained is no better than that of the LRO will I hear you saying "it's rocks" ? This is another example of JW either not undestanding what was meant or deliberately misleading (by insuation) his audience. From your source above ...

The VLT team hopes to improve on this, with the aim of detecting clear evidence for the presence of the landers. The base of the lunar modules measured about 10ft across, but would cast a much longer shadow under ideal conditions.

Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use the power of all four mirrors. "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said.

"Clear evidence for presence" and "sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," doesn't read to me like something that will satisfy a HB'er. Will LRO-like pics from the VLT satisfy you ?

Originally posted by FoosM
we also have regarding Mars:

The £45m lander was scheduled to put down in a near-equatorial region of the planet known as Isidis Planitia. But despite many attempts to locate it - using overflying spacecraft and Earth-based telescopes - no sign of it, not even any wreckage, has been detected.

What?! They expected to use Earth based telescopes??

To detect it, like detecting the presence of Apollo LMs on the Moon but not as good. And it didn't work did it ? What were you trying to "prove" again ?

Originally posted by FoosM

Professor Pillinger accepts the sceptics will say Beagle 2 is too small to be seen from space... Now, he says, specially processed pictures from the camera on the US space agency's (Nasa) Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft show that it came down in a crater close to the planned landing site.

(I have modified the order of the statements)

"There is a lot of disturbance in this crater, particularly a big patch on the north crater wall which we think is the primary impact site," Professor Pillinger explains.
"There are then other features around the crater consistent with the airbags bouncing around and finally falling down into the middle. Then, when you cut the lace, the airbags fall apart giving three very symmetrical triangles."
Four roughly circular features to the right of the "airbags" could conceivably be Beagle's unfolded solar panels.
Professor Pillinger claims the images show Beagle 2 came very close to being the first spacecraft to mount a concerted search for life on the Martian surface.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Don't tell me you'd accept "disturbances", "patches" and "features" as being evidence of Beagle 2 !?! Surely they're just rocks and such. [/JW_deny_mode]

Originally posted by FoosM
Then you got the following:

During normal operating conditions, the smallest objects that can be resolved on the martian surface in these images are about 4 to 5 meters (13 to 16 feet) across. With the adjusted-rotation technique, called "compensated pitch and roll targeted observation," objects as small as 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) can be seen in images from the same camera. Resolution capability of 1.4 meters (4.6 feet) per pixel is improved to one-half meter (1.6 feet) per pixel. Because the maneuvers are complex and the amount of data that can be acquired is limited, most images from the camera are still taken without using that technique.

Umm.... what? Why cant we do that for Apollo artifacts on the moon?
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

"Do that" you say. You mean 0.5 m resolution ? For an Apollo site, perhaps A17 ...

LRO maneuvered into its 50-km mapping orbit on September 15. The next pass over the Apollo 17 landing site resulted in images with more than two times better resolution than previously acquired. At the time of this recent overflight the Sun was high in the sky (28° incidence angle) helping to bring out subtle differences in surface brightness. The descent stage of the lunar module Challenger is now clearly visible, at 50 cm per pixel (angular resolution) the descent stage deck is 8 pixels across (4 meters), also note that the legs are also now distinguishable. The descent stage served as the launch pad for the ascent stage as it blasted off for a rendezvous with the command module America on 14 December 1972.
Tracks are clearly visible and can be followed to the east, where astronauts Jack Schmitt and Gene Cernan set up the Surface Electrical Properties experiment (SEP). Cernan drove the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) in an intersecting north-south and east-west course to mark positions for laying out the SEP 35-meter antennas (circle labeled "SEP" marks the area of the SEP transmitter). The dark area just below the SEP experiment is where the astronauts left the rover, in a prime spot for monitoring the liftoff.

www.nasa.gov...

BTW I believe the technique discussed in your source is what was just done with LRO. Should the resolution be improved from what I just linked, what whine will we hear ? I suspect it'll be "but NASA took the pics. They're photoshopped." So why are you even bringing resolution up ?

reply to post by FoosM


Eeh... well for one I havent seen any anomalies. Neither has anyone who knows photography and light. And I call myself professional photographer because I am. I don't have good quality personal hardware and that is irrelevant to the point to begin with.

Originally posted by Helious

I believe that either proof of extraterrestrial life or the true origin of mankind can be found on the moon, perhaps both. Either would change society on a very large scale and it is easy too see why they would want to keep these things from us. I also believe that NASA couldn't be happier that people think we didn't go because it keeps the focus off of the real issues they are hiding.

edit on 24-8-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)

Well there is that chance that the moon landing hoax was NASA disinfo. This way they could control both sides of the argument, hiding the truth somewhere in between. I made a post about the people behind Capricorn One
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

CTs do tend to subscribe to multiple theories.

And a majority of those theories are based on facts, and have later proven to be correct.

such as?

there are, of course, many conspiracies in the world - the oldest one I can think of off hand is Ramses II's impressive pictorial reliefs of his "victory" in het battle of Kadesh some time around 1250 BC I believe - but even that isn't teh first recorded propaganda....I have seen some translations of Sumerian & Akkadian kings' proclamations that would not lok out of place coming from a meglamaniac today.


But CT's are a fairly modern phenomena, so ancient comspiracies - or even many recent historical ones are not what they seem concerned with.

So her's some that still crop up here on ATS, in a vague chronological order - so perhaps you could tell us what facts prove these to be true??

1/ Protocols of the Elders of Zion
2/ miscellaneous other conspiracies involving jews taking over the world
3/ existence of the NWO/Illuminati
4/ Nazi space ships, bases in antarctica and/or the moon
5/ UFO's at Roswell
6/ JFK murdered by CIA, Cuba, and/or the Mafia (or any othe group)
7/ Moon hoax
8/ USA is still ruled by British royal family
9/ Chemtails
10/ British royal family are actually reptiloids
11/ HAARP causes all teh world's earthquakes
12/ 9/11 was a govt inside job
13/ WMD in Iraq (that's a freebe just so you can see what actual evidence proving/disproving a conspiracy actually looks like)

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Helious

I believe that either proof of extraterrestrial life or the true origin of mankind can be found on the moon, perhaps both. Either would change society on a very large scale and it is easy too see why they would want to keep these things from us. I also believe that NASA couldn't be happier that people think we didn't go because it keeps the focus off of the real issues they are hiding.

edit on 24-8-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)

Well there is that chance that the moon landing hoax was NASA disinfo.

no there is not a "chance".

Either it was, or it was not - and so far ther is no evidence that it was, and plenty of evidence that it was not.

This way they could control both sides of the argument, hiding the truth somewhere in between. I made a post about the people behind Capricorn One
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And it was just as fatuous and devoid of relevant content and rational conclusions as your posts here - why would you want to advertise it??