Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by dragnet53
you know I make mistakes

Yes, that much is clear. But so do I. I try to learn from them, and especially learn from those who truly know their topic and can prove it..

and sometimes you guys confuse the hell out of me.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but frankly some of this stuff ISN'T simple, so it's no real surprise that you don't initially get it. And if you don't understand it, then you can be easily misled by those with an agenda. The shadows are a good example of that. You might think that measuring shadow angles should just be a case of whacking your ruler onto the image. But it ISN'T. That's why there is a science called photogrammetry, that many folk haven't even heard of. It isn't just about simple perspective - there are MANY factors that you have to take into account.

I'm happy to try to help, if you can make it clear *what* it is you are getting lost in.. That does NOT mean posting more youtube videos..

I am getting tired of the same ol' bs arguments. To Err is human. But hey like I have stated our US government lies and does things behind our backs. I have very little trust in them. They lied about global warming and they lied about the RMS Lusitania.

I hear you, and in some respects I totally agree (although I know sweet nothing about the Lusitania..) But just because some, or even lots of stuff is bad, doesn't mean *everything* is.

Hell, I also don't believe in the 9/11 official story

It may shock you to hear me say that neither do I.

or JFK assassination.

Not my area of expertise, so I keep out of it. Same with brain surgery - I don't hang out at neurosurgery forums. (There may be something there for you to consider...)

Also why does NASA continue to live in the 50's and the new shuttle looks like an old apollo ship?

Again, it may shock you, but I think the Shuttle program (and ISS) SUCKED. I'm not a full-on nasa fanboi, indeed I think some of their stuff is shockingly misguided.

But some of it absolutely ROCKS. Apollo (after the Apollo1 disaster), SOHO, Hubble (despite the incredibly stupid start), Voyager - these are all brilliant pieces of engineering.

Boeing or Lockheed had an awesome design of the new shuttle and NASA said no. We are supposed to go ahead not backwards.

Like I said, I agree.

I know you are trying to lose my credibility. But it seems I hit a nerve.

Maybe you should think about arguing the topic instead of attributing motives. I'm trying to get the truth out there, and if you are suffering because of that... you need to ask yourself why.

So ........(uncivil text removed, after it was removed from the original)

And it's me whose nerve was hit?? I'll simply ignore that and hope you can improve a little in future posts.


[edit on 21-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

reply to post by CHRLZ


One quote I always follow and this is from george carlin..... QUESTION EVERYTHING.

bah when people call me out I get defensive.

Originally posted by dragnet53
One quote I always follow and this is from george carlin..... QUESTION EVERYTHING.

By all means continue to do so. Sensibly.

But listen to the answers. Consider them carefully and research what you need to. If they are correct, then accept that.. and move on.

(That is Chrlz's Corollary to the George Carlin Law)

Originally posted by debunky

And what was used for that mapping? Telescopes, photos and pen and paper!!! Yet they somehow managed to get a perfect 3D model out of that, one the japanese could only match, rather than surpass 40 years later...

I found this on an old thread about the lunar orbiter 2 in 1966.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I think they did have advanced knowledge on the backgrounds needed to fake it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/717abcbb5371.gif[/atsimg]

Seeing as it was only 49km's above the surface I think it might have given them enough data. It took lots of photos, so probably got some good snaps of landing sites.

from nasa:

A total of 609 high resolution and 208 medium resolution frames were returned, most of excellent quality with resolutions down to 1 meter. These included a spectacular oblique picture of Copernicus crater which was dubbed by the news media as one of the great pictures of the century.

sources: nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 21-5-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


ppk.....

You "think" they had enough data to "fake it"? You can't be seriously suggesting this!


Just stop, drop and think: Look at ALL of the footages, and stills, and consider the entire range of area they traversed. Look, also, at the videos shot from Lunar orbit, in the CSM, and from the LM during the descent to landing phase.

Are you pondering?

In order to successfully and completely re-create ALL of that, it would have been necessary to build a full-sized "model" that was many, many kilometers in diameter!!.

MANY km...many, many. ALL of the distant hills and terrain features. Pay close attention to a photo offered up-thread, with an example of the atmospheric distance perspective we are accustomed to, on the Earth. ON THE Moon? NO atmosphere, so no 'blurring' or 'fading' of distance landmarks, so no good sense of distance.

It isn't rocket science, just basic logic.

reply to post by ppk55

So I think they did have advanced knowledge on the backgrounds needed to fake it.

They had the advanced knowledge to plan an actual landing. If they faked it, they wouldn't need to research anything. They could film on a set made of swiss cheese if they wanted. Besides, what makes you think the Lunar Orbiters weren't faked?

Well done truthquest you admit you were wrong and mislead by that youtube IDIOT JW.

I am sorry to say dragnet53 almost redeemed himself with this quote

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

My fault it was the resolution of Hubble telescope is why they couldn't take pictures of close up of the moon surface.

my bad!

but the takes a step back again with this one

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

you know I make mistakes and sometimes you guys confuse the hell out of me. I am getting tired of the same ol' bs arguments. To Err is human. But hey like I have stated our US government lies and does things behind our backs. I have very little trust in them. They lied about global warming and they lied about the RMS Lusitania. Hell, I also don't believe in the 9/11 official story or JFK assassination.

Also why does NASA continue to live in the 50's and the new shuttle looks like an old apollo ship? Boeing or Lockheed had an awesome design of the new shuttle and NASA said no. We are supposed to go ahead not backwards.

I know you are trying to lose my credibility. But it seems I hit a nerve.

[snip]

 

Removed un-civil comment



[edit on 21/5/10 by masqua]

reply to post by ppk55


Well ppk55

EXPLAIN these

files.abovetopsecret.com...

The DAC video still from Apollo 17 leaving the Moon and how it matches the LRO image even the track marks!


dogsounds.files.wordpress.com...

The JAXA 3d image and the picture taken by the Apollo 17 Astronauts

I have no doubt I will have to wait a while!

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
You know it has to make one think... NASA never did come up with a convincing argument about why we never went back to the Moon.

I think it's funny.. like Bush.. every time a President says we are going back to the Moon or on to Mars, the next administration always scraps the idea for some reason or another.. this has happened many times in the past.

Sure, but think about it. NASA's not about to go out of their way to give reasons NOT to go. And they don't need to. Whenever an administration suggests a return trip to the Moon, NASA can pretty quickly arrive at a rough cost and timeline for the project, and that's always the end of it. Taxpayers take one look at the price tag and start screaming.

Which is exactly what happened to the original program. By the time of the moon landings, the space program had gone through some 20 to 25 billion dollars, and that way back in the '60s, when a billion was really a billion. For that, they got 12 round trip tickets to the moon's surface, some experiments in place, and about 800 pounds of rocks. Many felt that since the race was already won, return trips were just frivolous; so much so, that Apollo's 18-20 were canceled, even though they were essentially paid for.

A return trip? Multiply that cost by five or six to adjust for today's dollar. Then ask what could be done this time that wasn't done before. A permanent base? Multiply by five or six more at least, by the time you get the materiel, equipment, and personnel up there to sustain it.

The moon landings were an amazing achievement, but there are no Russians to beat anymore, and everything gets shot down as too expensive just for a project that many feel is just a 'been there, done that' moment.

Its actually rather simple why we havent gone back:
As some here are so keen to point out technology has advanced in the past 40 years.
Now technology doesnt advance evenly in all fields. For example doors havent seen a major innovation in millenia. Robotics on the other side made quite some leaps in the past 40 years. Its not as glorious and adventurous as shooting people through space, but it is a lot more practical than it would have been 40 years ago.

An example and also something to add to the list of things NASA did that were good:
xkcd.com...

reply to post by debunky

*sniff*
Now that is sad. I think I'm going to cry.

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Oh, and it appears I was beaten to it.. Here's an image from a 'pericynthion', from the unexplained mysteries forum.



A masterpiece, if you ask me.

'Truthquest' and 'letthe..', what say you? Care to measure the angles?

Why not try in your own lounge room? Preferably use sun rays rather than a spot lamp, though.

Thanks for PMing me the link to what seems to be the original source of this image at:
educationforum.ipbhost.com...

I did measure the angles and they were easier to measure than the Apollo 17 images. I found there is a total of 123 degrees of difference between the shadow angles on the left side of the image vs. the rights side, which compares well with the 112 degrees I measured on the Apollo 17 photos.

In summary, the source says that a SINGLE spotlight was used in the image. It was a 1/10 scale model setup using shaped paper wads as rocks. What the photographer claims he did was get the same view angle as in the Apollo image by setting his Canon SD700 IS to 5.8mm focal length, which ends up being very similar to a 35mm camera. The author claims the Apollo 17 picture in question was shot with a 70mm Hasselblad using a 60mm lens. Much more detail can be found at the above link which adds much more detail about the photographic experiment.

This image conclusively shows that sharp shadow angles are in fact consistent with real photography and therefore the photo is consistent with a real photo AFAIK.

So, that shows that evidence #1 "Exhibit A" from the Moonfaker series is incorrect. I think there are about 20 points to cover from the series I have yet to review and hope that the rest of them will be settled with the same level of confidence.

Look at the Footprint in the apollo photo, and the three small rocks next to the head of the astronaut before you make your conclusion.
As well consider the distance of the rocks to the shadow of the person.

Originally posted by dragnet53
yup, i find that suspicious as well. I mean with the constellation program they didn't even have a moon lander design ready. yet, they wanted more money from congress. Ron Paul needs to give NASA an audit. Just like when Columbus found the new world they went back again and built a city. When they had the price tags cheap they should of built the moon base before inflation hit.

I think the comparison to Columbus is actually quite fitting. To some extent, his trips to the New World and the first trips to the moon did have some similarities:

- While neither had been done previously, both were theoretically possible. They were, however, too risky and expensive for the private sector to consider undertaking them, so

- Government funding was allocated to cover the costs of making both expeditions a reality. Once the first voyages were successful, they constituted a proof of concept; given appropriate craft and sufficient provisions, a given number of crewmen could complete the trip in a given amount of time.

That's where the similarity ends, though. Columbus landed in an environment that was substantially like the one he'd left; it supported life, it afforded an opportunity to repair his ships and replenish his supplies, and it was actually quite pleasant. Apollo crews landed in a barren, hostile environment, and could only stay as long as the provisions they'd brought with them at an outrageous cost lasted.

Other governments funded expeditions to the Americas on the understanding that they now knew it was there, that it was possible to reach it at a certain cost, and that there were lands and resources they could exploit. In time, the private sector took up the challenge for profit. The rest, as they say, is history.

The private sector STILL can't see a profit to be made from the moon, and Mars is a whole lot farther off.

reply to post by FoosM

Look at the Footprint in the apollo photo, and the three small rocks next to the head of the astronaut before you make your conclusion.
As well consider the distance of the rocks to the shadow of the person.

What about them, exactly? What do you think you see? Which rocks? How are you determining their distance?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ppk55

 

Well ppk55

EXPLAIN these

files.abovetopsecret.com...

The DAC video still from Apollo 17 leaving the Moon and how it matches the LRO image even the track marks!


dogsounds.files.wordpress.com...

The JAXA 3d image and the picture taken by the Apollo 17 Astronauts

I have no doubt I will have to wait a while!

How easy is this?
LRO is NASA... of course they are going to cover their own "tracks"

And it has already been shown and noted that they landing sites were mapped prior to landing. And that the USGS were involved and they are mapmaking experts.
So those large background hills or mountains would be a piece of cake to render in 3D, and the foreground, as you can see, cant be verified. LOL

Remember... its background



and foreground



background



foreground

reply to post by FoosM


Why are there no hot spots in the background, like your examples show? Or was it painted, in which case why isn't it foreshortened from image to image?

reply to post by FoosM


No....terrible failure!!! (He plays the 'Kubrick card', and is shot down!!!)BUT, so glad you trotted those out, so I can rip them to shreds.

In case everyone is NOT aware, those stills used by FoosM are from Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I say 'masterpiece' a little loosely, though....because for whatever reason (stingy budget) the director and production chose not to actually GO to Africa to shoot the "Dawn of Man" sequences that opened the film, but instead employed a new (for its day, and little used since) method called "rear projection". Having acquired a great deal of still photos on location, they then profected these onto a scrim sheet, behind the standing sets, in foreground, to simulate the 'outdoors' on the African veldt.

IMO, failed miserably. One particular GLARING limitation in the technique is the camera...it MUST remain stationery, the entire shot, lest the 'seam between the fake foreground,and the rear projection be exposed.

Obviously, totally blows away ANY claims that such a technique was used in Apollo moon videos.

Only the less-than-well-informed would even dare to suggest it......

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
You know it has to make one think... NASA never did come up with a convincing argument about why we never went back to the Moon.

I think it's funny.. like Bush.. every time a President says we are going back to the Moon or on to Mars, the next administration always scraps the idea for some reason or another.. this has happened many times in the past.

Makes one think this kid is on to something.

yup, i find that suspicious as well. I mean with the constellation program they didn't even have a moon lander design ready. yet, they wanted more money from congress. Ron Paul needs to give NASA an audit. Just like when Columbus found the new world they went back again and built a city. When they had the price tags cheap they should of built the moon base before inflation hit.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by dragnet53]

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Chairman John D. Rockefeller (D.-W.V.) says he is “a substantial skeptic of human spaceflight” and that not all outlets for American exploration are “glorious.”

Rockefeller made his remarks during a hearing last week in which astronauts Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, and Eugene Cernan, the last man on the moon, testified against President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget because it would cancel NASA’s Constellation manned space program


Taylor Dinerman- The Wall Street Journal:
George W. Bush’s promising Constellation human spaceflight program—which would be killed under Mr. Obama’s plan—has already cost $9 billion since 2004. It is hard to imagine how the private sector can build a replacement for the spacecraft and booster rockets of Constellation, let alone a program to get America back to the moon, with the relatively paltry sum of $6 billion and the scattershot funding approach that NASA’s leaders are proposing.

Niel Armstrong believes in conspiracy theories:
With regard to President Obama’s 2010 plan, I have yet to find a person in NASA, the Defense Department, the Air Force, the National Academies, industry, or academia that had any knowledge of the plan prior to its announcement. Rumors abound that neither the NASA Administrator nor the President‟s Science and Technology Advisor were knowledgeable about the plan. Lack of review normally guarantees that there will be overlooked requirements and unwelcome consequences. How could such a chain of events happen? A plan that was invisible to so many was likely contrived by a very small group in secret who persuaded the President that this was a unique opportunity to put his stamp on a new and innovative program. I believe the President was poorly advised.

reply to post by FoosM


How is this in any way relevant? "Skeptical" here means Rockefeller doesn't think it's a good use of money, not that he doesn't think it's possible. Armstrong is griping because he feels NASA was, er, strong-armed... the cuts were arbitrary to provide more funding for the President's pet projects; healthcare, etc. Pretty much off topic there.

Edit to correct spelling.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by DJW001]

reply to post by DJW001

Pretty much off topic there.

Agreed. It is the 'scattershot' tactic. An act of desperation, indicated by the ever-increasing reach beyond the pale....a pathetic grab at ANY perceived whiff of a notion of an idea, to support an impossible position.