Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by FoosM

But I can prove, and have shown, inconsistencies in the photographic record that would be impossible
on the moon or here on Earth. T

Actually, your video proves the opposite. The fact that the camera's motion is more pronounced in the foreground than the background proves that the horizon is very far away. Too far away to be in a studio. That video is proof that the camera was recording a brightly lit scene with a black sky in the extreme distance. Parallax, remember? You have inadvertently provided proof positive that it was not shot in a studio. Well done!

reply to post by FoosM

So you don't need a manned craft to transmit data back?

No, but you do need a human being to answer spontaneous questions. You could not transmit the answers from Earth covertly, because of the time lag.

Good, now how can you prove that the data from the LM was from a manned craft?

Again, spontaneous responses to unplanned events being transmitted from the surface of the Moon. The radio signals were received from the Moon. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Rob48
You've asked me lots of simple questions. Mind if I ask you one?

If I can take a photograph every two seconds, how long will it take me to take three photographs?

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

He could have had maybe nine seconds to take the three pictures. That was the amount of time that passed between Cernan telling Jack Schmitt to get into the seat and Cernan saying "I got three of them that time".

[168:47:03] Cernan: Get on there one time.

[168:47:08] Schmitt: Ready?

[168:47:12] Cernan: I got three of them that time.

Even if we trim that by a few seconds, Gene Cernan could have easily had 5 seconds or so to take three pictures.

That is more than enough time. He could have started taking them at the 168:47:05 mark and stopped at the 168:47:10 mark.

Rob48
You've asked me lots of simple questions. Mind if I ask you one?

If I can take a photograph every two seconds, how long will it take me to take three photographs?

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

To avoid creating the impression that this is a trick question, perhaps you should explain that the first photograph is taken at time zero. We went through that over and over again the first time FoosM tried this and apparently he still hasn't got it yet.

reply to post by DJW001

There's no trick about it. If you take a photo every two seconds, then the interval between two photos is two seconds. Nobody can argue with that. That's what "a photo every two seconds" means. How many intervals are there between the first photo and the third photo? We're talking basic maths-test stuff here. I even dropped him a cute little hint, cos I'm kind like that.

*Click*
One Mississippi
Two Mississippi
*Click*
Three Mississippi
Four Mississippi
*Click*

The length of the *Click* 'is negligible here, as the click of the shutter is only a few hundredths of a second (and included in the two seconds in any case - and two seconds is a very generous estimate of the time from frame to frame).

FoosM

choos

FoosM

choos

FoosM

Soylent Green Is People

choos
reply to post by FoosM

 

your video is of the assumption that schmitt jumped into the seat only once..

I think he jumped "into" the seat once, but going by what they said to each other, it could be that Jack Schmitt "bounced" up and down a few times to ham it up for the camera. Schmitt laughed after Gene Cernan said "I got three of them" (three pictures while Schmitt jumped/bounced in his seat).

It could even be that several seconds had passed while Cernan was taking the three pictures.

edit on 3/24/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Watch the following videos in the series.
We will see how many of your "could be's" hold up.

did.. and its still of the assumption that it was only one jump into the LRV..

who is to say that Schmitt did not have a practice jump and realised the scoop/sampler was in the way (without realising cernan had already taken a photo)
thus he removed it holding it in his right hand and while jumping into the seat for the photo, not realising that he had dropped the scoop/sampler onto the ground..

being of the assumption that it all happened in one jump is also a "could be"

edit on 24-3-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

Who is to say?
Well NASA's own transcripts do.
They limit the time any of what you are imagining could happen.

You say they do but you are imagining it. Show me exactly where gene cernan clearly states that he has begun taking photos..

Really? Really?
You know if you are not going to at least try, watch the videos, pay attention to what the other side is saying, there is no point in a discussion. Try again. Watch the videos and read the transcripts thats quoted on the video.

Edit to add: Even Apollo supporters know it took 4 seconds.

edit on 25-3-2014 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

know it was 4 seconds?? thats very absolute, is there video of it happening that im not aware of??

ive read the transciprts, ive even read after the transcripts and found that the sampler/scoop did go missing afterwards, which could mean that schmitt did indeed drop it around this time..
but no where in the transcript does cernan say he has begun taking the photos, no where in the transcripts does cernan say he is ready..

look ill make it easier for you since you seem to be missing my point..

when cernan says "i got three of them that time" is that when he pressed the button to take the last photo or was it after he took the last photo.. ie. did the camera BEGIN to take the photo or has it ALREADY taken the photo when cernan says "I got three of them that time" also provide evidence since you seem to have evidence of this..

reply to post by choos


I still don't see that there's any problem with it taking four seconds. Even if it takes 2 seconds between exposures and it's actually closer to 1.5 seconds), then the elapsed time from the moment the first exposure is captured to the moment the third exposure is captured is only 4 seconds. Click (2 second gap) Click (2 second gap) Click. In my previous post I made a reference saying "watch out for fenceposts" but it was poorly worded and considered to be bad manners. What I meant was, don't fall into the trap of fencepost errors ("off by one").

Saying "did the camera start or finish taking the photo at that time" just confuses the issue. The exposure occurs when you click the shutter. The interval between exposures is caused by winding on the film, correct? So you don't need to count the time to advance the film after the third shot, because the exposure has already been made.

If Cernan clicked the shutter for the first time as soon as he said "Ready?" and clicked it for the third time right before he said "I got three that time" then the interval would between those two statements would be 4 seconds, which is exactly what FoosM said it should be.

I don't think he even knows what he's arguing for!

FoosM: you claim you have proof of fakery but so far we have seen none. The crux of your argument seems to be quibbling over the time stamps of three photos out of the several thousand taken on just one of the six moon landings. Even though the timing issue was explained to you in detail more than three years ago.

You expect us to endlessly debate and debunk every last facet of your theory, and yet when you are presented with vast amounts of clear evidence for the landings (not least close-up photos of several square miles of the lunar surface that match, in perfect detail, the landscape we see today from the LRO - every rock, every wheel track) you think you are allowed to dismiss it with "It's from NASA so it's fake". No further analysis required!

Would I be allowed to apply the same logic to each and every one of your posts? "It's from FoosM so it's a load of cobblers"? No further argument needed? Tempting as it is, the answer is No, because that would be attacking the person, not the evidence.

Rob48

Would I be allowed to apply the same logic to each and every one of your posts? "It's from FoosM so it's a load of cobblers"? No further argument needed? Tempting as it is, the answer is No, because that would be attacking the person, not the evidence.

edit on 26-3-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

#

Of course you would because it is true everything he posts is BS you are not attacking him you are looking at his so called evidence and as you say it has been debunked many times!!!

DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

But I can prove, and have shown, inconsistencies in the photographic record that would be impossible
on the moon or here on Earth. T

Actually, your video proves the opposite. The fact that the camera's motion is more pronounced in the foreground than the background proves that the horizon is very far away. Too far away to be in a studio. That video is proof that the camera was recording a brightly lit scene with a black sky in the extreme distance. Parallax, remember? You have inadvertently provided proof positive that it was not shot in a studio. Well done!

Haahaahaa you will have to be more clear than that, which video?
But speaking of Parallax, since you wanted to remind me, lets take a look at that.
You opinion is that objects in the background like faraway mountains should barely move if at all.
Im sure you have heard of

Astronaut Dave takes a few panorama images in EVA-1 near the LM, AS15-86-11601 and AS15-86-11602.

Nearby objects: the LM, the rover, and astronaut Jim are shifting relative to each other. The Apennines and the crater St. George are also moving as a whole. (Moreover, the shadow is changing on the mountains and the crater.) This finding indicates that it is less than 300 metres to the background (the ‘mountains’) instead of 5 kilometres!

Therefore, with such a small alteration to the camera position in Dave's hands (several tens of centimetres), the mountains should not move, they should remain static (zero parallax).

Man, those hills are shaking and grooving like funky Jello.

What is this:


Seriously?

The two images with a view of Mount Hadley were selected from the Panorama (distance is about 30 kms, the height more than 2.5 kms) AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11850.

Despite a slight offset of the camera, the mountains are moving, which contradicts the condition of distant mountains.

Thats from a pan. A pan.
Apollo is exposed as a lie.

www.aulis.com...

choos

FoosM

choos

FoosM

choos

FoosM

Soylent Green Is People

choos
reply to post by FoosM

 

your video is of the assumption that schmitt jumped into the seat only once..

I think he jumped "into" the seat once, but going by what they said to each other, it could be that Jack Schmitt "bounced" up and down a few times to ham it up for the camera. Schmitt laughed after Gene Cernan said "I got three of them" (three pictures while Schmitt jumped/bounced in his seat).

It could even be that several seconds had passed while Cernan was taking the three pictures.

edit on 3/24/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Watch the following videos in the series.
We will see how many of your "could be's" hold up.

did.. and its still of the assumption that it was only one jump into the LRV..

who is to say that Schmitt did not have a practice jump and realised the scoop/sampler was in the way (without realising cernan had already taken a photo)
thus he removed it holding it in his right hand and while jumping into the seat for the photo, not realising that he had dropped the scoop/sampler onto the ground..

being of the assumption that it all happened in one jump is also a "could be"

edit on 24-3-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

Who is to say?
Well NASA's own transcripts do.
They limit the time any of what you are imagining could happen.

You say they do but you are imagining it. Show me exactly where gene cernan clearly states that he has begun taking photos..

Really? Really?
You know if you are not going to at least try, watch the videos, pay attention to what the other side is saying, there is no point in a discussion. Try again. Watch the videos and read the transcripts thats quoted on the video.

Edit to add: Even Apollo supporters know it took 4 seconds.

edit on 25-3-2014 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

know it was 4 seconds?? thats very absolute, is there video of it happening that im not aware of??

ive read the transciprts, ive even read after the transcripts and found that the sampler/scoop did go missing afterwards, which could mean that schmitt did indeed drop it around this time..
but no where in the transcript does cernan say he has begun taking the photos, no where in the transcripts does cernan say he is ready..

look ill make it easier for you since you seem to be missing my point..

when cernan says "i got three of them that time" is that when he pressed the button to take the last photo or was it after he took the last photo.. ie. did the camera BEGIN to take the photo or has it ALREADY taken the photo when cernan says "I got three of them that time" also provide evidence since you seem to have evidence of this..

edit on 25-3-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

The Sampler didnt go missing.
What are you talking about?
Didnt you watch my video?

So Choos, make up your mind (I just noticed that).
How many seconds did they use to take those three photos, and when in the transcripts was it taken?

reply to post by FoosM

Thats from a pan. A pan.

Which means that the light from the hills entered the lens from a different direction in each frame, causing it to refract and, thus, distort differently. If you can't even understand parallax, I'm not about to try to explain optics to you.

reply to post by FoosM

How many seconds did they use to take those three photos, and when in the transcripts was it taken?

Why don't you explain why it is relevant? As you recall, we discussed inaccuracies in the time signatures in the transcripts three years ago. What has changed since then?

DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Thats from a pan. A pan.

Which means that the light from the hills entered the lens from a different direction in each frame, causing it to refract and, thus, distort differently.

No, it means the hills and mountains shouldn't be wiggling.

Another nail in the coffin for photos as evidence.
Thanks for reminding me DJ

DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

How many seconds did they use to take those three photos, and when in the transcripts was it taken?

Why don't you explain why it is relevant? As you recall, we discussed inaccuracies in the time signatures in the transcripts three years ago. What has changed since then?

My goodness, let Choos answer questions addressed to him before hijacking the conversation.

reply to post by FoosM

No, it means the hills and mountains shouldn't be wiggling.

Allow me to describe an experiment you can perform in your own home to help you understand what is going on in those two juxtaposed photographs. I know you will refuse to perform this experiment, FoosM, I am proposing it so that people who have not had the benefit of an education can have a personal experience that will help them to understand the trick that this Russian 'scientist' is playing on them.

Take an ordinary magnifying lens. If you do not have one, a curved reflective surface, like a polished metal spoon, will do. Aim the lens at something vertical across the room; a floor lamp or doorway would do nicely. When it is centered in the lens, it appears straight. Now move he lens to the right. As the lens moves, the line will appear to curve, the top and bottom bending towards the left. Now move the lens to the left, past the center. the line begins to bend the other way. That is exactly what is happening in the two photos from the panorama. The lens of the camera has moved from left to right, so the objects in the photo curve from left to right. Note how most of the 'jiggling' is at the extremes of the field. You can observe exactly this effect with the hand lens.

Never believe something just because someone tells you so. Whenever possible, confirm it by experiment.

FoosM

DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

How many seconds did they use to take those three photos, and when in the transcripts was it taken?

Why don't you explain why it is relevant? As you recall, we discussed inaccuracies in the time signatures in the transcripts three years ago. What has changed since then?

My goodness, let Choos answer questions addressed to him before hijacking the conversation.

My goodness, why don't you answer questions I address to you?

reply to post by FoosM


Now if SHADOWS confuse you the problems of stitching panoramic pictures due to problems with nodel points will be a real struggle for you.