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.

 

NVIDIA Simulation Debunks Apollo 11 Moon Landing Hoax

page: 11
35
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: che33
I always wondered.. why arent there any pictures of stars in the background or even pics of stars in space? with no atmosphere no skyies and clouds you should have the best view EVER im talking about trillions of stars..


Not true. There are lots of photographs of stars in space, including those taken by Apollo. Several of the missions included low light photography that captured stars and planets (the planets are important as they help fix a time for the photograph). They also took UV images from the lunar surface - you can't do this from Earth.

If you want to demonstrate to yourself the difficulties involved, wait for a clear night and go take some photographs of stars - you might find why they had to use special film and camera settings to do it.




posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: che33

why no stars? well one it was shot during lunar morning the brightest part of the day there. two it is hard yo overpower light pollution that close to a reflective surface. but its grey? dont matter. its albedo rating is .12. also radiation was a problem for russia because they scrimped on shielding.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: che33
I always wondered.. why arent there any pictures of stars in the background or even pics of stars in space? with no atmosphere no skyies and clouds you should have the best view EVER im talking about trillions of stars..

They were in daylight, the sunlit terrain was too bright for cameras to capture stars.


And a another thing bothering me is that Russians who was way ahead of USA in the space race in 50s-60s..

Im talking about first in space satellites space stations and cosmonauts/astnonauts hours in space.

Problem they had was the radiation of the sun.. otherwords the cosmonauts would get sick or could die if they were to far away from the earth protecting shield.

No, their problem was that they didn't have a reliable working heavy lift rocket like the Saturn V. Radiation wasn't the problem.


eather way 1969-72 with No problem at all do the moon landings and then NEVER again.. WHY?

It's very expensive and complicated sending humans to the Moon. After the Apollo program was finished, USA decided to concentrate on the Space Shuttle program and the ISS. Other countries simply didn't have enough money and the know-how to achieve this, or didn't want to be second.
edit on 22-9-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I do understand now why there are no stars in this particular picture but it makes me wonder was it absolute impossible to make pictures of stars or did the astronauts make some pictures with stars in it. I assume if one takes a picture of only the moonsky some stars might be visible. (must be possible to test that with the simulation I guess).

edit on 22-9-2014 by raytheo because: mistake absoluut => absolute



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey



No, we don't. Kubrick consulted NASA and NASA provided a lot of help. Kubrick used a lens that NASA used, but he had to buy it from the manufacturers just like they did.


Kubrick couldn't have afforded to buy one of those lenses, but regardless, the lenses were supposedly fitted to a Westinghouse 3 tube colour video camera and sent (by the military) to orbit the Moon, with the aim of videoing the far side, but saw nothing. That is why there are no conventional video cameras, or even still cameras, orbiting the Moon.
A short video about the cameras Kubrick mounted those lenses to:
www.youtube.com...
The low light photography experiments on some Apollo missions demonstrates the opposite of what you say. They were in total blackout for hours at a time, used long exposures with very high speed film, and got some poor results. The heavens should have been ablaze with stars, both to the camera and the astronauts eyes, yet they mentioned nothing.
@raytheo



but it makes me wonder was it absolute impossible to make pictures of stars or did the astronauts make some pictures with stars in it. I assume if one takes a picture of only the moonsky some stars might be visible. (must be possible to test that with the simulation I guess).


It is impossible to take pictures of the stars from deep space. You can see some if you are looking through the atmosphere/ionosphere of an object that has sufficient electrons in its atmosphere. To imge stars from deep space, at visible wavelengths, you need the technology that Hubble employs, which is still classified, and only NASA and the ESA (presntly mostly funded by NASA) have access to that technology. Why do you think that Russia, or India, or China, or Japan, or even Iran do not have visible wavelength space based telescopes? Which brings us back to the simulation, as the intitial conditions need to be known, and as no TSI measurements were ever made from the moon, we do not know the initial lighting conditions.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN

Kubrick couldn't have afforded to buy one of those lenses,


And yet he had 3 of them.



but regardless, the lenses were supposedly fitted to a Westinghouse 3 tube colour video camera and sent (by the military) to orbit the Moon, with the aim of videoing the far side, but saw nothing.


They were intended to take photographs of the lunar far side, not stars.



That is why there are no conventional video cameras, or even still cameras, orbiting the Moon.


The lunar orbiter series were conventional cameras, Apollo used conventional video and still cameras.



The low light photography experiments on some Apollo missions demonstrates the opposite of what you say. They were in total blackout for hours at a time, used long exposures with very high speed film, and got some poor results. The heavens should have been ablaze with stars, both to the camera and the astronauts eyes, yet they mentioned nothing.


That's not true, and you know it's not true, because I've shown you the photographs they took. The transcripts are littered with descriptions of the stars and you've been supplied with numerous examples. Here's just one page from my site showing examples:

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...






It is impossible to take pictures of the stars from deep space. You can see some if you are looking through the atmosphere/ionosphere of an object that has sufficient electrons in its atmosphere. To imge stars from deep space, at visible wavelengths, you need the technology that Hubble employs, which is still classified, and only NASA and the ESA (presntly mostly funded by NASA) have access to that technology. Why do you think that Russia, or India, or China, or Japan, or even Iran do not have visible wavelength space based telescopes? Which brings us back to the simulation, as the intitial conditions need to be known, and as no TSI measurements were ever made from the moon, we do not know the initial lighting conditions.



This is gibberish. You also contradict yourself by saying you it's impossible but Hubble can do it.
edit on 22-9-2014 by onebigmonkey because: link



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: raytheo
I do understand now why there are no stars in this particular picture but it makes me wonder was it absolute impossible to make pictures of stars or did the astronauts make some pictures with stars in it. I assume if one takes a picture of only the moonsky some stars might be visible. (must be possible to test that with the simulation I guess).


It is quite possible.

All one has to do is ensure that the camera is not pointed towards the sun, or at any part of the landscape of the moon (which will be reflecting the sun's bright light).

Then simply change the exposure time. The longer, the better. Fractions of a second are much too short to capture the faint light of the stars, even on the moon with no atmosphere that would scatter the sun's light (hence the blue skies we have during the day).
Start exposing the frame for 5 seconds or longer, and you'll see stars just fine.

Many space probes by several different countries have used images of the stars while in flight in order to keep their courses towards their destinations. The more modern ones work a lot like the Autoguider cameras that amateur astronomers and astrophotographers use to track stars for really long exposures.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
the lenses were supposedly fitted to a Westinghouse 3 tube colour video camera and sent (by the military) to orbit the Moon, with the aim of videoing the far side, but saw nothing.

I had never heard of this mission before, could you please provide some details, links, etc? Which mission was this, and was there any attempt by them to explain why the camera couldn't capture anything. Thanks.

[Edit] There is some information on Wikipedia about Westinghouse cameras being used on Apollo missons, but nothing about the unsuccessfull attempts by the military to film the far side of the Moon. en.wikipedia.org...

By the way, the Far Side has been filmed by the Japanese Kaguya orbiter with an HD TV camera. You can find plenty of those videos on Youtube.
edit on 22-9-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
its completly ridicilus to think that you cant see or take pictures of stars on the moon... Thats why there is private companies and NASA who wants to put telescopes as we speak on the moon BECAUSE you can see and study better.

First of all russia was sended there first unmanned landing on the moon 1959.. since then they had 12 landinngs- so i think they didnt have a rocket problem..

And you are telling me that suit from the 60s can block the sun as good the earth ozone layer?

you understand without ozone protective shield earth would be dead in seconds and still people today get skin cancer of the radiation.

I really dont know where you get you info from? just do some own research..


reply to: onebigmonkey



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: che33
its completly ridicilus to think that you cant see or take pictures of stars on the moon... Thats why there is private companies and NASA who wants to put telescopes as we speak on the moon BECAUSE you can see and study better.

First of all russia was sended there first unmanned landing on the moon 1959.. since then they had 12 landinngs- so i think they didnt have a rocket problem..

And you are telling me that suit from the 60s can block the sun as good the earth ozone layer?

you understand without ozone protective shield earth would be dead in seconds and still people today get skin cancer of the radiation.

I really dont know where you get you info from? just do some own research..


reply to: onebigmonkey



The Earth's Ozone Layer is located in our stratosphere at about 10 km to 50 km (6 miles to 31 miles), which is WAY below where even the ISS astronauts are.

Primary protection that the Earth's Ozone gives us is from UV rays (Ultraviolet) from the sun.

Ultraviolet Blockers: Your clothing is enough to block UV rays from damaging your skin or causing skin cancer. Sun blocking lotions and oils contain compounds that help block and absorb UV Rays.

An astronaut's space suit is more than enough to block UV rays.

More than likely you are trying to say that the Van Allen belts would have kept any astronaut from going to the moon.

There is a VERY big difference between the Earth's Ozone layer and the Van Allen belts.

Take your own advice: Do some research, because I'm afraid your info was very, very wrong:

Astronauts and cosmonauts can survive just fine outside of Earth's Ozone layer.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: che33
its completly ridicilus to think that you cant see or take pictures of stars on the moon... Thats why there is private companies and NASA who wants to put telescopes as we speak on the moon BECAUSE you can see and study better.

First of all russia was sended there first unmanned landing on the moon 1959.. since then they had 12 landinngs- so i think they didnt have a rocket problem..

And you are telling me that suit from the 60s can block the sun as good the earth ozone layer?

you understand without ozone protective shield earth would be dead in seconds and still people today get skin cancer of the radiation.

I really dont know where you get you info from? just do some own research..


reply to: onebigmonkey



Radiation
Space suits offer only limited protection from radiation. Some protection is offered by the reflective coatings of Mylar that are built into the suits, but a space suit would not offer much protection from a solar flare. So, spacewalks are planned during periods of low solar activity.

That is why they do nto stay outside of a spacecraft very long. the suits provide soem protection. the same way radiation suits do. you can only stay in areas of radiation only so long.

Once again being so close to a relective surface you have light pollution. Same thing happens in cities at night. now if you SPECIFICALLY want to shoot the stars You increase the exposure time in a high light enviroment AND turn toward the stars if you want a shot. They were visiting the MOON not out to take star field shots.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: che33
its completly ridicilus to think that you cant see or take pictures of stars on the moon... Thats why there is private companies and NASA who wants to put telescopes as we speak on the moon BECAUSE you can see and study better.


I'm not entirely sure why this is addressed as a reply to me. I know full well that you can see stars and take pictures on the moon, I said as much in the post you're replying to, and I have done a lot of research into proving that.



First of all russia was sended there first unmanned landing on the moon 1959.. since then they had 12 landinngs- so i think they didnt have a rocket problem..


They had a problem getting a heavy lift system reliable enough to get a human payload to the moon without exploding.



And you are telling me that suit from the 60s can block the sun as good the earth ozone layer?

you understand without ozone protective shield earth would be dead in seconds and still people today get skin cancer of the radiation.

I really dont know where you get you info from? just do some own research..


reply to: onebigmonkey



As others have said you need to do a little checking of facts yourself before jumping in feet first into something you don't understand.

People have this idea that they've got from educationally deficient websites that space is instantly lethal because of the radiation out there. It is not. Prolonged exposure to radiation without any protection will not do you any good and may well prove fatal in the long term, but you won't fry in seconds.

The suits the Apollo astronauts wore (and on which the current suits used on the ISS are based) provided enough protection for the radiation levels that were known about at the time (they had sent enough probes to the moon to know what that was). If you believe otherwise then you are free to present your facts and figures.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: che33
its completly ridicilus to think that you cant see or take pictures of stars on the moon...

You can, but not when the sunlit terrain, or any sunlit objects, are in the frame. The hoaxers' arguments about not seeing stars refer to Apollo photograps where the sunlit terrain and/or sunlit objects (such as the LM, an astronaut, or the Earth, are visible). Huge difference in brightness between the dim stars and the sunlit stuff means that cameras' exposure had to be set for daylight. To take a picture of stars from the Moon, one would have to point the camera into the blackness of space (preferrably set on a tripod) and use a long exposure.

Hardly anyone is complaining that there are no stars in the many ISS and Shuttle images. (Hint: for the same reason - bright sunlight)

The article where this image is explained:

While living and working in space was a tremendous experience, it also presented us with many challenges. Some of which aren’t so obvious. Photographically speaking, there were a number of hurdles. The dynamic range of the subject was potentially huge. The darkest darks you can imagine along with the brightest highlights. With no atmosphere, there is probably another stop or two of light on bright subjects. I would guess that the dynamic range of some scenes approaches 16 or 17 stops. Here’s a shot of Rick Mastracchio outside during one of the space-walks the sunlit EVA suit and thermal blankets is a huge difference from the blackness of the background. This image had some really badly blown highlights which I was able to recover in post-processing.

That image was taken at ISO 200, 1/800, f8 (low sensor sensitivity, very short exposure, and low aperture), which shows just how bright sunlight is, and how dark space is in comparison.

P.S. the camera settings used by Apollo moon walkers is well-documented:

That is: shutter speed 1/250th of a second, aperture of between f5.6 and f11 depending on the position of the sun, film sensitivity of ISO 64. There's no way they could have captured stars with those settings. The camera was set up for the sunlit lunar terrain and sunlit objects.
edit on 23-9-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace



That image was taken at ISO 200, 1/800, f8 (low sensor sensitivity, very short exposure, and low aperture)...


By comparison, look at this image from this post on page 2 of the astrophotography thread:


originally posted by: iksose7

Probably just a 30 second exposure at f5.6 and ISO 6400.


Notice that in this photo the aperture is wider, the sensitivity is much higher and the exposure time is 24,000 times longer than the astronaut photo!

So the argument that "stars must be brighter in space than on Earth" just doesn't cut it. If the stars were 10x brighter, then you'd still need a wide aperture, hypersensitivity and a 3-second exposure to get them to show-up in a way comparable to the 2nd photo - and that would 2,400 times longer than the astronaut pic.

In fact, the stars in space would appear less that twice as bright as they do on a dark night here on Earth.

The upshot is that if you want to photograph stars, you have to make a deliberate effort. They won't just inadvertently show-up.

P.S. Earlier I mentioned errors in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. One of them is that he repeatedly shows properly exposed sunlit objects (and sometimes the sun itself) with stars visible in the background. Sorry Hollywood (and Borhamwood, in this case); reality ain't that artistically pretty. The background would be black.

That means that Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Farscape, Babylon 5, Space: Above and Beyond, FIrefly, Apollo 13, From the Earth to the Moon, Moonraker, Diamonds are Forever, You Only Live Twice, Lost in Space, Buck Rogers, Forbidden Planet, Josey & the Pussycats in Outer Space, (and yes, a whole bunch of NASA public relations animations) - and on and on - all got it wrong. Even in those cases where the director was aware of the truth (which several of the above did) they put the stars in anyway, because gorammit it looks better - even, dare I say it, "more real".



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Re-reading what Che33 wrote



its completly ridicilus to think that you cant see or take pictures of stars on the moon... Thats why there is private companies and NASA who wants to put telescopes as we speak on the moon BECAUSE you can see and study better.


I can see now that I misinterpreted what he said.

Astronauts have reported seeing stars from the lunar surface, when standing in shadow and when looking through optics that help to occlude the ambient light. One of the first jobs Apollo 11 did was to try and fix a position using known stars. Apollo 14 managed to capture Venus from the lunar surface, and Apollo 16 took UV images using a camera placed in the shade of the LM. Had che33 done some research he would have known that.

Space telescopes on the moon will not really work all that well on the near side at least, as whenever the lunar surface is dark enough you will have a bright Earth in the lunar sky, and the sun will always be there. Earth has a higher albedo than the moon, which means it will drown out stars even more effectively than the moon does on Earth. The best images of stars taken by Apollo were from orbit when going behind the moon, or in cislunar space looking away from the sun.

To imply that I need to do some research on the subject is ironic, given that I wrote an entire section of my website on the topic. I'd recommend that che33 reads it.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: shadowsinthecave
a reply to: eightfold

With due respect, it doesn't take much to convince you. Lighting is one small shard of evidence, and if you've looked into it, the lighting anomalies and photographic evidence of doctoring is extensive. However, I urge you to go beyond lighting and examine the differences between the film footage and photographs of the LEM ladder.



As has been pointed out elsewhere, the LEM ladder claims have been debunked repeatedly.

As I said in my original post, I had *lots* of issues with the landings, but after a lot of reading and checking out I've come to the conclusion that, as most of the rest of the world agrees, we went to the moon.

It took *a lot* of convincing.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO



It goes against all logic to actually believe everything they say though, not sure why believers of the moon landing take everything they heard and saw as absolute truth.

To this day not one good clear picture of anything exists, must be just sheer laziness and not caring.


Seriously, I'd recommend having a look at the photo's posted just in this thread. There are piles of clear pictures.

You're making a pretty sweeping statement saying claiming 'believers' take everything they heard and saw as absolute truth. I don't. I'm saying I think we went to the moon and this simulation puts to bed one of the issues I had.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

Look, we get it. I said open source because I genuinely thought the engine was open source. You're right, it isn't.

If you give EPIC $19 dollars, you can have full access to all the tools and all the source code. The EULA is compatible with the MIT license and it's hosted on Github. *All* my github experience has been OS software. That's where my mistake came from.

I made a mistake. I'll alert the media and if you have a punishment in mind then let me know.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

WOW and every half decent photographer on here and on the planet already knew that using their knowledge of photography & lighting!



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: stargatetravels

2001 has MANY errors in it, most obvious stars in the background when exposing for the surface or foreground.



new topics




 
35
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join