NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure, page 33
Pages: <<  30    31    32    33    34    35    36  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 162 times


reply posted on 17-11-2007 @ 12:56 PM by Tuning Spork
Originally posted by johnlear
Collins was not in the 'same siutation' ever. He was 60 miles above in orbit.


The photographs of the solar corona were taken from orbit, not the lunar surface. They were able to take the photos only when the moon eclipsed the Sun.

www.apolloexplorer.co.uk...

And Collins was in the same situation for the entire trip other than the time that Armstrong and Aldrin spent on the surface. That includes when they were photographing the solar corona.

The reason the crew said they didn't see stars is that the NAZA lie in those days is that you couldn't see stars in a vacuum which, of course, is total nonsense. One day a NAZA supposed 'expert' gave me a lecture that the only reason we could see stars from earth is that our atmosphere 'refracted the starlight' and made the little iitty bitty star visible.


Hmm. Never heard that one before. But, obviously, you're mistaken because Armstrong clearly said that they couldn't see stars when on the lunar surface or, when in orbit, on the daylight side of the moon.

But the real reason the Apollo Astronauts couldn't sees stars is it was daytime, the sun was up and the sky was bright. Not black. Black is what was airbrushed onto all Apollo photos and fabricated into video shots.


So where was all this atmosphere when David Scott dropped a hammer and feather simultaneously during Apollo 15?

video.google.com...

For a good belly laugh on how ridiculous the concept of 'no atmosphere' on the moon is, google up yourself a picture of Alan Beans painting "Sunrise Over Antares" and look at the bright yellow sun being refracted by the moons atmosphere.


www.alanbeangallery.com...

I painted the view to the east past the Apollo 14 lunar module Antares shortly after Alan Shepard and Ed Mitchell began their trek toward Cone Crater. The Sun is just peeking over the top of their spaceship, making it difficult, even painful, to look that way. It's the same Sun we see here on Earth, but it appears much brighter because there is no atmosphere on the Moon to partially screen its brilliant rays. Cone Crater sits on top of the high ground that's in the distance beyond the flag, and Al and Ed are walking into the Sun as they move along. Even with their gold visors in place, the glare makes it difficult for them to navigate.


This is the reason that when Alan Bean was interviewed by Discover Magazine in 1994 and asked, "What do you see when looking up from the surface of the moon?" that he responded, "Black patent shoes."

What happened here is that when he was 'hypnotized' to forget much of what he saw on the moon, the hypnotist told him, "The sky was black, as black as patent leather shoes."

Unfortunately that was the wrong suggestion because all Bean remembered was the 'patent leather shoes' not the 'black' he was being programmed with.


The sky is painted just the way it looks up there: black. Not a flat black, but a shiny, patent leather black. I could not see stars while walking on the Moon because the Sun made the surface so bright that the irises of my eyes closed way down. It's a little like walking out of a brightly lit room and looking up at a dark, clear night sky.


Same thing with Aldrin who said when asked what it felt like to be on the moon, "For Christ's sake, I don't know. I just don't know. I have been frustrated since the day I left the moon by that question."


Well, I suppose it's pretty difficult for him to find the words to describe to someone who's never done it, what it's like to be on the moon. I mean, at least he didn't say "It felt like black patent leather shoes".


(Edit to fix link.)


[edit on 17-11-2007 by Tuning Spork]


reply posted on 17-11-2007 @ 03:41 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by zorgon



It is really simple. The human eye has a "Dynamic Range" way beyond what a camera is capable of capturing on film. If film capable of picking up the stars were used the image would be so grainy it would be fairly useless due to the noise and no ground details would be visible. If the camera setting were such that the stars could be seen the ground would be pure white and the highlights would be completely "blown out". Believe what you want but those are facts any amateur Photographer knows.

Those putting forth this nonsense are clearly trying to trick people who are not knowledgeable about cameras and film. What is worse I think many people saying this know they are not telling the truth. You seem more honest than that so why bury your head in the sand. Learn the basics of Photography. Your spending a huge part of your life, it would seem, studying photo's. Why not learn more about how they are produced and the rules that govern their manufacture?

If you find my comments offensive I apologize, because I think you are trying to be honest. I think you are believing other people who are not so honest.

I'll concede up front their may be more to the moon than we are aware of. I won't conceed to what I know is pure fantasy.

[edit on 11/17/2007 by Blaine91555]



reply posted on 17-11-2007 @ 04:54 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by johnlear



No offense John, but the film currently available is probably far more sensitive than the film available all those years ago. In fact there is no comparison.

Whether there would be an atmosphere on the Moon or not, to see the stars, even with film 100 times as sensitive as what was available then, would leave the ground completely blown out and white.

The human eye is capable of a Dynamic Range many thousands of times that of film. That is why people are confused I think. They believe film catches the full dynamic range which it does not even come close to doing. Even in digital, with the ability to combine shots at many "f" stops into one HDR (High Dynamic Range) image, what we see is far beyond photography's capabilities.

Since none of your other theories depend on this one item, why continue to push a concept that can so easily be disproved. Even if there is atmosphere on the moon the same things would be true regarding taking photos. It adds nothing to your argument and drives anyone knowledgeable in photography away from the subject.



reply posted on 18-11-2007 @ 02:00 PM by vannein
reply to post by ArMaP



Dear Armap,

of course you are making all valid points! And of course you won't get a straight answer from John.

You see, Kepler discovered his laws long before NASA was even a possibility
And these laws are a consequence of Newtonian mechanics which again predates NASA by hundreds of years. The laws of physics, last I heard, work in your native Portugal (nice wines, by the way) as well as they do in China and even here, the United States. John Lear's postulate, though, is that they don't . I.e. on certain occasions they do, but sometimes don't (in almost identical circumstances). Go figure.


reply posted on 18-11-2007 @ 05:36 PM by sr71b
Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to
post by johnlear



No offense John, but the film currently available is probably far more sensitive than the film available all those years ago. In fact there is no comparison.




I can answer this very easily for you. As Mr. Lear has stated before, the technology NAZA has is at least 50 years ahead of anything we have currently.

So if we were on the Moon in 1969 and you add 50 years to that they would have at the minimum technologies from today. The funny thing is with such advanced technologies in 1969 why on earth would they have to airbrush anything? Surely they had some type of Computer graphics available where they could simply create anything they wanted instead of some smear on a photo that Zorgon or Lear interpret as a bucket wheel excavator. Why would they even use film? It is simply illogical Captain.


reply posted on 19-11-2007 @ 12:18 AM by zorgon
Originally posted by skip_brilliantine
He clearly states in the press release that they didn't see stars while on the daylight side of the moon.


How odd... I may be listening to a different tape I guess
The only words I hear out of Collin's mouth on that press release are...
"I don't remember seeing any."

I do believe you are confusing his words with Neil's...

Armstrong however said...
"We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see. "

So he says NEVER able to see stars... WITHOUT looking through the optics... then in the same breath can't remember what stars...

Yet even Phil Plait agrees that you can see stars in the daytime on the Moon..

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. - Phil Plait




when you don't seem to have paid any attention to the context of your own sources.


Well funny thing... perhaps my grasp of language is not up to snuff... but what I just highlighted above, I see no error in context

Also I am curious why no one has commented on their mood and nervousness ...

They just came back from man kinds greatest mission ever and this is how they feel..



Pages: <<  30    31    32    33    34    35    36  >>    ^^TOP^^