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.

 

Taurus Littrow: A place that can [in] spire?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Phage and jra have told me that the sun would burn there eyes out without their visors down. Did any of these guys suffer eye damage that you are aware of?



Originally posted by jra
The astronauts raised the gold visor a number of times. If done for an extended period of time it could cause some eye damage.


I respectfully disagree with both of these statements. The atmosphere only blocks ~25-40% of the light passing through it (you can easily verify this using no special equipment). An airliner at 10,000m is above 2/3rds of the atmosphere, so the crew & passengers are getting ~50% more direct sunlight through the windows than they get on the ground (so a guy in space is only getting 12-20% more than a person on an airplane), with no worries about eye damage.

I think the real reason for keeping the visor down was to keep the helmet from becoming a greenhouse, which would require the PLSS to use water & power faster to keep the astronaut cool.




posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Phage and jra have told me that the sun would burn there eyes out without their visors down. Did any of these guys suffer eye damage that you are aware of?



Originally posted by jra
The astronauts raised the gold visor a number of times. If done for an extended period of time it could cause some eye damage.


I respectfully disagree with both of these statements. The atmosphere only blocks ~25-40% of the light passing through it (you can easily verify this using no special equipment). An airliner at 10,000m is above 2/3rds of the atmosphere, so the crew & passengers are getting ~50% more direct sunlight through the windows than they get on the ground (so a guy in space is only getting 12-20% more than a person on an airplane), with no worries about eye damage.

I think the real reason for keeping the visor down was to keep the helmet from becoming a greenhouse, which would require the PLSS to use water & power faster to keep the astronaut cool.


Not to ride a good horse to death as I can see you fellows are into the pics and I don't really like to discuss what can be to easily manipulated--- Nessy, big foot--Godzilla etc.
But Saint you have to realize that you have made my case that there are way to few of these photos. I always maintain this --- that if I was going to risk my life for my country in an in- hospitable place I sure as hell would have my bud take a picture of me that proves beyond a doubt that I was there.-------------- so the gals couldn't say I faked it.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Not to ride a good horse to death as I can see you fellows are into the pics and I don't really like to discuss what can be to easily manipulated--- Nessy, big foot--Godzilla etc.
But Saint you have to realize that you have made my case that there are way to few of these photos. I always maintain this --- that if I was going to risk my life for my country in an in- hospitable place I sure as hell would have my bud take a picture of me that proves beyond a doubt that I was there.-------------- so the gals couldn't say I faked it.


Make up your mind: Do pictures "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" that you were there, or can they be "too easily manipulated" to qualify as evidence? You can't have it both ways. If it's the former, then the photo record proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that these men were on the Moon. If you're inclined to the latter, then it doesn't matter how many images show astronauts in their suits on the Moon; you'll just claim (without evidence) that they are bogus...

...which, incidentally, removes the validity of your argument that the lack of such images is somehow suspicious. So any way you look at it, you're contradicting yourself.

Btw, I never claimed that these were the only such images available; they were simply three that occurred to me off the top of my head. There are others (video from Apollo 15 and stills from Apollo 17 come to mind).



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


I hope you saw jra's post were it was stated that he did not say that about the Astronauts on the surface, exposure etc.


.......Donny for Million.....

Now I am not completely certain of this statement but 24hrs after sunrise the surface temps are approximately 80F compared to the 250F+ at noon.

One must remember there is 2 weeks of day and night in a row on the moon. That would make the landing sites COOL, no matter what the sun was doing. It would be morning time, being the surface temp had been in -200F or below!!!

The Suns radiation just doesn't heat things up imwediately.


Next, Jack Schmitt on AS17 didn't like using his visor much, because the 'REVO' gold plated faceplate scratched beyond being able to see, from the purous dust on the moon surface. There is even video of him, being asked by Houston to put it down, and he stays, "IT"S SCRATCHED!, its hard to see!" [paraphrased]

As for image anomalies, very few people know how much went into mission planning for imagery. The whole reason you had gone was not for the journey, but to RECORD IT!

Did you know they had issues with hasselblad cameras, do you know that they had EL or ELECTRIC HASSELBLAD that had a speed drive and would continually snap pics while squeezed.

I have heard of people on the internet that say, " OHH they too to many pictures in such short time".

Yet I can read one page available on the internet that shows how FAST they can take pics during apollo, and they did. AL Worden of Apollo 15 used that EL Drive to his advantage and took some excellent pics, just wish more were in HR.




posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


As I have said I think photos are pretty much not good for evidence, since they can be doctored and explained away by NASA or folks that back them up.
Be that as it may I will put you to task if you are willing.
I don't waste much time ogling over the archived photos so I don't know this. But I suspect that there are few pock marked areas on the earth, you know like moon craters. So could you post some photos of the men and craters that show the ejected mass strewn upon the surface. There should be thousand of various sizes all over under there feet. Right?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


I have been having this issue with others, who believe that the evolution of the moon should be a certian way, period.

In which we can't account for evolution and chaos at all, in fact humanity knows so little we lie about it.

If you spend a little time with the orbital photo's you'd see the difference.


And: No just because they are on the surface doesn't mean there has to be 1000's of craters beneath their feet!






[edit on 6-4-2010 by theability]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by theability
 


As I have said I think photos are pretty much not good for evidence, since they can be doctored and explained away by NASA or folks that back them up.


The problem (or one of the problems) with this is volume. We're talking about over 10,000 images that have to be "doctored" using manual cut-and-paste and some airbrush. It takes a lot of time and a lot of skill to do just one image. Where is the army of highly skilled photo retouchers? The government can't cover up a presidential BJ that got the guy impeached. The intern involved is alive and well and talking. I often wonder if people want to believe that the government is as all-powerful as their conspiracies require. Does believing that they are omnipotent (but evil) give one more comfort than realizing that the people at the top are ordinary shmoes like the rest of us (just a bit more motivated) trying to get by?

You keep coming back to the same theme: "It could be faked (in your inexpert opinion), therefore it was faked." You don't get a free pass on this. "Could" means nothing. You "could" be Carl Sagan. The country called Afganistan "might" not exist - It's a media/government hoax. The Universe "could" have been created last Thursday, and all of our memories are implanted. I'm kidding, of course - It was actually last Wednesday.

"Could" means nothing. Speculating based on your biases is useless. "People are entitled to their own opinions - they are not entitled to their own facts." What matters are the facts - and I don't just mean nitpicking this or that piece of evidence for Apollo. Where is any evidence of the hoax? Who organized it? Name names (do you even know any major figure other than Wernher von Braun, the man how dreamed of human spaceflight since the time he was 13, who made a "deal with the Devil" to get funding for rocket developement, who was "detained" by the SS for stating that he wanted his rockets to be used for exploration and not war, and tirelessly promoted the idea of manned space travel throughout the '50s before NASA was even formed - in short, the last man who would ever go along with a hoax?) Where is the paper trail? If people were bought-off, where are their big houses and fancy cars? If they were threatened, where are the deathbed confessions? If they were killed, then that's an awfully large body count of people with highly specialized skills. Where is any record of this?

Face it - There is no positive evidence for a hoax. There is overwhelming evidence that the Moon landings occurred as history records. You don't get to blow it all off by saying, "it could have been faked!"



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join