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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 191
377
<< 188  189  190    192  193  194 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


No-one ever said photographs weren't important. Engineers wanted to know what sort of wear and tear the LM took (hence specified photos) geologists wanted to know how the regolith looked and behaved (hence kicking a rock into a crater, if possible, to see whether it leaves a track or causes an avalanche) the biometrics people wanted to see if there was any difficulty operating hatches and tools, and so forth. That's why the bulk of the photos, as specified by the checklist, are so boring.




I suspect that this means that Armstrong had the regular camera and Aldrin had the special stereoscopic one... not much good for tourist photography. Also note that there was an hierarchy of priorities. "Tourist photos" seems to be low on the list.


Im sorry it sounded like you were saying the photography in general wasn't high on the list.
I mean, what would you call a tourist photo? From what I have noticed, practically every photo was pre-planned.

Though how was that possible? How could they tell an Astronaut to pose by a rock or rim of a crater?
It would mean they would have to have detailed maps of the area. At resolutions greater than the current crop of LRO photos we have been shown. So how did they get that?




As for your great "gotcha," how many 70mm cameras does the checklist specify be stowed after repress? I count one. They had two. I suggest you go back and read through all 178 pages of the technical mumbo jumbo you seem to think they just made up for no reason to see if you can account for the other one.



Why, its clear that they asked for one back and not two.


What items missing from a museum has to do with anything, I don't know.


How could you not know?
I told you that there is a possibility that the one and only returned hasselblad went to that museum.

Anyway, I think I have definitive proof they have or had the Apollo 14 Hasselblad.
I await a certain poster's apology.





posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I'm not sure what your point is. They were supposed to bring back a camera, so they did. They may have brought back the wrong one. The camera now resides (illegally) in a private collection. What is your point?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Though how was that possible? How could they tell an Astronaut to pose by a rock or rim of a crater?
It would mean they would have to have detailed maps of the area. At resolutions greater than the current crop of LRO photos we have been shown. So how did they get that?


Here's what they had to work with:


Apollo 14 Pre-flight Traverse Map

I think I see at least one crater they might find a convenient rock to kick into. I'd be willing to bet there are probably a few boulders down there, too. Why look for a nice, big boulder? To test the radio equipment: without an ionosphere of its own, communications on the Moon is strictly "line of sight."


134:04:53 During the traverse to Station F, Al made a short detour to this large boulder while Ed continued on with the MET. Al had planned to step behind a large boulder - one bigger than himself - to see if there was any effect on communications with Ed or with Houston, but this boulder proved to be too small for the experiment. Before rejoining Ed, he did take three photographs of the boulder. This boulder is known as Weird Rock, after nearby Weird Crater. Note that Al has not changed focus since taking 9133, so all three photos of Weird Rock are out-of-focus.

NASA

They needed a photograph to compare the size of the astronaut with the size of the boulder. Turns out the boulder wasn't big enough. (Or do you think the art department slipped up again?)


edit on 12-9-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to fix embedding.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


I'm not sure what your point is. They were supposed to bring back a camera, so they did. They may have brought back the wrong one. The camera now resides (illegally) in a private collection. What is your point?



I am not suggesting there is a conspiracy with this camera.
I was merely making the point that one was returned.
And, I simply find it strange that Hasselblad and many other people have this information wrong.
Even Apollo experts.

However, in researching the camera I found a point to delve into.
Which I can see you are covering in your other posts.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
The whole 'hitting from all angles' thing ... I believe this is usually a technique by pseudo-scientists and hoaxies (without a clue) to hide the fact they actually can't answer any questions/don't have a conclusive answer.

IE ... 'Oh but there's so many questions! If I'm right about even a small, or if even a small percentage can't have the questions answered ... I must be onto something.'

Chances are you're not. Asking people to answer and jump through every hoop you provide could be avoided simply by doing some experiments and maths yourself. Follow Jarrah White's foot steps for example. If you're 100% positive you're correct it will be a worth while venture. Just because you've stated that you're going to make things as awkward as possible for everyone to discuss doesn't make you right. Perhaps it makes you an honest jerk? Anyway you seem to think it's everyone's job to do your research for you. You're basically stating you're a layman who knows nothing and want everyone to teach you everything so you can hur hur disrespect them and act like you've known everything all along. How can you be so sure about any of this stuff when you clearly haven't bothered to attempt to research it? You're not building your own case ... you're relying on someone else making a mistake so you can pick them up on

In a debate it's polite to finish off a topic. It's that simple. Even if it's agreeing to disagree. You've never not been provided with information FoosM.

The whole 'view finder' issue on the camera is being blown way out of proportion. It's not like the settings on cameras are random. Focus pullers regularly have to go between two points mostly blind on a camera rig in some situations. That's moving images and tracking moving objects.

Shooting stills is just a matter of knowing some numbers and distances and such. Bit of a steady hand. Even someone not so good at shooting stills can get a feel for the type of shot they've taken with a little experience. Plus the astronauts had several missions to get pick up shots and stills.




edit on 12-9-2010 by Pinke because: Pinke makes typos



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith



Im still wondering what that 150.000.000 total dose represented.


Coming from you, that's not exactly a surprise. As it says p/cm^2 - particles / cm^2



What are they really saying abut the November SPE.
How much of a dose for the CM, LM and EVA?
And would this be in REM?


The chart is about as simple as possible, so if you can't understand that......



You want us to take your word on it, or you have some evidence to back that up?


Or you could just get an education..... Some of us have to pay a lot of money for it, why should you get it for free?


Thank you Agentsmith for your post.
However I fail to see why you would make comments about people's education
and knowledge regarding a particular subject. Now I asked for an explanation for the chart.
You didn't provide one. So why bother making the remarks that you did? Do you think you are winning
points by doing so?

Or you trying to show to us that you are not sure what the chart is actually implying?

Now if I can get some answers, maybe I can get this topic rolling.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I think Agent Smith is implying with the education remark that you're doing the equivalent of asking someone to do your addition for you.

Given you don't seem to have a point in questioning this graph then he is right. It is up to you to present a point and tell people where your stance is. Not for other people to do the maths for you and tell you what your stance is.

I did find more numbers for the other missions with a google search, but I've decided to present this in a FoosM esque way.

Set FoosM mode = 1

There is information on the radiation levels for the other missions, but I'm not going to tell you where it is. I'm surprised you hoaxies haven't found it yet.


Given how great at researching you all are you would think it would have been the first thing you looked at.


I found it just by looking for it! When you do find it I'll be looking forward to the excuse you come up with for it. It even tells you why they took the numbers in and what they used them for!

Set FoosM mode = 0

Big question ... do you really think this attitude of debating is actually getting us all closer to the truth?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Big question ... do you really think this attitude of debating is actually getting us all closer to the truth?
---

Read your own post and you can answer your own question.

Pinke did you offer any information about the graph?
Nope, dont see it. Dont see the point of this post.






edit on 12-9-2010 by FoosM because: (no reason given)




edit on 12-9-2010 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



And, I simply find it strange that Hasselblad and many other people have this information wrong.
Even Apollo experts.

Yes, even this one:


12 modified Hasselblad 500EL cameras remain on the Moon, fitted with Zeiss lenses but lacking their film magazines that were brought back to Earth.

apollo-hoax.me

And you are right, Hasselblad, or at least their digital marketing copywriter, seems profoundly confused about the number of cameras left on the Moon:


So, having fulfilled their mission, a total of thirteen cameras were deemed as an encumbrance and therefore left behind.

Hasselblad Homepage

Are they implying that there was one more lunar landing than there actually were, or did they forget that the Apollo 13 cameras never made it to the surface? If the latter is the case, then they subtracted the one camera that was returned from the surface from the fourteen that would have landed... if Apollo 13 hadn't had its accident.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Kind of is my point FoosM.

You're vague about your theories/goal of your questions. You decline to give information when it doesn't suit you or you don't feel like it. Or when you want to feel like the grand puppet master of the thread.

Then cry wolf when people don't dance.

People are a bit sick of dancing.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
Kind of is my point FoosM.

You're vague about your theories/goal of your questions. You decline to give information when it doesn't suit you or you don't feel like it. Or when you want to feel like the grand puppet master of the thread.

Then cry wolf when people don't dance.

People are a bit sick of dancing.


Whats the point of providing information if people are not interested to actually analyze it?
If people have a hard time explaining a chart, then I suppose I wont get anymore out of providing
documents that I have. I would love to provide the sources, but I've noticed most apollo defenders
are not seriously looking at what is being presented. As a matter of fact, several times on this thread, others have come out and complained about the behavior towards me and others on this thread. A thread were we simply bring out all aspects of the moon hoax.

What did you say about it?

"The whole 'hitting from all angles' thing ... I believe this is usually a technique by pseudo-scientists and hoaxies (without a clue) to hide the fact they actually can't answer any questions/don't have a conclusive answer. "

Very nice. pseudo-scientist and hoaxies are we?. Now what do you call Apollo defenders who "can't answer any questions/don't have a conclusive answer" ?

Thats right PINKE your biased. BIASED. I smelled it the first time you made your first post.
What did you say? Something about sitting on the fence but you fell over the side of believing Apollo after
this thread... really? Sure....
You were never on the fence. And now look at you, name calling. LOL. You couldn't hide your true colors too long could you?

Am I biased?
Of course, but at least I point out, to what I deem to be errors, even to hoax believers like PPK50.

You want to make comments about my attitude, make comments about everyone else's too, if you are so unbiased. Otherwise, stop pretending, ya ain't foolin' nobody.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 



There is information on the radiation levels for the other missions, but I'm not going to tell you where it is. I'm surprised you hoaxies haven't found it yet.

Are you referring to this?

Table 2

Hopefully not, as these dosimeter readings are well within acceptable levels. As the paper points out:


Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected.

Biomedical Results of Apollo

Sure sounds familiar. All the other references seem to say the same thing, except for ones that have the phrase "deadly radiation" in the title. Like this one:
Deadly Radiation...

The funny thing about sites like this one is that they dwell on what might have happened instead of what actually happened. Lots of quote mining to make deadly radiation sound scary, but absolutely no indication that there was a "major flare" during any of the actual missions. A familiar rhetorical technique.

Now, where's your dramatic "smoking gun," FoosM. I'm getting bored again.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
FoosM am not going to get into a debate with you about personal antics. There is no where I've actually called you a name. The technique is used by pseudo scientists and hoaxies and you *are* using it. Would you rather have me say ... this technique is ordinarily used by people who I respect a lot but disagree with?

I think you're wearing some highly rose tinted glasses at the moment FoosM because you haven't been a picture of polite debating technique since I met you in this thread. You've always been implying that spotting the hoax is easy, everyone else is stupid, and when I entered the thread the fact I even considered that it might not be a hoax must mean I'm slow. Over the last few pages I've just lost patience.

You're attempting to run this thread like some kind of school class. I don't think anyone has any problem with analyzing information here if you gave some information to analyze. But you expect Phage, Weedwhacker and others to rush up and down with buckets from the well of information based on questions that you admit don't actually go anywhere. You aren't actually presenting a case at the moment. It just seems like you're asking random questions and treating it like a game. Do you understand why that's not helping the situation?

As for the whole thing with the window ... That's an easily investigated phenomenon on Earth. If you're sure the glass etc ... used would have no hope of blocking the radiation this should be easily proven in a physical experiment? Perhaps if you visit a local university? Talk to some of the physicists there? Come back with what they say? Talk some media students into filming it with you? If that's all it takes to prove your point it would be huge.

Honestly, if I felt any of this held water and it was this easy to prove I'd be rushing to my nearest TV studio and preparing myself to be showered with money and fend of CIA assassins perhaps.

I really haven't seen a question that people have failed to answer for you on this topic. When you bring one up they do get answered almost immediately. Perhaps the ones that are 'missed' are more because you keep changing the subject? And no, it's not people's brain wash, or they're head spinning ... It's just people tend to answer the question you're asking, not the 50 you seem to have thrown away.

Try one by one and see what happens. We'll do it for a few posts and see if it gets the answers you want and if it doesn't you're welcome to go back to random.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   
As you seem to have a problem with the fact that glass can block radiation Foos, I quickly did this experiment for you this morning so you can see for yourself. I used 2 standard microscope slides, so the thickness is only about 2-3mm of glass. The radiation source is some Uranium ore.
Please excuse the poor picture quality, I'm already a little late for work.
To clarify, this is purely to show that glass will attenuate particle radiation. The Uranium is a source of beta particles (electrons) and some gamma rays as it decays. The probe will not detect Alpha particles (helium nuclei) but as they are stopped by as little as paper they are not relevant to this.
This is not supposed to be representative of the specific quantities of radiation in space or of the amount of glass required on Apollo. To reiterate - this is to demonstrate the radiation attenuating properties of standard glass (forgetting that on Apollo it was not even standard glass).



As you can see the glass has a highly significant effect in blocking the radiation.




edit on 13-9-2010 by AgentSmith because: Corrected image error



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
As for the whole thing with the window ... That's an easily investigated phenomenon on Earth. If you're sure the glass etc ... used would have no hope of blocking the radiation this should be easily proven in a physical experiment? Perhaps if you visit a local university? Talk to some of the physicists there? Come back with what they say? Talk some media students into filming it with you? If that's all it takes to prove your point it would be huge.

Honestly, if I felt any of this held water and it was this easy to prove I'd be rushing to my nearest TV studio and preparing myself to be showered with money and fend of CIA assassins perhaps.

I really haven't seen a question that people have failed to answer for you on this topic. When you bring one up they do get answered almost immediately.


Then lets get right to it.
You say that
"I really haven't seen a question that people have failed to answer for you on this topic."

yet you tell me to
"As for the whole thing with the window ... That's an easily investigated phenomenon on Earth. If you're sure the glass etc ... used would have no hope of blocking the radiation this should be easily proven in a physical experiment? Perhaps if you visit a local university?"

Thats your answer to my question about the CM window?
Go run an experiment?
What does that answer imply?
What are you REALLY saying between the lines?

Now go back and show me anywhere in this thread an irrefutable answer to my question about the windows.
Saying a window is thick and therefore should sufficiently block interstellar radiation is not an answer.
It is a supposition based on what? And if I ask, "why should I take your word on it?"
The usual response, if there is any, is similar to

"Or you could just get an education..... Some of us have to pay a lot of money for it, why should you get it for free? " (AgentSmith)

Here is one, the blue glow around the astronauts in the photos.
Recently "answers" came back as smudges.
Yes, I got an answer quickly, but is that really an answer?

I wonder, since you work in visual effects would accept an answer like that?
You should be able to easily see if a picture had a lens smudge, or if a picture had a visual effects anomaly.
Knowing that smudges should obscure, distort and blur the images.
And this is not the case with the Blue Astronauts.

I'm surprised you havent gone after that one.
Can you substantiate smudges as an irrefutable answer?
Would accept that as an answer?
Or is that answer merely an opinion?
And if so, why dont you tell Apollo defenders "...Perhaps if you visit a local university?"

You see, there is this mindset that regardless what answer is given by an Apollo Defender.
It should be accepted as fact and a debunk.

"we have answered all your questions Apollo denier, why aren't you satisfied?"

Its not about finding the truth, its about defending Apollo at any costs.
Is that what you are all about PINKE?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Part of the problem is that some people seem to believe that making a post in reply to a question is the same as actually answering the question.

I believe this may be intentional.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
As you seem to have a problem with the fact that glass can block radiation Foos, I quickly did this experiment for you this morning so you can see for yourself. To reiterate - this is to demonstrate the radiation attenuating properties of standard glass (forgetting that on Apollo it was not even standard glass).



As you can see the glass has a highly significant effect in blocking the radiation.



Thats all when and fine, but If the roles were reversed and I presented you this experiment, you would say
what does that have to do with the radiation found in interstellar space? And where are the tests that showed NASA knew their glass was capable of blocking such radiation? We all know it was great as a heat shield, but radiation? Was it thick enough, was it the correct composition?

That goes for the LM and the helmets of the Astronauts themselves.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   
It was a dark and stormy night, as FoosM vouched safe:

I told you that there is a possibility that the one and only returned hasselblad went to that museum.
Anyway, I think I have definitive proof they have or had the Apollo 14 Hasselblad.
I await a certain poster's apology.




Is the 'certain poster' me, FoosM? Why do you play games - why not come out and say what you mean? And why did you not post this earlier, and why did you not answer the question about relevance to this thread?

This, if true, certainly deserves a thread of its own. The story of how it got there, and why sources from NASA thru wiki thru Hasselblad are seemingly unaware of it may well be interesting.

FTR, and as I mentioned earlier, I *really* hope this is true. I'll be going to kansas asap!!

Now, as for the apology - here you go (I'm even prepared to give this without actually verifying the camera's existence at that site (but I will be doing that next)):

FoosM, I am sorry for suggesting that you were incorrect on the topic of a lunar surface camera that was returned to earth.

There you go, no provisos, just a simple sorry. It's easy (mebbe you should try it?). And I'll happily congratulate you on finding it, if it was in fact you that did the hard yards. So I do have one further question - what was your original source for the existence of this camera at that oddly named museum? After all, I presume you wouldn't want to take credit for it - if someone else told you about it. I'd like to raise this issue elsewhere (not the least of which being Hasselblad, so they can correct their information, as well as have an additional note added to the ALSJ, corrections to the wiki, etc..). But I would like to give *appropriate credit*.

So, are you the 'uncoverer'?

ADDED - Ah, you do not have to answer that question. My initial enquiries have revealed that this was uncovered some time ago by others, but for some reason nobody has bothered to try get the record corrected.




edit on 13-9-2010 by CHRLZ because: dang typewriter left some words out. need a new one



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Thats all when and fine, but If the roles were reversed and I presented you this experiment, you would say
what does that have to do with the radiation found in interstellar space? And where are the tests that showed NASA knew their glass was capable of blocking such radiation? We all know it was great as a heat shield, but radiation? Was it thick enough, was it the correct composition?

That goes for the LM and the helmets of the Astronauts themselves.


Yes, it's all about you, not facts. Your question about the windows has been answered in principle. If you bring it up again, please provide calculations to prove that the specific alumino-silicate glass was insufficient to block the radiation levels experienced on the actual missions... otherwise you will be considered petulant and childish and be ignored. Why do you keep forgetting that you are the one trying to prove something here? If you have facts to support your case, why don't you bring them to the table?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



Part of the problem is that some people seem to believe that making a post in reply to a question is the same as actually answering the question.

I believe this may be intentional.


Brilliantly self-referential. Please provide a specific example of someone in this thread, other than FoosM and yourself, doing this.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 188  189  190    192  193  194 >>

log in

join