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: 202
377
<< 199  200  201    203  204  205 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Also note that the probe takes photos and develops the negatives right away.
Why is that? To minimize radiation damage of course! Im curious why they didnt build such a system in the LM. Drop in the magazines, develop the photos and let them be scanned and sent to Earth.

No.
It's because the Lunar Orbiters did not return to Earth.
"Drop in the magazines". Brilliant. Another demonstration of a complete lack of understanding or any interest in developing any. For a while there you were at least putting some effort into it.
astrogeology.usgs.gov...



edit on 9/23/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by FoosM


And we cant get in our modern age detailed photos of the LM and other junk on the lunar surface?




Well NASA's technology has a decent resolution. The LRO images have higher res than the public Lunar Orbiter images.

But no one else's image technology can see the Apollo artifacts. Only NASA can do that.



Hmmm... your right:


However, Chandrayaan’s camera could not capture the images of footprint left behind by the first astronaut on moon, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, because of its low resolution capability, he said.

Chauhan said that such an image is possible for a Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter armed with high resolution camera launched into space by NASA.

www.impactlab.net...

lol



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Exuberant1
But no one else's image technology can see the Apollo artifacts. Only NASA can do that.


Does India not count all of a sudden?



Post pics of the Apollo artifacts which were taken by the Indian probe. Do so for three of the alleged Apollo landing sites.

I demand it of you.

If you can't, then India must not count. Or something.


India's 21st century tech cant compete NASA's mid 20th century tech.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 



Also note that the probe takes photos and develops the negatives right away.
Why is that? To minimize radiation damage of course! Im curious why they didnt build such a system in the LM. Drop in the magazines, develop the photos and let them be scanned and sent to Earth.

No.
It's because the Lunar Orbiters did not return to Earth.
"Drop in the magazines". Brilliant. Another demonstration of a complete lack of understanding or any interest in developing any. For a while there you were at least putting some effort into it.
astrogeology.usgs.gov...



edit on 9/23/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)




Right... how many (NASA) probes and crafts managed to return to Earth prior to Apollo?



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Why? It would not have contributed anything toward the goal.



First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

Why? It would not have contributed anything toward the goal.



First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.



and returning him safely to the Earth.




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Based on YOUR last four posts, it seems that MY post from two pages back deserves a repeat:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

....and, I have another one, about embarrasing yourself. Several more pages back. Remember??



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



In other words, the Soviets could not track Apollo in space unless Apollo was volunteering the information.
The same goes with Soviet probes.


Correct. And since it transmitted non-stop, the Russians were able to track it all the way to the Moon, as they themselves have claimed.


Kevin Gallegos discusses questions raised by John Saxon on the data of Apollo 11, It appears that the Data itself was closely guarded by NASA agents in the TV room. No one could ask questions as they had to simply do their own job. It appears much was hidden, the TV stream came from a hole in the wall... no one knew really what was going on, as you listen to this very interesting interview...




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

You don't have to know what is in the data stream to track its source.
It goes "beep beep beep". It's coming from right there.



edit on 9/23/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DJW001
 

You forgot this one:
"The astronauts didn't go to the Moon because they didn't say they saw stars on the nightside of the moon."
"The astronauts are liars because they say they saw stars on the nightside of the moon."


edit on 9/21/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)




New clear evidence from USSR Zond & Luna missions, that Many Stars are visible, In just about all photos from NASA there are no Stars, could it be to hide the constellation ? we think so, even though in some images there maybe 1 or 2 stars, never above 2 or 3 you will see in Nasa images Yet hundreds are found in USSR images.
This conclusively proves that much editing has taken place to provide as much consistency with any NASA image.



Care to dispute?



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Stars huh? I wonder why some of them are streaked and some aren't.
Maybe because they aren't stars.

As with many Soviet space images, generation loss prevents us from seeing the original quality. Most Lunokhod images are derived from scanning printed images or second-generation film copies. Each stage of photography, printing and scanning introduces noise, nonlinear brighness mapping, and (worst of all) clamping to white or black. The images below only hint at the appearance of the original video signal.


Hey look! Stars in the shadow too!

www.mentallandscape.com...

MHBs are boneheads.


edit on 9/23/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

Stars huh? I wonder why some of them are streaked and some aren't.
Maybe because they aren't stars.

Hey look! Stars in the shadow too!

www.mentallandscape.com...

MHBs are boneheads.


edit on 9/23/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



I dont know about you, but Im glad I got bone protecting my brain.
What are you, a jellyhead?


Anyway, come right out and say it.
Do any of those photos show stars or not?



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Well im glad you brought up the Russian moon probes.If you look at good scans not the ones in that video which has been scanned dozens of times. Youd notice some things one being that when they took photos in shadow guess what it was not black and you could see clearly in shadow.That whole light bouncing off the moon backlighting objects thing. Another in there images there is no stars they even took an image of the earth just like Nasa and no stars(what you see in that video is fragments from scanning multiple times theres better images out there go take a look youll see theres no stars).

Oh and 1 more Nasa brought back moon samples where you aware the Russians did too? Now dont you think if Nasa faked the moon samples the Russians would notice it didnt match theres?????????
I guess the only explanation for that would be the Russians faked there probes too. So now the conspiracy gets larger.


jra

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Do any of those photos show stars or not?


I would have to say no. It is physically impossible to take photos with day time exposure settings and be able to have stars appear in the images. Even the best cameras today can not do it.

I seriously recommend that you pick up a camera and play around with it. Learn how they work.

If those were really stars in the video that you posted, then why didn't they mention which stars they were? But no, they just claim they see stars and that's the end of it. No further research...



edit on 24-9-2010 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Show Me the Mon.... Stars!

Surveyor
Other data provided by Surveyor VI include pictures of a bar magnet installed on a footpad
to determine the concentration of magnetic material in the lunar surface;

views of the stars

, Earth, and the solar corona; lunar-surface temperatures up to 41 hours after sunset;


Table 3-7 lists the camera attitude in seleno-
graphic coordinates for each successful mission.

The attitude was derived from observations of
the stars and planets

. Table 3-8 lists the combined spacecraft attitudes for each mission from the three sources of data, gyro error, A/SPP position, and television camera observations. The relationship of the angles of space- craft geometry .


Star and planetary observations

with the television camera will yield an attitude matrix


Pictures of stars were taken

during each mission to measure the orientation of the camera



So where are they? I haven't seen any photos of stars before.

Luna:
Two other cameras were oriented for 360° vertical panoramas of 500 × 6000 pixels,

including images of the sky for star locations.



Dont tell me it wasn't possible to take pictures of stars with the Apollo missions or that the astronauts could not see them with their naked eyes.

And yes, I do believe that the Soviets faked a lot of their space adventures as well.
This is why there is conflicting information & missing information.

So either its possible to take pictures of stars or its not.
NASA and the Russian space program cant have it both ways.


www.mentallandscape.com...
ntrs.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

You do realize that the Moon rotates right? You do realize that the surveyors rotated into the night side of the Moon, right?

You do realize that I showed you quotes showing that stars were seen on the nightside by the astronauts. Oh, but those are lies. They didn't see them, they just lied about it and that proves that they lied about it because you said that they said they didn't see any stars. Read the transcripts. Do some real research. Put it together rather than just looking for sound bites that back up your stupid position.

Read your own damned quote.

Earth, and the solar corona; lunar-surface temperatures up to 41 hours after sunset;


Are you now claiming that there were no unmanned landings either?


edit on 9/24/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Can I ask why people are 'arguing' with someone who doesn't even know that cameras have adjustable exposures?

Anyone?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

You want star pictures? Here you go. Apollo 16. Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph.
Pictures taken of the stars. But the catch is there is no Sun and no lunar surface. You see, with the Sun or the lunar surface in the picture, it messes up the exposure. The camera was set up in the shade of the LM.

The same problem with eyes. They get used to the bright light and cannot see dim stars. This is getting to be a very dead horse.
www3.telus.net...
Note the exposure times required to get the images.

How're you doing on that SPE? Not so good I guess since you've reverted to this level of idiocy.


edit on 9/24/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Kevin Gallegos discusses questions raised by John Saxon on the data of Apollo 11, It appears that the Data itself was closely guarded by NASA agents in the TV room. No one could ask questions as they had to simply do their own job. It appears much was hidden, the TV stream came from a hole in the wall... no one knew really what was going on, as you listen to this very interesting interview...




uhuh

i guess it matters not that the CSIRO, not NASA, built the feed horns used for the s-band receivers at the Parkes telescope. Which was not a NASA installation. And had the press filming the direct feed from Apollo as it was received. The projected telemetry was known beforehand so Parkes could track it. The idea that all this data was hidden and secret is absolute hokum.

We've gone over this load of rubbish before. Once again you are bringing back dead topics because you have no answers to what is being discussed.

And i was spot on about your SPE posts. Some low level data, some sematics and trying somehow to 'prove' NASA lied. All without anything to back you up. Well done, your reality must be an interesting place.

oh, and BTW here's another non-NASA operation that may interest you:


The CSIRO Radiophysics Division’s Culgoora radioheliograph,
near the town of Narrabri in northern NSW,
was used to observe the Sun and warn NASA of impending
solar flares. Because the astronauts would be outside
the protection of the Earth’s radiation belts, a sudden eruption
of a solar flare could expose the astronauts to lethal
doses of radiation. The radioheliograph would give them
sufficient warning to abandon the EVA and return to the
relative safety of the LM.


No one was monitoring the flares huh?


edit on 24-9-2010 by zvezdar because: remove silly youtube vid from quote



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Here you go. Apollo 16. Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph.


I'm glad you brought this up. Here is the alleged camera.



Looks photoshopped in to me.


Originally posted by Phage
You see, with the Sun or the lunar surface in the picture, it messes up the exposure. The camera was set up in the shade of the LM.


Oh dear, they didn't set it up very well then. Look at all that light still hitting it.

ALSO, how did they manage to fit the lunar rover in + this quite bulky camera when it says in the apollo lunar surface journal, that the weight of a TV camera was cause for concern ?

edit: and yes, yes I'm quite aware they didn't have photoshop then, it's just an expression.
Rather, the image was altered / adjusted ... 'enhanced'.


edit on 24-9-2010 by ppk55 because: photoshop analogy + weight question



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 199  200  201    203  204  205 >>

log in

join