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: 203
377
<< 200  201  202    204  205  206 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Looks like a similar effect as shown on Mythbusters:





posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


How can you trust one thing they say when they have been caught misleading red handed.
It's all here. So please, do some research and don't use the busted 'mythbusters' to try and prove we went to the moon, or anything else for that matter.

edit: the confrontation starts at 3.40, but it's better to watch the whole thing for context.




edit on 24-9-2010 by ppk55 because: changed 'lying' to 'misleading + added 3.40 start time for confrontation.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


I trust the methods used to carry out the experiment I linked to, it doesn't matter who carried it out if the science is sound right?

Speaking of which I notice Jarrah is misleading too, big surprise?

I haven't found where Jarrah has sourced the articles he shows in the above video but here's what one says:


...The beams illuminated a spot less than 2 miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment...


The first experiment done with the laser pointing at the Lunar highlands is basically the exact same experiment carried out in the 60's, all you get back is scattered light reflecting off the moon.

The second experiment shows that with the reflectors on the moon, they can bounce the laser straight back without all the scatter.

Jarrah's argument is a strawman!

Your argument is a strawman!






edit on 24/9/10 by Chadwickus because: (reason classified)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
it doesn't matter who carried it out if the science is sound right?


Well let's get elmo to carry it out.


Originally posted by Chadwickus
all you get back is scattered light reflecting off the moon.


Which ever method you use, you get scattered light back.


Originally posted by ChadwickusYour argument is a strawman!


You quoted the mythbusters to disprove how fake the 'far UV' camera looks on the previous page.
I pointed out that you are quoting a discredited source.

Also, In case anyone was wondering just how easy it would be to fake being on the moon, check this out.



edit: notice the horizon, it looks exactly like apollo, there's not much of it. Based on the size of the moon, don't you think you'd see a little more horizon in the apollo series of photos. Time to start brushing up on the trigonometry.


edit on 24-9-2010 by ppk55 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


More strawman arguments and bloody hell do you jump around all over the place, I knew there was a reason I left this thread weeks (months?) ago!

By posting that Rammstein clip, you are suggesting that there was CGI and green screen technology around in the 60's.

How can you compare 2000's technology with 1960's technology??

Posting that video is blatant advertising that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You may as well put a big neon sign over your head stating that you haven't a clue.





posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
How can you compare 2000's technology with 1960's technology??


Easy in 1969 we apparently went to the moon. In 2010 we have nothing on the launchpad that can do it.

Also if you'd bothered to read my comments about why I posted that clip above perhaps you wouldn't be so defensive.

Note to you: take time to read posts properly before responding.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


I read all of the post, they're standing in front of a green screen of either a computer regeneration of the lunar landscape or maybe even an actual panoramic of the lunar landscape.

It proves nothing.


jra

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Oh dear, they didn't set it up very well then. Look at all that light still hitting it.


Where's a face/palm emoticon when you need one. You do understand how light works and how it reflects off the surrounding lunar surface and illuminates the shiny gold camera right?


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 ?


Since you like videos so much. May I recommend this great series called "Moon Machines"? Here's one episode specifically on the Lunar Rover and how it was stored inside the LM.

Here is Moon Machines: The Lunar Rover part 1of5



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm not some "old dude" raving about technology (in case you're wondering, I am born of the "Sputnik" era. Look it up...) ...who grew up with Science Fiction stories


I would suggest dear sir that you are contaminated with the emotion of the alleged event. I'm not being disrespectful, just honest. It is only people born after this event that have been developing a clear mind about this supposed moon landing and that can see it objectively.

You have to admit, you probably were tainted by the extreme emotion of the event and time and can't really see it objectively.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



It is only people born after this event that have been developing a clear mind about this supposed moon landing and that can see it objectively.


It's only people born after the fact that have been spared the countless political debates, detailed media coverage, high school science projects and late night satellite spotting that can be so willfully ignorant of what was actually happening. Sorry you never got to witness a rocket lifting off from the cape. Sorry you never got to go out in the twilight to spot a space capsule glittering in the purple sky. Sorry you never learned about orbital mechanics in High School. Sorry you never got to see all the political cartoons of poor, starving inner city children looking mournfully at fat, bloated astronauts. Sorry you missed Senator Proxmire's continual attacks. Sorry you missed Robert A Heinlein's testifying in Congress that he owed his life to a silicon heart valve made possible by NASA research... I'm truly sorry for you. To you, the greatest accomplishment of the human race is nothing but a handful of old photographs. Ah well, so long as you have your X-box, who needs reality?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


What a load of hooey!!!

No, it isn't just because I was ALIVE at the time. There are millions of others who were not yet born who, upon reading/watching all of this crap "hoax" nonsense just laugh at the deniers too.

It is truly, truly sad when someone who has so much potential (as we all have) wastes it by NOT using their brains and minds properly. It isn't much different from blind religious "beliefs", in that regard......

The "hoax" junk stems from a LACK of comprehension of science and technology, and a MIS-identification of things seen; and this basic lack allows the "pseudo"-science claptrap to sound 'convincing' to those who haven't been thoroughly educated, yet, in matters of science and technology.

The good news is, even the average person can be educated, eventually. The facts are all there, plain and simple to see and research. The "hoax" believers have NO facts on their 'side' ---- at all. As evidenced over and over again, in threads like these, and on the many and varied websites that exist to help DISPEL so many misconceptions.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by ppk55
 


Looks like a similar effect as shown on Mythbusters:



I cant believe educated people, with degrees in science and technology poo poo all over
JW's experiments but accept this well financed crap like babies craving crack laced pablum.

Did the Myth Busters state what film type they used? ASA? F-stop? Shutter speed?

And look at the size of the camera compared to the model. Thats not a realistic situation!
JW's version was also not realistic, so Im not going to defend him on that one either.

Not only that, they barely let the viewer see the differences between the two pictures.
But from the brief moment I already noticed that their photo showed distinct differences that basically indicated that they their experiment FAILED.

Another very serious point with that photo series is that Aldrin was IN MOTION but there was NO MOTION BLUR!! Thats impossible unless there as a flash used or some super high ASA. And I swear to gadallmightee none of you will touch that point. Prove me wrong:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Both of Aldrin's feet are airborne which means he is in motion.
Armstrong is leaning back for the shot and not using a tripod.
His camera is probably attached on his chest, in other words his breathing will create motion.
His subject is in SHADOW, yet the photo also has correctly exposed the bright ground.


So... explain away. The lack of motion blur, and for being able to correctly expose for the regolith and Aldrin in the shadow.

*goes to grab the popcorn*



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Rammstein Amerika ... Higher resolution version here: www.youtube.com...

Amidst the other issues with it are gravity fail at the 45 second mark. Plus the logic you're using doesn't work in this case. This is no more logical than me saying that we invented fighter planes in the 1800s. I mean it was only 50 years before, so fighter planes were probably around in the 1800s?

You seem to think that film as an art form hasn't really changed or come on much in the last many decades ... There's books on the history of visual effects etc ... they are worth reading. There were known problems with the compositing processes back then. Handling things like light bouncing and reflections were incredibly difficult (read impossible). They had a hard enough time getting a back ground behind a character to look acceptable never mind having light interact correctly. Have a look at 'Where Eagles Dare' during the snow scenes and the lift fight scenes. It gives an idea of how far behind not just the technology was, but the artists also.

As for the photo comparison videos from FoosM ... they're fake. Those artifacts do not exist on the majority of available moon photos. But what's the point??? FoosM will just say NASA changed them.

Side note: I never saw the moon landing.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

He did see stars.

COLLINS: Day 4 has a decidedly different feel to it. Instead of nine hours' sleep, I get seven -- and fitful ones at that. Despite our concentrated effort to conserve our energy on the way to the Moon, the pressure is overtaking us (or me at least), and I feel that all of us are aware that the honeymoon is over and we are about to lay our little pink bodies on the line... To begin with it is huge, completely filling our window. Second, it is three-dimensional.... To add to the dramatic effect, we can see the stars again. We are in the shadow of the Moon now, and the elusive stars have reappeared.

( Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, edited by Edgar M. Cortright,
NASA SP; 350, Washington, DC, 1975 )



You want to use a quote from a (book) published in 1975 over a quote soon after their so called experience on the moon as evidence. Thats what you want us readers to do. You dont think after that fiasco during the press conference somebody coached him? DUH!

COLLINS: I don't remember seeing any.

LOL.

Why did he even answer? Was he on the moon?



Basically Collins panicked and didnt want to be asked about seeing stars from the CM especially from the dark side of the moon.

Neil did say: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye

Neil left Collins wide open for a follow up question.

Google Video Link





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



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

His camera is probably attached on his chest, in other words his breathing will create motion.


His breathing will create motion blur? He is breathing through his space suit? This is confusing.

Motion blur ... relies on shutter speed and tonnes of other stuff ... you haven't actually given a point to touch. And just say you're right why would they avoid motion blur? What possible reason would there be for that? Anyway, sticking to my guns on this and not taking the bait.

Spaghetti monster exists ... prove me wrong!



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

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.


Thats right, because you can provide us access to it right? And Kevin G is lying to us right?




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.


Yes we have, and because you seem to have a short memory, lets refresh it:


On Tuesday, 13 May 1969, the Minister of Supply,Senator Ken Anderson, and the Minister for Educationand Science, Mr Malcolm Fraser, released a joint state-ment in Canberra announcing the Parkes Observatory’sinvolvement in the Apollo 11 mission.From 9 to 12 June 1969, AWA technicians arrived at the Observatory to begin installing the microwave equipment on the east-west service tower. They then returned on 1 July to continue the installation and testing of the equipment, staying until the end of the mission.



At the same time PMG technicians, working under the Divisional Engineer, Mr W. Nankivell, began installing the communications network using existing telephone circuits between the telescope and the Beargamil and Alectown exchanges.



On 23 June 1969, a four-man team of NASA engineers arrived in Parkes to install the Unified S-band front-end receiving and monitoring equipment. The equipment suffered a few breakages during transport from the US, but these were repaired shortly after arriving at Parkes. The team was led by the Operations Manager, Mr Robert Taylor. The other three engineers were Mr Alfred Stella,Mr George Kropp, and Mr William Reytar (see Figure 9).Their task was to receive, record and relay the full set of voice, television, telemetry, and biomedical signals to Houston.


Now wait... what did you just say?



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.


Hmmmm.....



a four-man team of NASA engineers arrived in Parkes to install the Unified S-band front-end receiving and monitoring equipment.


So... your are saying NASA was not in control. They put in the communication equipment that allowed Apollo to communicate with Parkes, they (NASA) monitored that same equipment... yet you are saying that Parkes was in control. OK, whatever.



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.


Yep, I proved two major proton events occurred during Apollo. What have you done?




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?




Obviously they didnt care about the five major flares during Apollo 12, so whether or not they did monitor for them, it didnt matter did it.

history.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

His camera is probably attached on his chest, in other words his breathing will create motion.


His breathing will create motion blur? He is breathing through his space suit? This is confusing.

Motion blur ... relies on shutter speed and tonnes of other stuff ... you haven't actually given a point to touch. And just say you're right why would they avoid motion blur? What possible reason would there be for that? Anyway, sticking to my guns on this and not taking the bait.

Spaghetti monster exists ... prove me wrong!



The Spaghetti monster can very well exist in your mind.
But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Explain to me how you can recreate that picture I linked.
What shutter speed, ASA, etc.

A person is hopping down the ladder in shadow.
To capture that person without showing any motion blur, and exposing for both the foreground and background what would you do?

What settings would you choose on your camera?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



To capture that person without showing any motion blur, and exposing for both the foreground and background what would you do?

What settings would you choose on your camera?


Since nobody cares about the background, I wouldn't worry about over-exposing it. Given that the Earth is four times wider in the lunar sky than the Moon is from Earth, and that it has a much higher albedo, I'd estimate that you're looking at a "fill light" sixteen times brighter than a full moon. At ISO 100, f/1.4, say about 1/500 of a second. Based on your experience in photography, how much motion blur would you expect to see? .



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Foos, why don't you actually go study something, read about reality, and then get back to us.

I'll make popcorn:

www.xmission.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit....making a lot of popcorn, so here're some more homework assignments for you (in no particular order):

history.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Now then.....I expect you will be spending some time, curled up and reading. Take all weekend, class is not re-scheduled until Monday.

Extra credit IF you wish: Write an essay, about 100-200 words should be enough --- "Why I, 'FoosM,' am wrong about Apollo".

Oh, and this too....for extra extra credit: en.wikipedia.org...

Good luck.






edit on 24 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Links



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Both of Aldrin's feet are airborne which means he is in motion.
Armstrong is leaning back for the shot and not using a tripod.
His camera is probably attached on his chest, in other words his breathing will create motion.
His subject is in SHADOW, yet the photo also has correctly exposed the bright ground.


So... explain away. The lack of motion blur, and for being able to correctly expose for the regolith and Aldrin in the shadow.

*goes to grab the popcorn*
The camera was generally set at a shutter speed of 1/250th of a second and the aperture for that photo was set at f/5.6. At 1/250th, a slow moving person coming down a ladder is not going to blur.

They even had nifty guides stuck to the cameras to help pick the aperture to shoot at:





top topics



 
377
<< 200  201  202    204  205  206 >>

log in

join