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: 205
377
<< 202  203  204    206  207  208 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

All right.
So we have to add "Motion Blur" to the list of expressions, FoosM does not know.
Since you have trouble grasping the concept of "longer", that does not suprise me much.
There is no motion blur in those photos.
Some parts are out of focus.


Actually, in two pictures there is some blur of the fingers of the guitarist. Having a son who plays, I can attest his fingers move a lot quicker than anything on the moon. But as you can see from the soccer picture, there isn't any blur to speak of during an action shot. So I can't see why this is even a discussion.

Foos, please give a link to a picture that should show blur but doesn't.




posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

The "photo in question" was taken on SO-168. (Note the magazine number:40) Like all of the surface color photographs.
www.archive.org...

The color film used by all the LM crews was SO-168 (HCEX) Ektachrome EF, high-speed color reversal film, ASA 160.

www.hq.nasa.gov...
That's a fine choice for multi-purpose color film. Excellent color with a fine grain.

But that isn't relevant to subject motion, shutter speed is all that matters. Do you honestly believe that Aldrin was moving as fast as a guitarists fingers and hands? I don't see any motion blur in your third example.


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




I originally thought it also was SO-168, thats why I used the 160 ASA examples.
However, when I double checked

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Which makes me wonder if they actually used 250 or 125.


a shutter speed of 1/125 second. This was the typical shutter setting for Apollo photography
.
www.clavius.org...



So LPI disagrees with you.
So feel free to inform them they are wrong.
If they are not... and you are not...
well I call shenanigans. LOL.



Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

He probably set the camera at f/8 for cross-sun
He almost certainly had the camera at f/5.6 for those photos given 1) the depth of field and 2) that the directions printed on the camera say "LM in Shadow - 5.6."


I was debating whether or not it was 5.6 or not.
When I checked CLAVIUS they stated:



Shutter speeds were typically 1/125 or 1/250 second. F-stop settings varied from f/5.6 for up-sun photos to f/8 and f/11 for cross-sun and down-sun photos.



An orientation for photography in which the sun is in front of the photographer and the subject is backlit. This frequently results in strong glare on the photograph.


Well I dont think that was the case with that photo. But if you think there is a better case for 5.6, fine by me.


www.clavius.org...
www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Since you've admitted a shutter speed of 1/250 will properly stop motion without blur, what exactly is your point Foos?



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Thanks, but I think I'll take the directions *printed on the actual film rolls* over what Clavius says. And besides, Clavius disagrees with itself:

www.clavius.org...

In general the shutter speed was left at 1/250 second and the f-stop was set between f/5.6 and f/11 as needed for various lighting angles. Great care was taken to simplify the photographic operations.


That picture was almost certainly taken at f/5.6, 1/250th.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM
 


Thanks, but I think I'll take the directions *printed on the actual film rolls* over what Clavius says. And besides, Clavius disagrees with itself:

www.clavius.org...

In general the shutter speed was left at 1/250 second and the f-stop was set between f/5.6 and f/11 as needed for various lighting angles. Great care was taken to simplify the photographic operations.


That picture was almost certainly taken at f/5.6, 1/250th.


One stop either way makes very little difference. The "argument" is a non-starter.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
*snip*
I originally thought it also was SO-168, thats why I used the 160 ASA examples.
However, when I double checked

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Which makes me wonder if they actually used 250 or 125.
*snip*


This reads like you're confusing ASA with shutter speed. If that's the case you should know that ASA is the same as ISO. It's film sensitivity, not shutter speed.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Some people have been wondering how Apollo could have been tracked to the moon.
Here is a theory:



Even though this video appears to be a ridicule, it also holds true many peoples beliefs around the moon landings. Most weather balloon operators that use VHF transponders would understand that it certainly would not have been difficult to circle around the earth in a stealth fashion. The above theory provides the concept that the LEM itself went on to the moon via remote control, as previously done with the surveyors, it had landed, relaunched via remote control perrished back onto the moons surface ( as promoted by NASA). As for the walk video production, they had cut to Nevada for pre recorded shots of the moon walk & live discussions were held in the capsule orbiting the earth.




Pre & post TLI this video explains how the astronauts circled the earth & let the LM go on to the moon, its the only possible way they could have done it with very little risk & 100% chance of coming back a success for all America to see. The LM itself went on to the moon via remote control the same way the Surveyors did from 1966 to 1969, You can see the LMs on the moon, however they are damaged, The returning LRO images will never be clear enough to show the Rovers, because they simply are not there. This video also concludes the fact that there is no sufficient Pre Apollo Bio test data available online, does this mean these tests came back with unfavorable results? THE USSR zond program revealed their tests... & not all were very convincing.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Foos, since you've completely changed the subject (again), can we safely assume you're admitting the shutter speeds we are discussing would not show motion blur under normal usage?



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


This cover up is starting to get more complicated and harder to do than actually going to the moon. I am starting to wonder what achievement would be greater, going to the moon or faking it.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Is there something contaminating the water supply in Sydney???


Foos, you've outdone even yourself in stupidity. Excelled at it, actually......IF you find any merit whatsoever in either of those ridiculous videos (the first one only has value as a skit, a joke anyway....comments by YouTuber "NASAvsPETE" are childishly simpleminded).

Anyone who takes that crap seriously for even half a second is a few forks short of a full set of cutlery.

Oh, and the LM could NOT BE CONTROLLED BY REMOTE!!!


Look it up, for chrissakes!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And, you haven't done your homework yet?? I am afraid I am worried about your final grade. You will be kept back and have to repeat third grade if you don't pass this semester.





edit on 25 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Spell



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by FoosM
 


This cover up is starting to get more complicated and harder to do than actually going to the moon. I am starting to wonder what achievement would be greater, going to the moon or faking it.


I take it, plb, you didn't see this, posted earlier in the thread..


Indeed, faking it in such a way that would fool generations of scientists and engineers (as against a few ignorant pretenders on conspiracy boards) would be FAR more difficult - can you imagine the *extra* coordination of the departments, the data telemetry, the agreements with Russia/Australia/etc regarding telemetry, the irradiation of rocks to fool every earth-bound geologist, the craft required to go to the Moon to provide the directional radio signals/tv broadcasts, etc.. Why, they even had to rig a baseball game result, and some other local events...

Only an ignoramus could conceive of such an immensely pointless, and bound-to-be-uncovered, exercise. And 90% of the missions would have to be properly designed and built anyway, the saturn V had to be launched, there would have to be one very large mission, if not several, to place items on the Moon.. so why not just.. go?

And only the cowards of this new generation can't quite grasp the pioneering spirit - it still exists in a lot of places... The funny part is to look at those who are regarded as the 'references' - all proven liars and fakers, from Kaysing to Sibrel to Jack White.. (I don't include little Jarrah, as he is just a whiny-voiced copycat without a clue of his own. At least the others came up with a few original ideas.)

But, as Jarrah White proves - there is always someone more ignorant, waiting to be fooled.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Foos just keeps pointing at stuff and without providing any background data or information says ... prove this to me!

He then watches everyone scurry around to provide the very base level facts to him whilst he taunts and looks for minor mistakes in people's paragraphs upon paragraphs of information. Sometimes they're not even mistakes, they're just sentences taken extremely out of context.

There's some English phrase for this ... I can't remember it. The recent motion blur tauntings are a perfect example of this. It just seems he and others will do anything to keep a thread going even if it means bringing up already discussed evidence or pointing at some random part of reality and demanding an explanation for it.

This won't end until someone passes away of natural causes.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
You do understand how light works and how it reflects off the surrounding lunar surface and illuminates the shiny gold camera right?

Well obviously nasa doesn't, otherwise why would they take this hugely expensive, extremely heavy, extremely sensitive far UV camera and then just let the results be washed away by stray light ?

Apart from the fact that it looks composited in, couldn't they have a afforded just one c-stand...


...and a cutter instead of having to rely on the shade of the LM ?

Actually, instead of spending 1 hour all up setting up the flag, they could have used the flag pole and attached the cutter to that. This is basic, basic stuff in the film world.


jra

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Well obviously nasa doesn't, otherwise why would they take this hugely expensive, extremely heavy, extremely sensitive far UV camera and then just let the results be washed away by stray light ?


What's your source for the cost of this thing? And you think 22kg is "extremely heavy"?

And I don't see how the light reflecting on the surface could affect the results. Have you even seen the UV photos? Clearly there was no issue.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Would you PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH!!!???!!!

www.lpi.usra.edu...


The Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph was carried on Apollo 16. It used a 3-inch telescope to obtain images and spectra at wavelengths between 500 and 1600 Angstroms; (visible light corresponds to wavelengths of 4000-7000 Angstroms).



www.opticsinfobase.org...


A far-ultraviolet camera/speqtrograph experiment was designed and constructed for studies of the terrestrial upper atmosphere and geocorona, the interplanetary medium, and celestial objects from the lunar surface. The experiment was successfully operated during the Apollo 16 mission 21–23 April 1972. Discussed are the design and operating principles of the instrument, the actual events and operations during the Apollo 16 mission, and also anomalies encountered and suggested improvements for future experiments of this type. This experiment demonstrated the utility of the electronographic technique in space astronomy, as well as the great potential of the lunar surface as a base for astronomical observations.


WHAT THE "FRAK" is wrong with you people?????



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Well obviously nasa doesn't, otherwise why would they take this hugely expensive, extremely heavy, extremely sensitive far UV camera and then just let the results be washed away by stray light ?


Could you please be a little more specific as to what you are talking about here? Please use numbers to back up your assertions (extremely heavy, etc.)


Apart from the fact that it looks composited in, couldn't they have a afforded just one c-stand...


Who cares what you think it looks like? And why would they have wasted weight on a c-stand?



...and a cutter instead of having to rely on the shade of the LM ?


Again, why?


Actually, instead of spending 1 hour all up setting up the flag, they could have used the flag pole and attached the cutter to that. This is basic, basic stuff in the film world.


Which proves nicely we aren't dealing with film experts, so it was obviously not shot on a film stage. Thanks for disproving one of the main points of the HBs.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
From what I got from this tread, the point is “anything pertain to appolo moon landing photos can be explained”. In case you find strange/anomalous photographs, that doesn’t mean that they are fake. CMIIW.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by maya2
 


You have three posts Maya2. They are all in this thread. Why don't you visit the rest of the forum?

And any proper nailed down theory has had some kind of answer from what I've seen.

Having a dodgy photoshop and requesting people do a pile of maths is not a point or theory. You're asking others to investigate evidence they don't think they will find. And pointing at some photo anomalies and saying 'that looks odd it must be a hoax' isn't really a point either. It's just something that can't be explained.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
And you think 22kg is "extremely heavy"?


Well, if they were worried about the weight of a tube in a TV camera ... I think 22kg could be considered extremely heavy


Sourced from NASA Lunar Surface Journal - Apollo 12
David Woods writes in the Apollo Flight Journal: "To save size, weight and power consumption, the TV camera on board the CM had only one imaging tube, rather than the three or four found in contemporary colour cameras.



Originally posted by Tomblvd
why would they have wasted weight on a c-stand?


[1] They could have moved the camera further away from the LM. This would have been of great benefit, as it's field of view wouldn't have been restricted like it was.

edit: They could have saved weight by ditching the flag pole, after all this was the 6th mission.


Sourced from: Experiment Operations During Apollo EVAs
the shadowed area behind the LM was considerably smaller than anticipated and the camera was located closer to the LM than originally planned. Hence, its field of view was somewhat restricted.
...thus eliminating two of the planned targets due to occultation by the LM.


Bad planning, very bad.

[2] Placed further away would mean the astronauts would not be running into it's cables as often. Surely someone thought of this, but obviously not.


The cable lines did not lay flat and tangled up in the CDR's legs almost every time he approached the camera. Fortunately, the battery moved rather than the camera.


Pheww! they escaped that one. It would have been another experiment ruined by those alleged astronauts.

[3] Moving a much lighter and less delicate C-stand and cutter would have been much easier and safer than moving the telescope itself.


It was moved even closer for EVA 2 and again for EVA 3 after the sun rose high enough to shine on it, thus eliminating two of the planned targets due to occultation by the LM.
...and the occasional camera moves to keep the camera in the LM shadow, it used more EVA time than anticipated.


[4] Placed further away from the LM using a c-stand and cutter would mean this nasty little problem could have been avoided...


Once each operation was accomplished, the astronaut was to leave the vicinity of the camera as soon as possible due to the venting of waste gasses from the PLSS which could increase the local ambient pressure, thus causing the camera to stop operating


If this was the case (which I think is highly unlikely) wouldn't placing the telescope in the close proximity of the LM have been the worst choice possible.

And to think all they needed was one of these and a cutter.



And as for you, our elderly gentleman poster, I expected better language from a senior citizen.
Thank you for adding to my soon to be posted catalogue of 'language used by apollo believers'.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Would you PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH!!!???!!!
WHAT THE "FRAK" is wrong with you people?????



edit on 27-9-2010 by ppk55 because: added flag pole reference



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Maybe they didn't use the C-Stand because they were on the moon and there was no shop nearby where they could get one. Had they been in a studio, it would have been easy to solve those problems. Do you think they put in some problems deliberately as it would be suspicious if everything went perfect? Or what is your point? (I actually wonder that about 90% of the hoaxers posts).



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 202  203  204    206  207  208 >>

log in

join