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: 206
377
<< 203  204  205    207  208  209 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Why are prattling on about a "C-Stand", anyway??? Do you actually know what they're USED for?


The name comes from the official term "Century stand", which in turn comes from the earliest days of filmmaking, when the Sun was the only major source of lighting; reflectors were used to keep the light on actors. The most popular size of reflector was the 100-inch "Century"; a progenitor of today's C-stand was used to hold it up.

The Century stand is near-ubiquitous on motion picture sets because of its modular nature and versatility. Its primary purpose is to position various flags, color gels, bounce cards, and silks in front of light sources to block, direct, or modify the nature of the light. However, it can also be used to mount small lights and rig anything that can be made to fit on the stand.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Source added.

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

Why, oh WHY would they want any sort of equipment like that???


For that UV telescope? The 22 kg 'scope?? Or, are you suggesting that, somehow, they should have carried a "C-Stand" and some sort of awning to provide the "shade" for the 'scope, and unnecessarily complicate things?? When the plan all along was to use what would BE THERE and handy, the LM's shadow?

This is what's so frustrating, coming from you people. This constant inanity, and idiotic changing of the subject.

AND, in your very post, where it mentions that the SHADOW of the LM wasn't quite large enough as expected, or oriented exactly the way they had hoped for??? So, by that very fact, it shows they weren't always perfect, and that it was NOT done on a "sound stage" somewhere!!! AND, then you derisively snort "poor planning"???

Hypocricy, at its finest example. These "attempts" at nitpicking just make Apollo look ALL THE MORE REAL....Because, it IS!!!!

(OH, and don't think I didn't notice more deflections, earlier, RE: the flag. The "wasted one hour" comment....you tossed that in, hoping to leave an indelible impression in the casual readers' minds, I expect. Of course, you skimmed over the FACT that it was SIX missions that accounted for hte total of about one hour's time spent.

Also, the comment about "leaving the flag" behind to save weight? Tell us, please....just HOW heavy do you suppose two thin aluminum tubes, and a two feet X three feet piece of nylon cloth weighs, in total???

How about hopping down to your local DIY big box hardware/appliance store, where they may stock aluminum tubing of many various sizes and lengths....They have those stores in Ozzie, right?....and check it out. We await your "research" findings).


(BTW...."frak" is a valid term, used when frustrated as a mild expletive, from a Science Fiction TV series...look it up).







edit on 27 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Source




posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


PPK will be suggesting that a C-stand and a cutter is used which isn't uncommon. C-stands can be useful in this regard because you can attach more than one piece of thing on them. Black card perhaps, sometimes cut into shapes to create silhouettes. Lots of things can make cutters. It's just another way to control light.

However, I agree with Weedwhacker's logic on two levels ...

1. It could have practically been that they knew they would have large objects for shade already there. Considering the cost to add extra weight to the mission they decided to 'make do' with what they had on hand. The cost of extra weight going to the moon has already been discussed in this thread and even these days an extra kg or two is big bucks. C-stands can be anywhere from 5 - 10kgs not including their load.

2. And less likely ... the astronauts were improvising - using the tools they had on hand to get the job done. This wouldn't be the first time or the last time this has been done in multi million dollar situations. People forget things on film sets all the time, and when you have an actor wandering around who is worth ten to twenty thousand a day you don't tell him he has to wait whilst you wander around in the corner to pick up an extra C-stand. You make do with environment you've got and hope you brought enough duct tape. It's not a major disaster. Things like this just happen.

Edit ... just had a further think ... why would you take a cutter anyway ... the giant space vehicle to the right is much bigger than a piece of fold up card board ... it doesn't seem that dumb when you think about it.




edit on 27-9-2010 by Pinke because: (no reason given)




edit on 27-9-2010 by Pinke because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Well, if they were worried about the weight of a tube in a TV camera ... I think 22kg could be considered extremely heavy


Well, the typical video camera of the 1960's was generally over 100kg, so making them as light as possible was rather important. The Ultraviolet Camera (UVC) was apart of the Apollo experiment package, which varied from mission to mission. Can you show us that the UVC exceeded the available weight for the Science Experiment Package on Apollo 16? Otherwise your argument is invalid.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


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.


As usual, you have missed my point. You were trying to assert that NASA was in complete control of everything and therefore could have done what they liked. I pointed out that the CSIRO designed the horns that increased the sensitivity of the s-band equipment.

Your post missed the point, because you were talking about the receivers. I was talking about the horns. The point is that the CSIRO engineers had enough information to understand the communication requirements and improve the receiving equipment as required.

Funnily enough, your quote points out that equipment was installed by AWA, another independent company. So you see this was quite an open operation and not a closed NASA shop as you suggest.


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


You did nothing of the sort. Once again, where is the data and not semantics?




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.


This is an assertion without any factual basis. You havent demostrated that any SPE occurred that breached NASA's safety limits. Until you do so you have no argument.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
With the options that Neil had and conditions that he was supposedly our photo in question is proof of fakery.

When you see this photo in b/w it looks even more obvious.




Obviously artificial fill light was used.

Watch how dark the astros get when they walk into the shadow:

Claimed to have shot it at f/2 (Shadow photography they called it)
So they are letting a lot of light in.
Like 8x more than using 5.6 if I'm not mistaken.
And still, look how pitch black the shadows still are.

Again the same video, except here I want to point out the blue halo around Neil.
Reminds of those blue halos from the Apollo 12 photography:


Here Neil is coming down the ladder.


Now notice how it begins dark and all of a sudden it goes bright like
the light behind the LM was slowly turned on allowing us to see Neil.


In photography and cinematography, available light or ambient light refers to any source of light that is not explicitly supplied by the photographer for the purpose of taking photos...The use of available light may pose a challenge for a photographer. The brightness and direction of the light is often not adjustable, except perhaps for indoor lighting. This will limit the selection of shutter speeds, and may require the use of shades or reflectors to manipulate the light. It can also influence the time, location, and even orientation of the photo shoot to obtain the desired lighting conditions. Available light can often also produce a color cast with color photography.


Now Neil did not have the resources to manipulate the light, nor orient himself to shoot the best photo since he had no viewfinder to determine how his shots would look like. Not to forget, he was on the clock.

Lets see how those Apollo Astros described the setting:


Shadows were one of the first things Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong mentioned when he stepped onto the surface of the moon. "It's quite dark here in the shadow [of the lunar module] and a little hard for me to see that I have good footing," he radioed to Earth.

The Eagle had touched down on the Sea of Tranquility with its external equipment locker, a stowage compartment called "MESA," in the shadow of the spacecraft. Although the sun was blazing down around them, Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin had to work in the dark to deploy their TV camera and various geology tools.


Now remember, if Neil had his sun visor down (which cut reduced light like dark sun shades) how could he see anything at all!?


"It is very easy to see in the shadows after you adapt for a while," noted Armstrong. But, added Aldrin, "continually moving back and forth from sunlight to shadow should be avoided because it's going to cost you some time in perception ability."


Think about it, they understand that on the moon going from light to shadow is like turning on and off a bright light in a pitch dark room.


The sleeve made its own little shadow, so "Al was looking at it, trying to see inside. And he couldn't get the tool in and couldn't get it released--and he couldn't see it," recalls Mitchell.

"Remember," adds Mitchell, "on the lunar surface there's no air to refract light--so unless you've got direct sunlight, there's no way in hell you can see anything. It was just pitch black. That's an amazing phenomenon on an airless planet."


Get the picture? lol
Now ask any real photographer to photograph in those conditions and I guarantee you he or she will bring a light set and high speed ASA/ISO film. Now Apollo had no light set (why not actually? Why wasn't the LM equipped with at least a spot light? Flashlights? Camera flash?) Even bikes have head lights, lol)
Anyway, Apollo had no lights, so they would have to bring high speed film, like 400 to 1600... oh wait. All Neil had access to was 64 to 160 speed film.


ASA (film speed) determines how much light has to be let into the camera to make a correct exposure. Controlling factors on allowing light to hit the film are shutter speed, f-stop, and available light.

If your lens has a maximum opening of f-5.6 or f-8.0, then you have a slow lens and will need a higher ASA film. Lighting conditions will also combine to determine film speed. Generally, low light requires ASA 400 or higher. Bright sun conditions will allow you to use a lower-speed film. Another consideration is that the higher the ASA, the lower the quality of the photo.

If you are shooting landscapes or scenics with no action, in low light, or with your camera on a tripod, then you can use a slow shutter speed along with a low ASA film.

The basic rule on shutter speed is this: the more motion (that either you or the subject has), the faster your shutter speed should be


In short ASA 64 or 160 at 5.6 is not the ideal choice for shooting photography in shadow or subjects in shadow.
Especially not the kind found on the moon:


Dark Shadows
On the next sunny day, step outdoors and look inside your shadow. It's not very dark, is it? Grass, sidewalk, toes--whatever's in there, you can see quite well.
Your shadow's inner light comes from the sky. Molecules in Earth's atmosphere scatter sunlight (blue more than red) in all directions, and some of that light lands in your shadow. Look at your shadowed footprints on fresh sunlit snow: they are blue!
Without the blue sky, your shadow would be eerily dark, like a piece of night following you around. Weird. Yet that's exactly how it is on the Moon.
To visualize the experience of Apollo astronauts, imagine the sky turning completely and utterly black while the sun continues to glare. Your silhouette darkens, telling you "you're not on Earth anymore."


Or, if you want your going to use a slow ASA like 64 or 160 you better use a slower shutter speed. 1/250 is not really considered slow. So we have a conflict here.
No light set.
Fast shutter speed
Slow film
This sets up a situation for daytime photography,
not shooting scenes in dark shadows.

ake a look at this NASA photo:


or



See that Astronaut? Thats supposedly Neil Armstrong there to the left.
Now why is the LM and Neil suddenly dark? This comes from the same magazine.
Notice, the UNITED STATES is nicely lit and the bars are reflecting light just like the other photo:



Even the ground seems to be exposed the same.
So what happened here? What setting changed? And why was it changed?
What happened to that fill in light from Earth?
What happened to the famous reflective properties of the regolith?
Why is Neil in the dark?



science.nasa.gov...
canoekayak.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
continued...

Some examples shooting on 5.6, ISO 100 at 1/250

www.flickr.com...
A: 5.6; ISO 100; S 1/250

www.flickr.com...
*Taken with a Nikon D300.
* Exposure: 0.004 sec (1/250)
* Aperture: f/5.4
* Exposure: 0.004 sec (1/250)
* ISO Speed: 100
* Flash: Soft Box From The Right

www.flickr.com...@N06/4526980006/in/photostream/
www.flickr.com...@N06/4521050661/
Exposure: 1/250
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO: 100
Pocket Wizard Plus II
Speedlight EX 580 II 1/2 --> white soft umbrella on the left side / zoom 18mm / distance 1,5 m / H45-V45 degrees

www.flickr.com...
1/250 @ f 5.6
ISO 100
Single Broncolor Strobe with Grid. Mirror Fill.

1/250 is good at stopping most everyday motion. But if you want to have a correctly exposed subject or scene you need enough light. Being in pitch black shadow is not what we call enough light no matter what planet you are on. You are not going to use 1/250 if your going to shoot in a dark alleyway, and your not even going to use ASA 160 unless you plan to use flash.

www.flickr.com...

You want to shoot 1/250 to stop motion in a low light conditions with slow speed film, you need lights/flash.

www.flickr.com...

Regolith and Earth light would not create the soft lighting we see in those Apollo photographs behind the LM.
Remember, no atmosphere on the moon. As a matter of fact, any light reflected off the ground would reflect back to the source- the sun. So whatever is in shadow will be dark as a shadow.

The other issue is, was Neil even taking photos of Buzz while he was coming down the ladder?
When you watch the videos:

www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Neil, if he was taking photos, is in full sunlight.
He is lit up like the human torch. In other words, the camera
would be getting all kinds of light going into the lens.

Neil is also paying attention to Buzz's exit, helping him out,
and Capcom has a conversation with him.
This is not a guy focused on photography, he doesn't even remark that he is taking photos.

Also notice when Neil goes into the sunlight, he backs up PLSS first, as if he doesn't want his face to be
exposed to the harsh sunlight (Carbon Arc Lamp). So is he even facing Buzz?

During this whole process Neil supposedly takes 6 photos of Buzz coming down the ladder.
And in between a couple of photos of LM parts all correctly exposed and no motion blur.


If we are photographing a subject that is moving quickly (athletes, dancers, playing dogs), we may want to eliminate motion blur. In bright light, we can do this by picking a fast shutter speed. In dark and fair ambient light, using a fast shutter speed is not always possible. Instead, we can freeze motion by making flash the dominant light source.



The whole reason that most people activate their flash units is because there isn't enough ambient light for the camera to capture a good exposure of the subject.
Since you don't want your photo appearing completely under exposed, the solution is to add some light to the scene with an electronic flash.
Activating the flash will also ensure that you can use a moderately fast shutter speed setting in order to freeze the motion of your subject.
But with slow sync flash you intentionally use a SLOW shutter speed in conjunction with the flash in order to add some motion blur to your flash photos.


think about that when you see this picture and all the hot spots on the LM and Buzz's boot.

www.aulis.com...



by the way:

8. The toughest moonwalk task? Planting the flag. NASA’s studies suggested that the lunar soil was soft, but Armstrong and Aldrin found the surface to be a thin wisp of dust over hard rock. They managed to drive the flagpole a few inches into the ground and film it for broadcast, and then took care not to accidentally knock it over.


Any one ever see the flag get knocked over ? Even during an LM ascent?
And if Neil and Buzz had such issue why didnt they use a C-Stand or Tripod
for the next missions? Why did they even plant new flags after Apollo 11?
Whats the point? One flag not enough? Wouldnt a plaque be good enough and last longer?
All these things dont matter when your going to do it in a earth based studio. Right



www.digital-slr-guide.com...
dpanswers.com...
www.popsci.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
*snip*
You want to shoot 1/250 to stop motion in a low light conditions with slow speed film, you need lights/flash.
*snip*


What low light situation? They were there during daytime in full sunlight.


edit on 28/9/2010 by PsykoOps because: removed 'in'



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Excuse the excessive smilies, I'm assuming they will help Foos understand.


Originally posted by FoosM
When you see this photo in b/w it looks even more obvious.

Obviously artificial fill light was used.


Wrong. 'Obviously',as you have been told on numerous occasions, the light reflecting off the Lunar surface around him is in turn being reflected off his suit. Hardly complicated, apart from for you




Here Neil is coming down the ladder.
....
Now notice how it begins dark and all of a sudden it goes bright like
the light behind the LM was slowly turned on allowing us to see Neil.

Now Neil did not have the resources to manipulate the light, nor orient himself to shoot the best photo since he had no viewfinder to determine how his shots would look like. Not to forget, he was on the clock.


What the hell are you going on about now Foos? No light was turned on behind Neil, it's obvious that the aperture size was increased on the camera. Why do you think Neil is operating it? He's on the ladder Foos! The camera is in the LM behind the window being operated by Buzz

You can see Buzz's reflection in the window and even that gets brighter, everything gets brighter proportionally - you know, like when the aperture size is increased NOT when a light is turned on Foos



During the lunar surface extravehicular activity, the commander will be filmed by the LM pilot with the LM 16mm camera at normal or near-normal frame rates (24 and 12 fps), but when he leaves the LM to join the commander, he will switch to a one frame-per-second rate. The camera will be mounted inside the LM looking through the right-hand window.www.msss.com...


Still waiting for you to comment from the information I posted a few weeks ago Foos, the actual radiation data from both the Van Allen Belts and from outside of the Magnetosphere's protection, the data that was gathered by nations other than the USA. You know, the data that blows your dumb radiation theories out of the water..



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Reading through this (nonsense) post, and the one immediately prior, it is apparent that, instead of using YOUR OWN WORDS, you are copy/pasting/plagiarising others' works.

I see you "cited" references at the bottom, but since you didn't properly attribute any text to those sources (as required by ATS T&C) a casual reader may not actually take time to CHECK your "work" properly...and, those sources....and see the way the various narratives were "lifted" and interspersed into the posts, in order to FALSIFY the work of others, by altering its point.... Even from (in most cases) valid sources...YOU have twisted it to lead people to false assumptions. Your intent, apparently, IS to give that impression, and hope that people, reading casually and quickly, won't notice this deception.

This is (to me) an obvious attempt to falsely present yourself as (somehow) important, and that you "know" what you're talking about......YOU DO NOT!!!

This latest clownish example of idiocy FAILS MISERABLY, and intelligent people see right through the deception. (At least, I would hope). The only people you might be able to fool are others like yourself, who have NO INTEREST in honest and reality-based investigations and studies.


You have FAILED in another way, Foos. You have NOT completed the work assignment I had tasked you with, (it was due yesterday, Monday) and therefore you will be held back, and will not advance to the fourth grade next semester. Consider this carefully, for it could adversely affect your chances at graduating, and getting your high school diploma. This will have serious consequences for your future employment prospects.




edit on 28 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Spell



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
The other issue is, was Neil even taking photos of Buzz while he was coming down the ladder?
When you watch the videos:
.....
Neil, if he was taking photos, is in full sunlight.
He is lit up like the human torch. In other words, the camera
would be getting all kinds of light going into the lens.

Neil is also paying attention to Buzz's exit, helping him out,
and Capcom has a conversation with him.
This is not a guy focused on photography, he doesn't even remark that he is taking photos.


I don't have Realplayer installed, so I'm assuming you are referring to this footage:



The camera does have artifacts caused by the sunlight if you look compared to the shot where he was in shadow. Neil pauses plenty of times giving him opportunity to take photographs, and when you watch the video properly compared to the photos taken everything ties up exactly... So, no pun intended, I'm not quite sure what planet you're on Foos?
And Buzz distinctly poses for photos at least twice! Wakey wakey Foos, or were you just hoping people would take your word for it again? How do you sleep at night? For someone that claims they hate 'Goverment lies' you seem pretty skilled in lying and deception yourself. In fact I've noticed most Hoax Believers are, makes you wonder who the real threat is sometimes


These comparisons I've made below of the video and the photos taken is fairly rough by the way and not meant to be exact, but I think it more than adequately gets the point across.




posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Remember how I said the background would look over exposed? Thank you foe illustrating my point. Of course in the color photos the blue fill light of earthshine is more apparent. By the way, I guess they did bring a little telescope along with them after all. Are you going to cede at least that point?



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Hello, I think this matter needs to be brought to everyone's attention.

Below you will read the negative language and posting style that has been used in the first 50 of 200 pages of this thread by the posters who state we did land on the moon.

I dare anyone to produce similar statements from the posters who believe we didn't.

I would prefer it would stop, and we could debate this matter without the derogatory comments you are about to read below.

I do plan on posting the next 50-100 pages worth very shortly because it is an indictment on the ATS members that believe we did land on the moon.

Please remember, it doesn't matter in what context these statements were made. They were made.


Statements from the Moon Landing Believers. From pages 1 - 50 of this thread.

this guy might actually be a little dim.
I was laughing, cryind and my soul just died a little.
Listening to this guy with a horrendous voice whining
I agree on the whiny voice.
pissed all over by spotty oiks on the internet
F**k now who do we believe.
He is a shyster
you will see he is just S*&T.
Is English not your first language?
Does this mean the 1200 Jews he saved from the camps were a hoax
A whiny explanation
It's sad when folks are born without a brain...
be afraid, very afraid
Get off your backside.
is a moron.
his altar of inanity
He is a con-man spreading lies about America
I'll bet you're a Nibiru believer.
Sometimes I think u must be retarded:
Good God, how old are you?
How old are you?
You are showing your age
Their prolly either 14 year old sensationalists
they've recently had the internet installed in mental institutions.
It beats kicking the dog
Are you lying
a lot of dumbasses will fall for your trickeries
I'm going to ignore the fatuousness
BWHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!
it may come back to bite you in the ass
What a rotten, vile POS you are.
with your vile tactics
bit in the ass once again
Woo, Woo...Doo-Doo, Doo-Doo
Along with these...!!!!!!!!!!
Apollo "hoax" conspiracy whack-a-doodles
you may have insulted three-year-olds!
you speak Doofus quite fluently.
sucks balls
What in the hell is wrong with you?
ever been checked for dyslexia?
you should have a doctor check you.
the only "sleaze" going on is in the Moon "hoax" camp. (hehe)
It's just that whiny voice; it makes my hair hurt!


"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

edit: in all fairness I did find this from our camp. "Sorry I dont understand language of Doofus."


edit on 28-9-2010 by ppk55 because: formatting and fairness



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


First point: You can't compare video to photographs. While you may know the aperture of the lens in the video, you have no idea what the exposure time or sensitivity is.

Second point: You can't use random photos from Flickr as an example because you have no idea what post processing was done on them (I'm relatively certain SOME amount of post processing was done to all those photos).



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
I dare anyone to produce similar statements from the posters who believe we didn't.


Generally when you take a cross section of the population and refer to them as brain washed and disinfo agents you're going to get those kind of responses. There's no point in me dragging up all those comments, but they are there.

We are both incredibly aware that there are people on both sides of this debate prone to the odd harsh(ish) remark or comment. I've had it directed at me a few times ...

Who cares? Your point is that people who believe in the moon landing in your opinion are harsh??? This does not alter reality in any way shape or form.

Get on with it.


edit on 28-9-2010 by Pinke because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by FoosM


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.


As usual, you have missed my point. You were trying to assert that NASA was in complete control of everything and therefore could have done what they liked. I pointed out that the CSIRO designed the horns that increased the sensitivity of the s-band equipment.


So what? Whats your point? NASA didnt build the dishes either. Are you saying tha CSIRO was in control of the content? Where they tapping or tracing the feeds? No. NASA and its personnel were in control of what was important: Information. And thats what the point was. Trying to assert, the proof is pudding buddy, NASA was in complete control.






You havent demostrated that any SPE occurred that breached NASA's safety limits. Until you do so you have no argument.


Multiple Major Flares and SPEs occurred during Apollo, you'll just have to deal with it.

What does it prove, it proves that NASA could not conduct a mission during Solar Maximum without putting their astronauts in jeopardy. They claimed major flares as being rare, predictable, and that there emergency measure in place. They lied on all fronts. No Space Agency worth their salt would run missions during the most dangerous period in the solar cycle. Thats "lunacy" And thats why they faked it to uphold some arbitrary deadline of 1969.

Not to forget, In the presence of flares and SPEs the VABs are energized, they are not static rings of radiation. They consist of deadly ring currents. As well the moon's surface reacts to radiation. This has all been presented and you want to believe some B.S. of Apollo astronauts with dosimeter readings similar to Gemini missions.
You want to believe some BS that Major X-ray flares and VABs having no effect on exposed film.
Please, what a scam to take your tax money, take your rights away to technology, spy on you and funding the military industrial complex.

They took your money and all you got out of it was a pail of rocks and sand, lousy pictures and TANG. LOL.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by FoosM
*snip*
You want to shoot 1/250 to stop motion in a low light conditions with slow speed film, you need lights/flash.
*snip*


What low light situation? They were there during daytime in full sunlight.


edit on 28/9/2010 by PsykoOps because: removed 'in'





Im sorry, I didnt realize it was High Noon on the Moon.

Have you been paying attention at all?
Focus for god's sake focus on the SHADOW.
Doesnt matter how bright it is outside,
taking pictures of objects in shadow is called a low light situation.




edit on 28-9-2010 by FoosM because: typo



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   



Originally posted by AgentSmith
Excuse the excessive smilies, I'm assuming they will help Foos understand.


Originally posted by FoosM
When you see this photo in b/w it looks even more obvious.

Obviously artificial fill light was used.


Wrong. 'Obviously',as you have been told on numerous occasions, the light reflecting off the Lunar surface around him is in turn being reflected off his suit. Hardly complicated, apart from for you




Yeah explain it to the OTHER example I posted.






Here Neil is coming down the ladder.
....
Now notice how it begins dark and all of a sudden it goes bright like
the light behind the LM was slowly turned on allowing us to see Neil.

Now Neil did not have the resources to manipulate the light, nor orient himself to shoot the best photo since he had no viewfinder to determine how his shots would look like. Not to forget, he was on the clock.


What the hell are you going on about now Foos? No light was turned on behind Neil, it's obvious that the aperture size was increased on the camera. Why do you think Neil is operating it? He's on the ladder Foos! The camera is in the LM behind the window being operated by Buzz


Slow down...... and carefully read what I wrote.





Still waiting for you to comment from the information I posted a few weeks ago Foos, the actual radiation data from both the Van Allen Belts and from outside of the Magnetosphere's protection, the data that was gathered by nations other than the USA. You know, the data that blows your dumb radiation theories out of the water..


When were the readings taken, during solar max, min, when did the last flare occur or SPE?
All that is relevant to the fluctuations of the VAB. Or do you think they are static?



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM
 


First point: You can't compare video to photographs. While you may know the aperture of the lens in the video, you have no idea what the exposure time or sensitivity is.

Second point: You can't use random photos from Flickr as an example because you have no idea what post processing was done on them (I'm relatively certain SOME amount of post processing was done to all those photos).


You bring some good points but I would like to point out, that I was comparing a 16mm film camera, that could basically take stills, to photo film camera.

The FLIKR examples simply show that when using 1/250 with slow film speed requires flash in low light conditions.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


Remember how I said the background would look over exposed? Thank you foe illustrating my point. Of course in the color photos the blue fill light of earthshine is more apparent. By the way, I guess they did bring a little telescope along with them after all. Are you going to cede at least that point?


Well as you know the original photo does not have an over-exposed background.

And its the reason why I posted this photo:


To show you that earthshine and regolith do little as ambient fill light.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
This has just become Moronic. Some of this has already been pointed out, but to repeat some SIMPLE FACTS:

1. Film and video are NOT comparable. Not in the simplistic and ill-informed way being done here, anyway. Apart from different sensitivities, they have completely different response curves and dynamic ranges, let alone other issues such as sensor bleed, ghosting, 'burn', etc.

2. Low light is NOT determined by being in shadow. In fact that comment is so ILL-INFORMED it is clear the author is completely ignorant of the topic.. For heaven's sake, the label on the Apollo cameras SHOWS you that shooting in (DAYLIT) shadow requires settings of 1/250 @ 5.6. THAT IS NOT LOW LIGHT, and clearly is NOT a shutter speed at which motion would normally be a problem.. A DAYLIGHT shadow gets lots of fill light from the surroundings - it is NOTHING like 'low light'. Anyone with even a hint of knowledge about cameras understands this.

For anyone stupid enough to be taking FoosM's idiocy as true, just grab a manual camera and set it to 1/15 sec, f5.6, ISO 100, and then go outside and take some shots in daylight shadow. And bear in mind that those settings are at the high end of 'low light'...



The FLIKR examples simply show that when using 1/250 with slow film speed requires flash in low light conditions.


They do NOTHING OF THE SORT, and to proclaim such ignorance is shameful.

This VOLUMINOUS TRIPE is why I have pretty much abandoned this thread. It seems that posting reams of garbage, based on complete and utter (WILFUL) ignorance, is OK with the Mod's. It's not ok with me, but do carry on...

This wil, of course, call forth a whole new spewing of mindless drivel from FoosM. And remember folks, that is OK with the mod's....



edit on 28-9-2010 by CHRLZ because: paw typin skilz



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 203  204  205    207  208  209 >>

log in

join