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: 207
377
<< 204  205  206    208  209  210 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
As I've said before ... sort over responding to Foos with huge amounts of information, but I did have a question.

What does a studio lit flower and a monkey have to do with exposing a photograph on a moon lit by the sun?

That's all!




posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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.
You still don't know what the exposure time or the film sensitivity is on the 16mm film, so you can't compare anything.

And no, you don't need a flash. I don't think you understand how photography works. You can take perfectly acceptable photos at f/5.6 and 1250th of a second without any flash. A flash can help "freeze" motion, but it is not required, nor is it a perfect solution. For it to "freeze" something, the subject must be sufficiently dark such that it does not expose on the film, and when the flash fires, the subject becomes lit enough to produce an exposure. Otherwise you will have hints of motion captured on the film. There are no such hints in the photo.

Also, if that scene was lit by a flash, it would produce secondary shadows, aside from what the sun is producing. Yet no such shadows are visible. That is because the light is highly diffuse, reflecting off the surface.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

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.




Well thank you for putting the effort in doing so.

But your photos reveal a glaring issue.
It appears to match the video, but when you watch it in motion, it doesn't correlate.
Especially your second shot.
You show it as a pause, but there was no pause!
Neil quickly went into his position in the sun.
Would be impossible to take a photo of Buzz because he was slowly descending the ladder.
Nice try though.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


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



The hell it is. That's what you call it. Not to mention the most obvious flaw in this theory of yours, where's the highlights and shadows of the flash used then?
for worst trolling ever.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
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.


What are you ranting about now? Your right about what it being moronic.





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.


Shadow is not low light....

Ummm... yeah whatever dude.
You just lost all credibility.





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.




Yes they do, NEXT.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
As I've said before ... sort over responding to Foos with huge amounts of information, but I did have a question.

What does a studio lit flower and a monkey have to do with exposing a photograph on a moon lit by the sun?

That's all!


So now you are saying Buzz and Neil were lit by the Sun on the shadow side of the LM ???
Are we all looking that the same photos here?
Or are people responding about some photo I'm not aware about?

Buzz is shooting on his16mm film camera at f2 setting, this is stated in my post and in the video, and people are asking why is VIDEO and FILM being compared and what the settings on the Video camera was

Whats going on here?



Truly, moon shadows aren't absolutely black. Sunlight reflected from the moon's gently rounded terrain provides some feeble illumination, as does the Earth itself, which is a secondary source of light in lunar skies. Given plenty of time to adapt, an astronaut could see almost anywhere.


The regolith FEEBLY ( 1. a. Lacking strength; weak. b. Indicating weakness. 2. Lacking vigor, force, or effectiveness; inadequate.) adds illumination.

And...


The lunar surface is sprinkled with glassy spherules (think of them as lunar dew drops) and crystalline minerals, which can reflect sunlight backwards. And then there's "coherent backscatter"--specks of moondust smaller than the wavelength of light diffract sunlight, scattering rays back toward the sun.


Back towards the sun, not scattering of light in all directions.

In other words, an artificial light was needed to illuminate Buzz coming down the ladder


science.nasa.gov...
www.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by FoosM


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



The hell it is. That's what you call it. Not to mention the most obvious flaw in this theory of yours, where's the highlights and shadows of the flash used then?
for worst trolling ever.


Well turn that troll around, and answer your own question: Where are the secondary shadows from all that fill light from the Earth and Regolith?



I have an answer for mine, you got one for yours?




posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


If you can *see* it, it's scattering light in your direction. Everything we see from sources that don't generate their own light is due to scattered light. Obviously the light was being scattered in all directions, because it shows up in the film. The light comes from the Sun, and bounces off the surface of the moon. Some of it bounces right back at the Sun, and some of it bounces in random directions, with some of it making its way through the camera lens and on to the film. Some of it even bounces off the surface, and hits the side of the LM in shadow and is again scattered in all directions. And some of that light makes its way through the lens and on to the film, which is why we can see the back of the LM and why it appears darker than those areas that are getting full sun.

This is *very* basic science here.

As for a shadow not being low light, that certainly can be tue. If I put a 10,000 watt light in front of you, and a 1,000 watt light behind you, you will generate a shadow on *both sides*. That's because areas where you are blocking the 10,000 watt light will only be getting 1,000 watts of light, areas where you are blocking the 1,000 watt light are getting 10,000 watts of light, and everywhere else is getting 11,000 watts of light. Yet there isn't a position in this setup you could call "low light," despite there being shadows.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You're not going to see shadows because the light the highly diffuse. The area generating it (the sun-lit landscape) is very large, so you have light coming from all directions. You're not going to be able to make out a well-defined shadow from such a diffuse source. The light from the Sun is much more directional. It's not entirely a point source, but it's close because it is coming from one relatively tiny area in the sky.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
How can he argue over something that has already been achieved, especially how can he argue with the people who achieved it.
It just makes no sense why people are so adamant that they are right,
So what if a few things don't add up according to THEORY, the actual event happened as it happened, so surely the theory should just be changed?

humans.....WWYL



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



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


Compare the washed out surface in the first photograph with the properly exposed background just visible in the one you just posted. Wait, I get it now... you don't know what "over exposed" and "under exposed" mean. In a single photograph, one area can be over exposed and another area under exposed. It is sometimes possible to correct this in the darkroom but... Look, just buy a camera and gain some experience.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Yeah and you should also remember that all these images were back in the film day double exposed and in digital age processed digitally. Darkroom was the word that reminded me of that so thanks DJW



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
But your photos reveal a glaring issue.
It appears to match the video, but when you watch it in motion, it doesn't correlate.


Really?
I invite our readers to actually watch the video and you'll see that this is blatantly more Foos lies.



Especially your second shot.
You show it as a pause, but there was no pause!
Neil quickly went into his position in the sun.
Would be impossible to take a photo of Buzz because he was slowly descending the ladder.


"I'll take some of whatever he's on please..."
Neil is stood there from 3:00 to about 3:50 (take a look for yourself readers)



That's 50 seconds Foos, is that not enough of a pause for you?



Nice try though.


Nice try yourself for trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the readers, why don't you try a different tactic like being honest. Oh yeah, that's right, if you did then it would become even more evident you don't have a leg to stand on, as if it's not already...

You've got to stop trying to take the readers for idiots and assuming they won't check these things Foos, it only ruins your 'credibility' even more when they do and see you're just stating more HB lies...

With regards to the radiation, the Van Allen belt data I posted was during Solar minimum, but even during an active period short term exposure is still not an issue. The ISS flies through the inner belt where it forms the SAA several times a day, every day Foos. This includes days during SPEs, the accumulative dose is greater than a quick one way trip through the outer reaches on the way to the Moon.
The MARIE data, which is relevant to the levels on the Moon, was taken over a period of time which included several SPEs, the doses were nowhere near lethal!
Not to mention it confirmed SPE's are directional, a point that is critical to your arguments that you keep trying to deny.
You've been told before but I'll tell you again as it seems to have trouble sinking into that Neuron of yours, the general radiation problem with space is an acceptable dose issue, increased cancer risks and the such like. They do have to follow certain 'health and safety' procedures



Originally posted by FoosM
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.




Originally posted by Agentsmith
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




Originally posted by FoosM
Slow down...... and carefully read what I wrote.



I think you need to read what you wrote Foos.. You clearly imply that Neil was in charge of setting up the camera when he's the one descending and Buzz is inside the LM controlling it. It's blatantly clear that Buzz has altered the aperture while filming yet you try and imply that a light has been turned on? Please



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


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.


CSIRO obtain the transmissions direct from the spacecraft, and then broadcast to NASA. Oh, and the broadcast in Australia happened from the pictures the came from within Australia, they were a split second ahead of the rest of the world. The document below is enough to demonstrate that footage was beamed from the LM on the moon to Earth beyond any reasonable doubt.

I've posted this before, but all the information required to show just how ludicrous your assertions are is in here:

www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...




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



blah blah blah


Once again, more assertions, no data.

I'll ask again, demonstrate that NASA safety limits were breached. And come back with numbers this time, or i'll just have to ignore you.


edit on 29-9-2010 by zvezdar because: fixed quote



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

So now you are saying Buzz and Neil were lit by the Sun on the shadow side of the LM ???
Are we all looking that the same photos here?
Or are people responding about some photo I'm not aware about?


Is your monkey in the shadow side of an LM? Is your monkey in the shadow side of anything? Is your monkey comprised of similar material to an astronaut? Is your monkey even out doors? Is an 800w soft box similar at all to a sun for example? Is the shadow of the monkey driven in the same directions from light sources of the same quality and direction? Length of a shadow and height of a shadow are different things remember ... interelated but not always the same as one another.

Am going to try and make it as inoffensive as possible ...

The questions are getting more and more grass roots complex ... It goes from explain shadows to 'explain how cameras work to me whilst I show you a picture of a monkey under a completely different lighting scenario and use it to refute your claim!' A monkey, a flower, and any old hokey youtube is all this debate is. (Note especially the faked photoshop mockery)

The Amazing Randi once said a quote which applies here when writing about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's failure to identify fairy images as fraudulent ...

" ... another case of a little expertise being useless ..."

That's pretty much what this thread is. People's posts are becoming more rushed, FoosMs questions are getting more and more about the nature of reality, and somewhere in the middle allowing this charade to continue is just allowing this person to point out any old thing that isn't explained to ridiculous levels of depth or vaguely refute some persons wording ... And you people are letting him do this. Five or ten replies to each post and all Foos has to do is fine a very very basic 'error' or point of contention to continue the circus.

The conversation about low light conditions is a perfect example. It's an opinionated word at times. There is no precise mathematical formula for low light. Would I call a sun lit scene with hard shadows low light? No not really. It's a sun lit scene with hard edged shadows perhaps. I suppose if you were really trying to keep detail in the shadows you might try and call it low light ... but ...

. IE ... Take a visit to colour grading/Colorsts/color timing ... pedestal, gamma, emulsions, highlights, lift, gain, shadows, midtones, blacks, whites ... These terms are all interchangable with other terms. If I tell someone to raise my midtones but keep the black in the emulsion ... does that sound like a mathematical formula? Even using IRE there is some perception to be had in this. If I have a well lit scene but crush the blacks and throw a blue cast over a shot is it suddenly a 'low light' situation? Well that depends on how you look at it really ...

This is all semantics. When I work with someone on a film I speak their language so they understand me - I don't scream 'omg you now have zero credibility because you used X term'. If someone says emulsions, I call it emulsions regardless if I'm working on video or film (where this term would be more accurate) and I get on with the job.

If Foos was interested about making a point, if the person was interested about having persons understand the theory he believes in he would be doing more than throwing around semantics as a yard stick for what a person knows or doesn't know and using monkies as examples. I've forgotten more words to do with colour than some persons ever know ... It's pretty meaningless when you get down to it.

Foos is interested in two things ... keeping this thread going and discrediting ... it'll continue if people keep getting irritated.





edit on 29-9-2010 by Pinke because: Removing Boring Bits



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


BRAVO!!!!!! (Sounds of roaring applause....).

Summation:


Foos is interested in two things ... keeping this thread going and discrediting ... it'll continue if people keep getting irritated.



This bears repeating, because it clicks spot on, and finally it all (this "circus" of a thread) makes sense:

Foos is interested in two things ... keeping this thread going and discrediting ... it'll continue if people keep getting irritated.


Hope that gets through all of the clutter.

The End


edit on 29 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Sizing



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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.


Originally posted by zvezdar
CSIRO obtain the transmissions direct from the spacecraft, and then broadcast to NASA. Oh, and the broadcast in Australia happened from the pictures the came from within Australia, they were a split second ahead of the rest of the world. The document below is enough to demonstrate that footage was beamed from the LM on the moon to Earth beyond any reasonable doubt.


I think this is a bit of interesting information people may not know about. It concerns who funded the Parkes telescope in Australia. The reason I looked this up was because I wondered what the hell Australia was doing at that time building one of the world's biggest dishes.


Wikipedia
The Parkes Radiothermal Telescope, completed in 1961, was the brainchild of E.G. (Taffy) Bowen, chief of the CSIRO's Radiophysics Laboratory. During the Second World War, he had worked on radar development in the US and had made some powerful friends in the scientific community. Calling on this old boy network, he persuaded two philanthropic organisations, the Carnegie Corporation and the Rockefeller Foundation to fund half the cost of the telescope. It was this recognition and key financial support from the US that persuaded then Prime Minister Robert Menzies to agree to fund the rest of the project.[1]



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Thank AWE130 for this precious gem.

before and after footage of the 'restoration'




posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


You do realize that that's 16mm film, not video. right? And that the soundtrack was recorded from radio signals and is only conjecturally synchronized, right? What is AwE's major malfunction?



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


dragnet, what is "AWE130"s problem??? That they edited out the long (and obviously emotional) pause in Armstrong's transmission after touchdown??? Yes...that is sloppy, I agree. AND, I seriously doubt that NASA wants it that way....could it merely be that the restoration company CHOSE to do that, on their own initiative??? OR, maybe it was accidental???

About Armstrong and "emotions"...he is human, and as all humans, has emotions. The man has a personal attitude, though, of never allowing his walls to come down (at least in public, can't speak for his private life). This trait is VERY common in many men, of course....some are simply better at "bottling it up" than others.

Since I know pilots, and their personalities and mannerisms so well (being one myself, and having worked for many decades alongside others) I am very aware of these signs, and can "understand" them very well. Perhaps others who don't share my experience have different impressions/biases, based on THEIR own experience in observing and interacting with other humans. But, to understand HOW 'we' (pilots) think, you could try to listen again to a famous (recent) event, the USAir flight 1549 ditching in the Hudson River. Pay attention to the tones of voice, even under VERY stressful situations. Air traffic controllers, and pilots alike. Not only is it serious business (although some fun is thrown in inevitably --- we ARE human, after all) over-all it is the air of professionalism that dominates, in what you hear on the radio transmissions.

Once you realize the professional approach, and the usual strive to remove emotion, as much as possible, that permeates such jobs as flying airplanes (and spaceships) you begin to understand the REALITY of what you hear, in the recordings.

Back to Armstrong....can you envision, try to be "in his shoes" for just a few minutes? Knowing that everything you did and said was not only live to MC, but also to the ENTIRE world who were watching?

The stress of those few minutes, from undocking and descent? To the final approach phase. Incredibly high stress. I can only relate to MY experience in the cases of having to land in some of the worst weather one can experience, and I've had many such cases. As a new airline pilot at a new employer, my VERY FIRST landing with passengers onboard in the Boeing 727, an airplane I had just trained on for the previous six weeks, was in Minneapolis....in a very strong 90-degree crosswind, low visibility and blowing snow. This was part of the "on the job" training, after all the other training that preceded it....but it was incredibly stressful. (and, very successful, obviously). In a career, we all encounter the occasional situation that really taxes our skills and abilities. Then, even if privately pleased with ourselves, dismiss it as "just another day on the job." (False humility. Bragging is not an attractive trait).

SO...Apollo 11, and the unanticipated "extra" air that had been trapped in the access tube, between the LM and the CM. When the LM separated, this extra air imparted more delta V than was programmed into the computer's flight plan. (Compared to popping a champagne cork, though obviously not as violent as that).

This additional delta V meant that, as the descent progressed, the spacecraft began to "go long" in the planned profile. Not by much, but enough that the computer had to constantly re-calculate more than expected, and it was a slow processor capacity...hence the "1202" warnings that occurred. Humans, of course, have brains that no computer can (yet) match, and can handle the unexpected, and adapt to it. They (Armstrong) could see that the "new" landing area they were aiming at, because of the extra delta V, was unsuitable...so, like all pilots, he took over and had to find a better site to land. Can't go backwards, even in the "hover", because you can't see. He knew the fuel was tight, he was under all that (and the already mentioned "fishbowl" aspect) and knew that he could have aborted (to prevent losing their lives) but such a failure would have been quite disappointing, to say the least.

He cut it close, did what professional aviators do when needed, and got it down in time. Once down, knowing the full weight of history, his first transmission couldn't be "emotional", but had to be "professional", as always. His reputation for being "cool as a cucumber" had to stay intact. The long pause, "Houston, Tranquility Base here......"? Don't know (you'd have to ask him --- maybe someone has) if he paused for dramatic effect, or just to gather his thoughts, or to compose himself and not let the emotion show through any cracks.....

....But, when I listen, I can detect just a hint of tremor in his voice....especially in "The Eagle has landed."







edit on 1 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Text



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 204  205  206    208  209  210 >>

log in

join