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: 305
377
<< 302  303  304    306  307  308 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM


Neil Armstrong interview, BBC 1970.

He claims:
-The sky is deep black,
-The earth is the only visble object in the sky, other than the sun.

Armstrong is either instructed to lie...or he has never been on the moon!
How many stars do you see in the daytime? On the surface of the moon, the sun is out. The earth is shining. To walk around, they had to look at the illuminated ground, which would be just as bright as the daytime ground here on earth. Their pupils were shrunk down to allow them see in these conditions, same as yours are talking outside in the sun. The stars simply aren't bight enough to see when your pupils are constricted.


Nat,

Dark side, light side, facing the sun, not facing the sun, the Apollo mission would have gone through more phases than any craft orbiting the Earth, correct? These astronauts are claiming that at no point in their journey they saw stars? No point? Thats impossible!

Secondly, and I dont know why people have a hard time understanding this. For planets and planetoids like Mercury and the moon it doesnt matter! Because:


The reason we can't see stars during the day is because sunlight is scattered in the atmosphere, blocking starlight. The moon hardly has any atmosphere, therefore one can see stars all the time.
wiki.answers.com...



Since the atmosphere is so slight, the sky would appear pitch black (except for the sun, stars, and other planets, when visible), even during the day.
www.enchantedlearning.com...


The Sun is just another star in the sky, just closer.

If these astronauts could see "color" on the moon, they could have definitely noticed the stars and planets in the sky even standing on the day side of the moon. There is no way around the fact.

When asked the question about stars and dust Neil shrinks away. His body language, he looks away, pauses in answering are tell tale signs this man is being forced to lie. Or is gladly lying for his country. Doesn't really matter.




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Watch the body language:


Watch the evasions. Seriously, FoosM you're losing your audience. They are all waiting for you to prove that Jarrah didn't lie to them in the Radiation Anomalies video. Surely you don't intend to keep disappointing them like this. You never have answered whether you want me to critique the next video
edit on 8-1-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)


DJ, I have already proven that you have 'quote mined' Jarrah's video.
And now you admit to "quote mining" him.
You haven't seen all his videos.
You haven't studied his work.
You post on his thread, so by all means watch his videos and come with your critiques.
What are you afraid of, that you will fall for his charms and facts and come back claiming that you don't believe man landed on the moon?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Those should sufficiently demonstrate the motion of the LM as it touched down.



Nat, that minuscule amount of soil displacement is commensurate with somebody slowly dropping
the LM with crane on a sound stage with fresh dirt. That is not the evidence of a landing. How could you think that? The astronauts displaced more soil by walking.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack

That's true but the pics taken by their cameras don't suffer from pupil problems.
I don't see stars in them either..

But much like eyes, film has a limited sensitivity. And they actually do have "pupils," which refers to aperture of a lens. The lenses have blades in them that allow you to change the size of the hole light is allowed through to get to the film, just like how your pupils contract and dilate to allow less or more light in:


Im sorry, anybody here trying to equate our eyes to camera lenses and film is merely distracting the readers.


The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina.


Whats more important is dynamic range.


The Dynamic Range of the Eye

The Human eye is able to function in bright sunlight and view faint starlight, a range of more than 10 million to one. But this is like saying a camera can function over a similar range by adjusting the ISO speed, aperture and exposure time.

In any one view, the eye eye can see over a 10,000 range in contrast detection, but it depends on the scene brightness, with the range decreasing with lower contrast targets. The eye is a contrast detector, not an absolute detector like the sensor in a digital camera, thus the distinction. (See Figure 2.6 in Clark, 1990; Blackwell, 1946, and references therein). The range of the human eye is greater than any film or consumer digital camera.



Here is a simple experiment you can do. Go out with a star chart on a clear night with a full moon. Wait a few minutes for your eyes to adjust. Now find the faintest stars you can detect when the you can see the full moon in your field of view. Try and limit the moon and stars to within about 45 degrees of straight up (the zenith). If you have clear skies away from city lights, you will probably be able to see magnitude 3 stars. The full moon has a stellar magnitude of -12.5. If you can see magnitude 2.5 stars, the magnitude range you are seeing is 15. Every 5 magnitudes is a factor of 100, so 15 is 100 * 100 * 100 = 1,000,000. Thus, the dynamic range in this relatively low light condition is about 1 million to one, perhaps higher!


So lets end this nonsense of scaling down our visual acuity to a mechanical device of unknown quality. Those astronauts should have been able to see stars on their way to the moon and on the moon.
End of story.

You want to argue their cameras were limited to seen stars, fine. Your probably right.
But the human eye? Not buying it.
This is where NASA and gang screwed up.

clarkvision.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
One thing that continues to amaze me is how people can ignore Michael Collins' statement "I don't remember seeing any." re: the stars. He wasn't even on the moon, he was in orbit.

Stars section @ 1.05


How can he say "I don't remember seeing any" when he was in space, in orbit, with no atmosphere.

How could he not look out the window just once on the dark side ?

If they could dim the cabin lighting to film the fake transparency film, why couldn't he dim the cabin lighting when on the dark side and have a good old look out the window.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   


"The view of the Earth is what gets you, particularly from a space walk, not looking through a window. You're just out there in your little bubble of a helmet... You can see everything, and the planet is this gigantic round thing, it takes up your full view.. It's this big round thing that's up there... It's a planet out there in all this chaos. I can turn my head and see the Moon, and I can turn my head and see the stars..."
-Astronaut Mike Massimino, G4 Attack of the Show, 17 March 2010

The Apollo astronauts could have also turned their heads to see the Earth and turn their heads to see stars.

They are out there


g4tv.com...


edit on 9-1-2011 by FoosM because: color



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001


By the way, FoosM, your assertion that NASA supports Creationism is ludicrous. At least come up with a worthy diversion!


On the contrary DJ,
NASA by having to come up with fake science to support their landing hoax, is stifling true science.


In *Isaac Asimov’s first published essay (1958), he wrote:

" . . I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship [to the moon], picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science: A Thirty-Year Retrospective (1989), xvi-xvii.



In the 1950s, *R.A. Lyttleton, a highly respected astronomer, said this:

"The lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight, and strong ultraviolet light and X-rays [from the sun] can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. But even this minute amount could, during the age of the moon, be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep."—*R.A. Lyttleton, quoted in R. Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 175.



In 5 to 10 billion years, 3 or 4/10,000ths of an inch per year would produce 20-60 miles [32-97 km] of dust. In view of this, our men at NASA were afraid to send men to the moon. Landing there, they would be buried in dust and quickly suffocate! So NASA first sent an unmanned lander to its surface, which made the surprising discovery that there was hardly any dust on the moon! In spite of that discovery, Neil Armstrong was decidedly worried about this dust problem as his March 1970 flight in Apollo 11 neared. He feared his lunar lander would sink deeply into it and he and Edwin Aldrin would perish. But because the moon is young, they had no problem. There is not over 2 or 3 inches [5.08 or 7.62 cm] of dust on its surface! That is the amount one would expect if the moon were about 6000-8000 years old.



LUNAR ISOTOPES—Many wonder what value there has been in collecting moon rocks. One of the most surprising moon rock discoveries is seldom mentioned: Short-lived Uranium 236 and Thorium .230 were found in those stones! Short-term radioactive isotopes do not last long; they quickly turn into their end product, which is lead. If the moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-life radioisotopes would long since have decayed into lead. But instead they were relatively abundant in the moon rocks! The importance of this should not be underestimated. The moon cannot be older than several thousand years.



LUNAR RADIOACTIVE HEAT—Rocks brought by Apollo teams from the moon have been dated by the various radiometric methods. A variety of very conflicting dates have resulted from these tests. But the factor of relatively high radioactivity of those rocks indicates a young age for the moon.


Raise your hand:
Who here supports the moon only being only thousands of years old?

Who here millions?

Billions?

Now explain how the Apollo experiments and samples support your claim.

www.pathlights.com...

Praise the lord
edit on 9-1-2011 by FoosM because: offering praise



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Dark side, light side, facing the sun, not facing the sun, the Apollo mission would have gone through more phases than any craft orbiting the Earth, correct? These astronauts are claiming that at no point in their journey they saw stars? No point? Thats impossible!
I think it's possible they never had time to let their eyes adjust to the darkness so they could see stars. Given the earth in one direction, the moon in another, and the sun in yet a third, a fair bit of the sky would have significant light sources in it. Then there's the lighting in the craft, too. If you're in your brightly lit house and run outside into the dark at night, you won't be able to see stars, either, until your eyes adjust.



Originally posted by FoosM

The reason we can't see stars during the day is because sunlight is scattered in the atmosphere, blocking starlight. The moon hardly has any atmosphere, therefore one can see stars all the time.
wiki.answers.com...


That's only half the story. Yes, the scattering in the earth's atmosphere prevents us from seeing stars during the day. So on the moon it's *technically* possible to see stars even on the sun-lit side. You could set up a camera with a telephoto lens, and if it was pointed at the sky such that the sun, the earth, and the moon's landscape are not visible through the lens, you could take photos of stars during the day. The problem with the astronauts seeing stars comes from the problem that they would have a very hard time eliminating the moon's surface from their field of view. They could look up, but light would still be reflect from the surface of the moon into the interior of their helmet, and into their eyes. If they had some kind of cone they could put over their helmet, they might have been able to block out enough light to give their eyes time to adjust.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Nat, that minuscule amount of soil displacement is commensurate with somebody slowly dropping
the LM with crane on a sound stage with fresh dirt. That is not the evidence of a landing. How could you think that? The astronauts displaced more soil by walking.


The craft was only moving at 2.1 ft/sec, which is less than half the speed the average person walks at. And each footpad was only supporting about 600 lbs of weight. There simply wasn't a lot of force behind it.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



DJ, I have already proven that you have 'quote mined' Jarrah's video.


I'm sorry, I must have missed that post. Please provide a link so the Mods can confirm your statement.


And now you admit to "quote mining" him.


Where did I do that? Do you know what "quote mining" actually means? Here's an example: when you take a paper that proves that the radiation environment in space wouldn't be lethal to astronauts in a craft with millimeter thick walls if the transit through the ERBs were brief and the mission only lasted a week or two, take a table showing the exposure of unshielded astronauts out of context without mentioning the shielding part, do a bogus calculation and claim that the researcher's data contradicts NASA's, THAT's "quote mining."


You haven't seen all his videos.


I'm not a masochist, and I don't like being insulted or lied to.


You haven't studied his work.


I haven't studied the work of the people who believe Adam and Eve went to church on their dinosaurs. Apparently you have.


You post on his thread, so by all means watch his videos and come with your critiques.
What are you afraid of, that you will fall for his charms and facts and come back claiming that you don't believe man landed on the moon?


I find Jarrah White about as charming as a partially decomposed herring, but if you are challenging me to debunk him in detail: game on!

I will proceed to critique MoonFaker Radiation Anomaly II, part 3" as soon as I can get access to a computer with a sound card.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Now explain how the Apollo experiments and samples support your claim.


After you've explained why it's necessary for you to start quoting sources that are hopelessly out of date... oh wait, because you realize that you've lost the "radiation argument" and are trying desperately to change the subject.
edit on 9-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Brilliant
Foosm supports creationist theory, that actually does not surprise me at all.

Didn't you get the memo anyway? Even 'serious' Creationists don't use that argument anymore


Calculations show that the amount of meteoritic dust in the surface dust layer, and that which trace element analyses have shown to be in the regolith, is consistent with the current meteoritic dust influx rate operating over the evolutionists' timescale. While there are some unresolved problems with the evolutionists ' case, the moon dust argument, using uniformitarian assumptions to argue against an old age for the moon and the solar system, should for the present not be used by creationists.
www.answersingenesis.org...


Creationists - even they believe we went to the Moon, unlike resident YouTube dimwit Jarrah White



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


This opens the question, to me....having heard that Bart Sibrel is some sort of religious extremist, possibly of the "christian" slant (although, as yet, no idea his actual nutty beliefs), and those beliefs are the driving force in his determination that Apollo "must" have been faked (since, in his warped mind, "god" would not allow Humans to leave the Earth).....makes me wonder if anyone knows of "Jarrah White"s religious affiliations, and opinions.

Perhaps there is a correlation???



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Strangely, I was thinking along the same lines myself and was contemplating doing a little research. It certainly would not surprise me but as the company I normally keep is of intelligent and scientifically minded people the fact that there are people who still believe this creation crap is a little alien to me. I realised it was out there but it's not until my friend and I were in barrels of laughter watching some of it on YouTube the other night, that I realised the true extent of the mental retardation that infects some people still even today.
edit on 9-1-2011 by AgentSmith because: Substituted a comma for 'but', the retardation must be contagious.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Im sorry, anybody here trying to equate our eyes to camera lenses and film is merely distracting the readers.


Mechanically, the eye and a camera are very much similar. Both have an adjustable lens to focus at different distances. Both have adjustable diaphragms to limit the amount of light let in. Both project images onto a photo-sensitive medium.


Originally posted by FoosM

Here is a simple experiment you can do. Go out with a star chart on a clear night with a full moon. Wait a few minutes for your eyes to adjust. Now find the faintest stars you can detect when the you can see the full moon in your field of view. Try and limit the moon and stars to within about 45 degrees of straight up (the zenith). If you have clear skies away from city lights, you will probably be able to see magnitude 3 stars. The full moon has a stellar magnitude of -12.5. If you can see magnitude 2.5 stars, the magnitude range you are seeing is 15. Every 5 magnitudes is a factor of 100, so 15 is 100 * 100 * 100 = 1,000,000. Thus, the dynamic range in this relatively low light condition is about 1 million to one, perhaps higher!

Thanks for pointing that out. The brightness of the surface of the moon, when on the surface, is over 1 billion times greater than the brightest star in the sky, Sirius. So you've proven that they couldn't see stars and the light of the surface at the same time.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Dark side, light side, facing the sun, not facing the sun, the Apollo mission would have gone through more phases than any craft orbiting the Earth, correct? These astronauts are claiming that at no point in their journey they saw stars? No point? Thats impossible!
I think it's possible they never had time to let their eyes adjust to the darkness so they could see stars. Given the earth in one direction, the moon in another, and the sun in yet a third, a fair bit of the sky would have significant light sources in it. Then there's the lighting in the craft, too. If you're in your brightly lit house and run outside into the dark at night, you won't be able to see stars, either, until your eyes adjust.

Originally posted by FoosM

The reason we can't see stars during the day is because sunlight is scattered in the atmosphere, blocking starlight. The moon hardly has any atmosphere, therefore one can see stars all the time.
wiki.answers.com...


That's only half the story.


That is the whole story.




Yes, the scattering in the earth's atmosphere prevents us from seeing stars during the day. So on the moon it's *technically* possible to see stars even on the sun-lit side. You could set up a camera with a telephoto lens, and if it was pointed at the sky such that the sun, the earth, and the moon's landscape are not visible through the lens, you could take photos of stars during the day.


Oh, you mean like this:


So all he had to do was point up right?




The problem with the astronauts seeing stars comes from the problem that they would have a very hard time eliminating the moon's surface from their field of view. They could look up, but light would still be reflect from the surface of the moon into the interior of their helmet, and into their eyes. If they had some kind of cone they could put over their helmet, they might have been able to block out enough light to give their eyes time to adjust.


You are speculating.
Did the astronauts give reasons why they couldn't see the stars?
Scientific reasons?

If it was so difficult for them to see stars, then they would have had a hell of a time getting
their photography straight. With the amount of light you are talking about, their photos would have been
mostly over-exposed. But we dont see that.
We see photos with deep black skies, correctly exposed surfaces and well lit objects.
No way man.

Then the most fundamental question hangs.
WHY DIDNT THE EVEN TRY?
In the LM, inbetween EVAs
In the CM, on the darkside of the moon.

You are on the moon, how can you not stop yourself from looking up to see the heavens?
I just got back from trip. Found myself close to the equator.
And every night I couldnt help but to look up and see the stars.
Good god there were so many.
When the sun was rising I could see stars
When the sun was setting I could see stars

These yahoos claimed to have seen nothing!
They didnt even try to look for constellations!

Your eyes only needs seconds to adjust, at most a few minutes.
To fully adjust about a half hour depending on the situation.
They had the time.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
How can he say "I don't remember seeing any" when he was in space, in orbit, with no atmosphere.
He didn't say he couldn't remember seeing any at all. He said he couldn't remember seeing any while photographing the solar corona.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



It is evident you are desperate to continue to beat equines that are already deceased. BECAUSE it is the ploy, here, to distract from the appalling actions of "Jarrah White", and the undeniable fact that his shenanigans, lies, distortions, half-truths skewed and twisted into pretzels of unrecognizable c. rap have been exposed......to bring up the "stars" again.

A topic already explained countless times, previously in THIS thread, and elsewhere!!!




... how people can ignore Michael Collins' statement "I don't remember seeing any." re: the stars. He wasn't even on the moon, he was in orbit.


Then you posted a video. You COMPLETELY ignored the statement from Armstrong, and instead focused on that nasty woman who narrated that nasty film, in the clip presented in that YouTube link.

Collins' comment was merely an aside, AFTER Armstrong said:

[In response to reporter's question about seeing stars while on the Lunar surface, or whilst photographing the Sun's corona] -----

Armstrong: "......never.....without looking through the optics." (Here he is referring to when on the Moon's surface).

And, later: "I don't recall during the period of time photographing the Solar corona what stars we could see."

IT WAS THEN THAT COLLINS SAID:

Collins: "I don't remember seeing any".

GET IT NOW??? To you understand the context of what Collins said, in response to the topic of discussion AT THAT TIME?! The photographing of the corona!!!

Do you see, now, how that appalling movie intentionally distorted the comments, by inferrence??

Do you not understand that "Jarrah White" (and many others) do exactly the same thing??


More, here is just a PORTION from the Apollo 11 transcript, discussing stars at other times. (I strongly, strongly suggest EVERYONE follow my link, and read the whole thing.....and THEN come back and explain how any of that was "faked"!):




077:05:14 Armstrong: Okay. That sounds better because we're just - just went by Copernicus a little bit ago.

077:05:18 McCandless: Roger. We show you at about 27 degrees longitude right now.

077:05:25 Armstrong: Right-oh.

[Comm break]

077:07:07 Aldrin: Houston, when a star sets up here, there's no doubt about it. One instant it's there, and the next instant it's just completely gone.

077:07:16 McCandless: Roger. We copy.

[Comm break.]

077:09:21 McCandless: Apollo 11, this is Houston. We request you use Omni Charlie at this time. Over.

077:09:29 Aldrin: Okay. Going to Omni Charlie.

077:09:32 McCandless: Roger. Out.

[Comm break.]

077:11:57 Aldrin: Houston, Apollo 11.

077:12:01 McCandless: Apollo 11, this is Houston. Go ahead.

077:12:06 Aldrin: Roger. Seems to me since we know orbits so precisely, and know where the stars are so precisely, and can time the setting of a star or a planet to a very fine degree, that this might be a pretty good means of measuring the altitude of the horizon.

077:12:32 McCandless: Roger. [Long pause.]

077:12:51 Armstrong: Hey, Houston. I'm looking north up toward Aristarchus now, and I can't really tell at that distance whether I really am looking at Aristarchus, but there's an area there that is considerably more illuminated than the surrounding area. It just has - seems to have a slight amount of fluorescence to it as a crater can be seen, and the area around the crater is quite bright.


history.nasa.gov...



"I don't remember seeing any" when he was in space, in orbit, with no atmosphere.

How could he not look out the window just once on the dark side ?


As pointed out above, that comment from Collins was out of context....but look at the tie he DID spend, alone on orbit. (Doesn't he recount some of it in his book???)

DO you not know how to answer this question? Do you know how long the orbit lasted, each revolution, and the actual time the spacecraft (Command Service Module) whilst in orbit was actually out of direct sunlight? AND, also out of any Earth-shine? (The Earth is bright and reflective). Try to visualize the orbit....

Looking at this link:

www.stowastronomy.org...

Will help visualize. Of course, the EARTH is in the position that you, the viewer of that Moon image is in. The Sun's position is obvious, based on the way the Moon is illuminated....IF you could turn 180 degrees, and look back at Earth, you'd see it about 3/4ths lit. The CSM orbited the Moon one revolution about every 1.8 hours.


The spacecraft was placed in an elliptical orbit (61 by 169 nautical miles), inclined 1.25 degrees to the lunar equatorial plane. At 80:12 GET, the service module propulsion system was reignited, and the orbit was made nearly circular (66 by 54 nautical miles) above the surface of the Moon. Each orbit took two hours. Photographs taken from lunar orbit provided broad views for the study of regional lunar geology.


www.nasm.si.edu...

(Beginning to get the picture, now?? Oh, and every orbit, even once he [Collins] entered into relative darkness...how long did that last, after his eyes adjusted? What were his duties on the Flight Plan? Did he ever sleep? )

Apollo 11 Flight Plan, Complete Final Version -- April 15, 1969
(IN THE PDF ABOVE....start at about page 173, for the part of the Flight Plan involving undocking and Lunar descent of the LM).

So, think about just how much "spare time" he may hav had for "stargazing". AND, think this:

What would be the point??? The stars look exactly the same from the Moon, as they do from the Earth. Alignments all the same, no discernable (by naked eye) difference in orientation. They are TOO FAR AWAY for a minor trip of 250,000 miles to make any appreciable parallax difference!!!
And, he was likely far, far more interested in looking at the Moon's surface!!


Oh, and next time you take an airline flight at night, try an experiment....sit near the window, and look outside. Try to see the stars....AFTER your eyes have been exposed to light pollution, inside the cabin.


Now, I see you are following in the footsteps of "Jarrah White", and lying based on OTHERS' lies??:


If they could dim the cabin lighting to film the fake transparency film....


UTTER RUBBISH! And that trash comes from the same "source" as that appalling video clip on YouTube, from that same inaccurate, and highly skewed full-of-false-assertions film.

edit on 9 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Im sorry, anybody here trying to equate our eyes to camera lenses and film is merely distracting the readers.


Quoted for prosperity. Fyi human eye and a camera work alot alike. If you don't even know such basics who are you then to argue the matter?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


RE-quoted for emphasis, and posterity....and for the link at the bottom. (And, to illustrate something else about attempts to "distract"):


Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by FoosM
Im sorry, anybody here trying to equate our eyes to camera lenses and film is merely distracting the readers.


Quoted for prosperity. Fyi human eye and a camera work alot alike. If you don't even know such basics who are you then to argue the matter?



LINK:

The Human Eye as Compared to a Camera


First a couple similarities; both a camera and our eyes have a lens. Both a camera and our eye have an aperture device. Both receive light and maintain a method of capturing that light. And both have a function to interpret that light into an image.

For starters lets look at the lens system. A camera has a lens on the front surface that (on some models) can be interchanged for varying range of focus. Our eyes work on a two lens system. The first lens, the cornea is on the outer surface of the eye and can be compared with a cameras lens.



ANY QUESTIONS, FoosM???



edit on 9 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 302  303  304    306  307  308 >>

log in

join