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: 306
377
<< 303  304  305    307  308  309 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So all he had to do was point up right?


Point up, adjust the camera aperture, and hold REALLY still. The 500mm lens only had a maximum aperture of f/8. To get a nice star field, it'd take an exposure of about 4 minutes with the color film they had. That would pretty much be impossible to shot hand-held. You'd need a tripod.


Originally posted by FoosM
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.
Huh? What do the stars have to do with setting the camera settings to capture the landscape?


Originally posted by FoosM
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.
Why would they waste film on that? Stars shot with even a 500mm lens aren't going too look much different on the moon than on earth. The surface of the moon was of much greater interest and importance. Not to mention that their equipment, with the 60mm lens having a maximum aperture of f/5.6, just wasn't designed for shooting hand-held star fields.

Originally posted by FoosM
You are on the moon, how can you not stop yourself from looking up to see the heavens?
They might have. But with that big helmet around their head, there would still be a significant amount of light reflecting into their eyes.




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

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.


Just curious, how did you get the 600 lb figure?
Which LM is this based on?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Just curious, how did you get the 600 lb figure?
Which LM is this based on?


Apollo 11, touchdown mass was about 16,000 lbs. In 1/6th gravity, that's 2,667 lbs of weight. There are 4 landing pads. So each one supports 667 lbs.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Just curious, how did you get the 600 lb figure?
Which LM is this based on?


Apollo 11, touchdown mass was about 16,000 lbs. In 1/6th gravity, that's 2,667 lbs of weight. There are 4 landing pads. So each one supports 667 lbs.


Oh ok, I thought it was 30,000 thousand.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
So all he had to do was point up right?


Point up, adjust the camera aperture, and hold REALLY still. The 500mm lens only had a maximum aperture of f/8. To get a nice star field, it'd take an exposure of about 4 minutes with the color film they had. That would pretty much be impossible to shot hand-held. You'd need a tripod.


Oh were tripods to difficult to bring along?
They brought a golf club!
In later missions why didnt they bring equipment to photograph stars?
No excuse for that.


Originally posted by FoosM
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.
Huh? What do the stars have to do with setting the camera settings to capture the landscape?

You got it backwards, what does photography have to do with them seeing stars!
And why did Collin retract later that he could see stars...


In "Carrying the Fire" Collins writes of his solitude in lunar orbit in July 1969. As he disappeared on the backside of the Moon from Earth, he recalled, "I am alone now, truly alone, and absolutely isolated from any known life, I am it. If a count were taken, the score would be three billion plus two over on the other side of the moon, and one plus God only knows what on this side. I feel this powerfully-not as fear or loneliness-but as awareness, anticipation, satisfaction, confidence, almost exultation. I like the feeling. Outside my window I can see stars-and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void, the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars." He compared it to being in a skiff in the middle of the ocean with only the stars above and black water below. It proved a profoundly moving experience for him.


You cant have it both ways.




Originally posted by nataylor

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.



Weedwacker:


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".



Again Weed and Nat, you are walking yourself into a gut check.
Collins was never on the moon.
So his comment could not have been related to that. Do you agree?

Armstrong mentioned he did not see any stars except through the optics
How could Collins contradict Armstrong and Aldrin in not seeing stars through the optics?
Do you think Collins was talking about not seeing stars through the optics wich I assume
was for navigation.

If he wasn't contradicting Armstrong on the moon, or the optics, what was is left?

"I don't remember seeing any"

As in any at all, in any situation.




back to Nat:



Originally posted by FoosM
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.

Why would they waste film on that? Stars shot with even a 500mm lens aren't going too look much different on the moon than on earth. The surface of the moon was of much greater interest and importance. Not to mention that their equipment, with the 60mm lens having a maximum aperture of f/5.6, just wasn't designed for shooting hand-held star fields.


Im wasnt talking about taking pictures. I was talking about OBSERVATION.
As anyone would do naturally in a new land, country, planet. Look around.



Originally posted by FoosM
You are on the moon, how can you not stop yourself from looking up to see the heavens?
They might have. But with that big helmet around their head, there would still be a significant amount of light reflecting into their eyes.

From what? The stars? At any rate, they wore anti-glare visors or not? Anti-glare for the sun, right?



www.amazon.com...
edit on 9-1-2011 by FoosM because: added quote



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Oh were tripods to difficult to bring along?
It would be added weight for something of not much scientific worth.


Originally posted by FoosM
They brought a golf club!
Shepard brought a golf club head, which was among the small mass of personal effects the astronauts were permitted to bring.

Originally posted by FoosM
In later missions why didnt they bring equipment to photograph stars?
No excuse for that.
Again, no scientific value. There are big old telescopes on earth that can see stars far better than a hand-held camera on the moon.


Originally posted by FoosM
You got it backwards, what does photography have to do with them seeing stars!
Sorry, I just don't follow about why you think not being able to see stars means they would have problems taking photographs of the lunar surface.


Originally posted by FoosM
And why did Collin retract later that he could see stars...
All he said was that they couldn't see stars while photographing the solar corona.


Originally posted by FoosM
Again Weed, you are walking yourself into a gut check.
Collins was never on the moon.
So his comment could not have been related to that. Do you agree?

Not directed at me, but... Armstrong appeared to interpret the question as if they could see stars in two separate instances. One, on the surface of the moon, and two, while photographing the solar corona. Collins was not on the moon, but the photographing of the corona happened in lunar orbit. They photographed the corona as they came out from behind the moon. This "sunrise" was a kind of solar eclipse, with the disc of the moon blocking the surface of the sun, allowing them to photograph the corona:

AS11-42-6179:


So yes, Collins was there when they photographed the corona, and that's why he commented on not remembering seeing any stars at that time.


Originally posted by FoosM
Im wasnt talking about taking pictures. I was talking about OBSERVATION.
As anyone would do naturally in a new land, country, planet. Look around.

I don't know that they didn't try. Just that it apparently isn't mentioned anywhere.



Originally posted by FoosM
From what? The stars? At any rate, they wore anti-glare visors or not? Anti-glare for the sun, right?

The light would reflect from the surface of the moon, into the interior of their helmet. Try this experiment. Go outside in the dark, where you can see stars. Put on a baseball cap. Look up at an angle such that you can't see any of the ground. Now have someone point a flashlight from ground level at the underside of the brim of the hat, so that the light reflects off it into your eyes. Now try to look at the stars. You'll have a hard time seeing them.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


The kid is wrong. Mankind went to the moon but with better technologies than we are told. I reckon they where on moon before 69.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 





This pic appears to be taken while still orbiting in shadow..
Still no stars..Maybe that's one down the bottom..

Hey, look at the mining site reflecting on the moon..

j/k



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The stars business - another fine example of Apollo Hoax believer quote mining. Is there any evidence put forward by Apollo Hoax believers that actually doesn't involve careful quoting out of context to completely change the meaning?
Do you ever actually sit back and think 'Hang on, if I have to make all this evidence up like this - maybe they really did go...."
Or are you on some special agenda? Take down NASA? Take down the USA? Or the old 'God told me to do it' crap?

"We have to make people realise that man has never been to the Moon"
"But... they did go?"
"A minor detail, one that will not stop our word being spread"
edit on 9-1-2011 by AgentSmith because: Removed image of a muck spreader, spreading the good word of Apollo Hoax Believers



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


There aren't any stars because the solar corona, while dimmer than the surface of the sun, it still very bright compared to the stars. So the exposure on the camera still can't capture stars.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


Still no word on "Jarrah White"s possible religious agenda, ala' the style of Bart SIbrel??

In that appalling piece of junk film he released ten years ago (a clip referenced up above, from YouTube, regarding Michael Collins and the stars...that out-of-context non-issue clip....) ---- the film is titled "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". Loaded with inaccuracies and false assertions....

....anyway, particularly telling is how Bart Sibrel chose to open the film. Three "biblical quotes". They are, in this order (and quite ironic, in view of the actions of "Jarrah White"):

"When pride comes, then comes disgrace."
Proverbs 11:2


"There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed."
Matthew 10:26


"Let us build a tower that reaches to the heavens....

....so that we may make a name....

....for ourselves.
"
Genesis 11:4


Bart Sibrel's insanity has been displayed elsewhere, also...(his stalking of Astronauts to have them "swear on the bible").....

SO, where does "Jarrah" stand?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



In later missions why didnt they bring equipment to photograph stars?
No excuse for that.


We've already done that one:


Rember? Why must you keep repeating the same stale gambits, over and over again? Well, relax, I've had a chance to view "Radiation Anomaly II part 3," so we'll have plenty more to discuss soon. The "science-y" part debunks itself, of course, but getting to the root of Jarrah's hatred for Wikipedia is proving tricky. I expect he's pissed at the editors (or "vandals" as he calls them) for not letting him post a self glorifying biography of himself. If I can't work that part out in a day or two I'll just critique the science.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Okay, I'm not one to pretend I don't need help with something. I have been thrashing about on Wiki trying to find this:


This is a screen capture of the post on Wikipedia that seems to have set Jarrah's teeth on edge. Not being a vandal, I mean editor, I may not have access to all the areas of the Wikipedia hinterland. The only reference to Jarrah White I can find that is not a dead link (indicating that the post has been deleted) is this:



Since it is difficult to read, I will quote it here, deleting hypertext for clarity:


Proponents and proposals - Jarrah White

I just reverted an edit by 124.168.114.217 that added Jarrah White to the list of hoax proponents. The addition was too ad hominem to stand as written, but it raises the question - is he notable enough to be added to the article? I know we're more at the point where we would like to shorten it. Jminthorne 06:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to whithold judgement on the addition of "Jarrah White" to the proponents section, but it was reverted already anyway. Still, I copy edited what what attempted to be added, so here it is:
Jarrah White, a South Sydney, Australia, based YouTube user who claims to be the Grandson of Bill Kaysing. White claims that he will apologies to the Apollo Astronauts on behalf of Kaysing, should the proposed conspiracy be disproved. White strenuously defends his position, and has produced numerous videos presenting spurious evidence to support the theory of a hoax. White also supports the Ralph Rene position regarding "Gaddy's Pi".

Without third party coverage of any of this, I don't see it as being particularly important to add myself.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there must by third-party coverage of this, anybody can get on youtube and say whatever they want, it's the same as citing a blog post, unless there is some special reason to think it is relevent it probably doesn't need to be added. Voiceofreason01 18:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Anybody CAN get on youtube, but I doubt anyone, as a private individual, has such a well-written and produced body of work on this subject as Mr. White. Whether you agree or disagree with him, the effort is notable and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.177.134.118 02:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

His YouTube account here shows 640 subscribers which is a fair number. Does that count as verification of notability? Man with two legs 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really, no. There's a guideline at Wikipedia:Notability. Independent, third party coverage is what's really important.
— V = I * R 16:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk archives.

Does anyone see anything here that would set Jarrah off? Does anyone have access to the thread that Jarrah cites in his video, as shown above? Jarrah seems to have a remarkably thin skin. Is he throwing a tantrum because he doesn't have an entry on Wikipedia?
edit on 9-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Does anyone see anything here that would set Jarrah off? Does anyone have access to the thread that Jarrah cites in his video, as shown above? Jarrah seems to have a remarkably thin skin. Is he throwing a tantrum because he doesn't have an entry on Wikipedia?


As you pointed out, you don't have access to the full story so it's hard to give reasons..
Your opinions are just that but I'd rather see you attack the information rather than the messenger..

You are doing a good job with that so why delve into personel attacks.??

BTW, is he really that guys grandson.?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



BTW, is he really that guys grandson.?


NO.

But, I did find that amusing. And, that particular screed, that was subtley attacking White, was poorly written, IMO. The line about "Kaysings's Grandson" being the most obvious glaring error, and rather invalidates it regardless of other content.

Any number of people could, though, (I suppose) take a stab at editing it for better clarity and factual accuracy......IF he is, indeed, ever deemed to be "worthy" of Wiki.......

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

@ DJW001:

This entry was also amusing....any way to locate that number....what is it an IP address?:



Anybody CAN get on youtube, but I doubt anyone, as a private individual, has such a well-written and produced body of work on this subject as Mr. White. Whether you agree or disagree with him, the effort is notable and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.177.134.118
02:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


"...but I doubt anyone, as a private individual, has such a well-written and produced body of work on this subject...."


Comedy gold!


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



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



...but I doubt anyone, as a private individual, has such a well-written and produced body of work on this subject...."

Comedy gold!


Many "well written" works are fiction...
Doesn't mean it's true...



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



This entry was also amusing....any way to locate that number....what is it an IP address?


Exactly, it is an IP address. All of the "pro-Jarrah" Wikipedia vandals, er, editors, tend to post as "anonymous," and are identified, per Wiki protocol, by their IP address. I admit I'm an idiot about these things, that's why I'm asking for help.:



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



This entry was also amusing....any way to locate that number....what is it an IP address?


Exactly, it is an IP address. All of the "pro-Jarrah" Wikipedia vandals, er, editors, tend to post as "anonymous," and are identified, per Wiki protocol, by their IP address. I admit I'm an idiot about these things, that's why I'm asking for help.:


Are you asking members to trace IP's for you.??



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


No. But if any members are Wikipedia editors, I would appreciate their help in tracking down the wiki post that Jarrah cites. Difficult to build a case without full information.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by manmental
 



Have you already forgotten the SOLID evidence of deception that DJW unearthed, on just the "radiation" issue alone??


It is only you and other NASA lovers who hold fast to this belief that Jarrah is intentially trying to decieve. Evidence of his errors is NOT evidence of deception on his behalf. This is what I don't dig about you NASA lovers... you make it personal.


DO you think that boy (claims he's a "genius") actually used the wrong chart "accidentally"??


Perhaps, yes. And can you show me the source where Jarrah claims he is a genius? I believe that claim came from, an admirer.
Can you swear 100% on your mother's life that Jarrah used that chart intentially to decieve?
I thought not.
So where do we go?


The chart that was clearly labelled as "unshielded" values for radiation in the VABs....do you also think he did not read the entire source, where he found that data, and did NOT see the other chart (shielded values)??


Perhaps yes. Can you swear otherwise or show your proof of intentional deception?

Jarrah makes a massive effort to do rebuttals for a lot of the same criticisms prevalent in this thread. He admits mistakes. As I have said he makes mistakes too. But Like I say... it's his BELIEF dude. Get over it. He is not intentionally trying to hoax or decieve... he is intentially preaching his beliefs... like any priest/ guru/ teacher.


The fact that the shielded values blew his entire "radiation made it impossible" claim out of the water....doesn't that whole episode stick in your craw, at all??


No, because he has many more claims and also I want to see independant proof of man on the moon. So, no.



And, that was just the most recent discovery of his deceit. It started WELL back in the very beginning, with his outright lie about the woman who he claimed was a photographic perspective expert. She wasn't and isn't and....has admitted it publicly!


It was a school project back then and he embellished her details... big deal. Who hasn't embellished details ever? It's not that she is the pillar by which all his claims stand by is it? Don't be silly now sir.



Just two examples, pointed out in this very thread. I have offered up some very, very good YouTube videos by user "PhilWebb59" (You watch any of them yet??) that clearly demonstrate other cases of more "Jarrah White" misinformation, omission and disingenuousness. It is rampant, throughout his entire series of videos...and is undeniable.....


Yes I have. Phil webb is a NASA lover, like yourself and he can't offer me independant proof of man going to moon. Have you seen Jarrah's video rebuttals to Phil's video rebuttals?


Speaking of undeniable. The photographic evidence of the Apollo landing sites is conclusive. NO amount of desperate hand-waving will alter those facts.


Er.. you mean the NASA photos? Right. That's independant isn't it?
Fact: the official NASA photos of LM on moon are crap resolution to say the least.
Fact: NASA had time to doctor the photos.
Fact: NASA has previous history of doctoring photos.
Fact: NASA is a Government funded body.
Fact: The Government has history of doing wrongs.


Any questions??


Yes. Why is there not a speck of dust on the LM feet in the official photos and where is the blast crater? Oh... and why did IMAX have to use water to shield the same type of film that supposedly made it to the moon and back when they filmed the ISS being built?

































edit on 10-1-2011 by manmental because: spell

edit on 10-1-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 303  304  305    307  308  309 >>

log in

join