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: 316
377
<< 313  314  315    317  318  319 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



....But, just falling from about 200,000 feet is NOT going to accelerate an object to such speeds.....ever hear of "terminal velocity"???


Terminal velocity is not a set figure Weed, it varies due to air resistance..
In space there is no such thing though some say light speed is the limit..
Not much air at 200,000'..
But that wouldn't affect the chutes anyway..
They would just open later when they did reach an altitude with enough air/atmosphere...




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Ya know.....I felt that my explanation didn't have to be as precise (since I get complaints from certain people about going on too much sometimes. SO, having to go into all the technical details of the air density, and various terminal velocities as a result...? I thought people are smart enough to figure that out for themselves, tried to edit myself...then YOU brought it up??

Nit pick much?


Terminal velocity is not a set figure Weed, it varies due to air resistance..

Not much air at 200,000'..


But, enough for those rocket planes to have a bit of aerodynamic control. And, they went even higher....the reason for the jet airplane limit of about 127,000 is....the ENGINE also needs air ... for combustion.

Rockets carry their own oxidizers.

Also, take a look at the Space Shuttle....and the transition point after it slows from aerodynamic drag, from the speed on orbit....and when the RCS begins to be assisted by the aerodynamic control surfaces. Wanna guess at about what altitude that begins??


At 400,000 feet, a pre-entry phase begins in which the orbiter is maneuvered to zero degrees roll and yaw (wings level) and a predetermined angle of attack for entry. The flight control system issues the commands to the roll, yaw and pitch RCS jets for rate damping in attitude hold for entry into the Earth's atmosphere until 0.176 g is sensed, which corresponds to a dynamic pressure of 10 pounds per square foot, approximately the point at which the aerosurfaces become active. When the orbiter is in atmospheric flight, it is flown by varying the forces it generates while moving through the atmosphere, like any other aerodynamic vehicle.


www.columbiassacrifice.com...


The orbiter makes a series of S-shaped, banking turns to slow its descent speed as it begins its final approach to the runway. The commander picks up a radio beacon from the runway (Tactical Air Navigation System) when the orbiter is about 140 miles (225 km) away from the landing site and 150,000 feet....


science.howstuffworks.com...

Shuttle Columbia was at about 200,000 feet when the atmospheric forces began to destroy the airframe, flowing into the breach that had occurred due to the heat of reentry earlier, and at higher velocities.

NOW...the Saturn V?? First stage details:


During launch, the S-IC fired its engines for 168 seconds (ignition occurred about 7 seconds before liftoff) and at engine cutoff, the vehicle was at an altitude of about 42 miles (68 km), was downrange about 58 miles (93 km), and was moving about 7,850 ft/sec (2,390 m/sec, or approximately 5,352 mph).


en.wikipedia.org...-IC_first_stage

~5,000 MPH isn't going to cause the camera unit, when ejected, to burn up. In fact, it decelerates, with increasing air resistance...until finally the chutes open, down lower (have to look that up).

The first stage of Saturn V just tumbles down into the ocean. And hits the water. And sinks.


Those pesky, pesky and CLEVER rocket scientists figured out all of this stuff, long ago....before many (most!!!) of the Apollo "hoax believers" were ever born. This entire "hoax" charade persists for only reason, and one reason only:

The appalling lack of science education in many of the generations that came along AFTER the program ended.....and I definately include "Jarrah White" in that category, as an example (hopefully, not the majority) of appallingly ignorant generation. And, it seems to be present, regardless of nation of birth, or education.....
edit on 18 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Nit pick much?


Hmm, I don't think it's nit picking to point out what terminal velocity is since you brought it up..
Terminal velocity at 200.000' would be a lot different to closer to ground level...

What I said was boring was hearing about irrelevant flight details you may or may not have had.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by ppk55
 



And when would be the most opportune time for the US to reveal this?


Half time at the Super Bowl.??

Though really, I haven't been convinced of the hoax yet..



We can't expect the NASA Nazi's to ever tell us the truth now come on!
The only thing NASA can be expected to do is to create more elaborate excuses concerning their technologically inadequate lunar imagery.

NASA could easily launch a lunar mission, like an ICBM, with 5 rovers to the moon, each remotely controlled by NASA, which could investigate each of the Apollo landing sites, for the posterity of all mankind. "One great leap for all mankind." It would be such a great, cheap stunt. I can't believe they haven't done it yet.



edit on 1/19/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: incomplete sentence



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



NASA could easily launch a lunar mission, like an ICBM, with 5 rovers to the moon, each remotely controlled by NASA, which could investigate each of the Apollo landing sites, for the posterity of all mankind. "One great leap for all mankind." It would be such a great, cheap stunt. I can't believe they haven't done it yet.


NASA can't even afford to launch the next shuttle, never mind designing a complicated and expensive mission to shut a few fantasists up. Even if they did, would you believe them? No, you'd call them childish names.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Black Sky Region




About 100 miles (161 km) above the Earth is a region of darkness and complete silence. This is called the Black Sky region. The stars appear as brilliant points of light and the area between them is jet black because there is not enough air to scatter or reflect the light rays.




Shot with Nikon 35mm
color negative,
SA 1600
Normal Film Exposure

For those of you who want a link to the photo
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...



The Kármán line lies at an altitude of 100 kilometres (62 mi) above the Earth's sea level, and is commonly used to define the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space.[2] This definition is accepted by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), which is an international standard setting and record-keeping body for aeronautics and astronautics.





I've stated this before, if we can see stars
from Mercury which is extremely close to the Sun,
we should be able to see stars from the Moon.

Play close attention from:
2:41

So in spite of having the Earth, and its glow, right in your view,
stars can be seen.

Since we have been debating the stars issue.
Some people have stated the lack of seeing stars from the moon was possibly
due to the reflection of the sun hitting the regolith impairing the astronaut's vision. And this would also be an issue for photography.

I dont buy that for several reasons:

1. Albedo of the moon .12 grass is about .15


2. Shadow
If the astronauts were in the shadow of the LM or even facing their own shadow the ground would not be an issue.

3. The visors should have cut down such a problem. I would accept that the visors made it impossible to see starlight, but not while sitting in the LM, and not while in the CM.

4. If the reflection of the sun of the ground was such an issue, how come nobody complained about it? Or, do we have proof that it impaired them for other activities?

5. lens hood


We can see here that an actual hood was used for one of the cameras.
NASA seemed to think that a sun visor was good enough, they didn't make an issue of the reflective problems of the regolith:
www.myspacemuseum.com...


When you think about it, not using a camera hood made absolutely no sense!
Lens flare & dirty lenses on a dusty moon?

6.Ultra Violet Camera

Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph Deployment

The astronauts reported that the Far Ultraviolet Camera was extremely easy to unload and transport; however, it did have to be moved twice after being set up to keep it in the shadow of the LM. The camera was in operation for approximately 51 hours and was repointed 11 times during the mission. The film was retrieved at the end of the third EVA.

www.lpi.usra.edu...


If this big thing was easy to use and worked in the shadow of the LM.
They same could have been done with a Camera taking pictures of the cosmos.

On a side note: the photos from this "camera" could have been taken from Earth orbit. So what was the point of bringing it, and how do we know these photos do not come from satellites?


Long-exposure photos were taken with a special far-ultraviolet camera by Apollo 16 on April 21, 1972 from the surface of the Moon. Some of these photos show the Earth with stars from the Capricornus and Aquarius constellations in the background. The joint Belgian/British/Dutch satellite TD-1 later scanned the sky for stars that are bright in UV light. The TD-1 data obtained with the shortest passband is a close match for the Apollo 16 photographs.


Close match or the photos?
TD-1: Launch date March 12, 1972
Apollo 16: Launch date April 16, 1972

They main issue we have with taken photos on the moon is that the hasselblads simply didn't allow for exposures to take stars. So basically NASA gimped the cameras.

Ok, but did NASA provide cameras that could allow for exposures necessary for shooting stars? YES! Remember that photo I attached above? That was taken by a 35mm Nikon. And three Apollo missions took Nikons onboard.



NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) selected Nikon products as payload cameras for the spaceships Apollo 15 to 17 in the Apollo Program which had been launched in 1961 aiming at manned lunar landing, and in January 1971 we entered into a contract with NASA to supply our cameras.


What was the purpose of taking the cameras?

Apollo 15:

35-millimeter Nikon Camera
The 35-millimeter Nikon camera was mounted in the righthand rendezvous window and periodically made time exposures during the dark portion of the lunar orbit. The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether, and to what extent, reflection from dust particles at the Moulton point contributes to the gegenschein. The gegenschein region was not acquired but, instead, the camera photographed another part of the Milky Way as a result of a translation error in coordinates from the ground.


Ahhh too bad…

Ok, what about Apollo 16?

35-millimeter Nikon Camera. The 35-millimeter Nikon camera was mounted in the righthand rendezvous window and periodically made time exposures during the dark portion of the lunar orbit. The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether, and to what extent, reflection from dust particles at the Moulton point contributes to the gegenschein. The gegenschein region was not acquired but, instead, the camera photographed another part of the Milky Way as a result of a translation error in coordinates from the ground.


Ahhh too bad…

Ok, what about Apollo 17?

35-millimeter Nikon Camera. The 35-millimeter Nikon camera was mounted in the righthand rendezvous window and periodically made time exposures during the dark portion of the lunar orbit. The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether, and to what extent, reflection from dust particles at the Moulton point contributes to the gegenschein. The gegenschein region was not acquired but, instead, the camera photographed another part of the Milky Way as a result of a translation error in coordinates from the ground.



Now… three missions took a 35mm camera.
On the LPI website, only one mission provides images:

Apollo 17
www.lpi.usra.edu...

You will find some images that MIGHT be showing stars.

But other than that, the camera is NEVER used to its potential like what we see with the photograph of the shuttle, the Earth and stars.

3 days this astronaut was sitting going around and around the moon and he never thought about taking shots of the cosmos? Not for his family, not for himself, not for science? Not even planets? No? Not interested? Just the moon and Earth?

Ridicules
and
Unbelievable.

I challenge Apollo defenders to show us one photo or video that cannot have been produced on Earth or in orbit or by a moon probe. The one thing they could of had as evidence are photos of the stars with the moon in the background!

Taking a look at the photo galleries one will see that a majority of the photos are repetitive. Moon, Earth, Moon, Earth, Moon, Earth and surface photography that also has many repetitive shots.







www.lpi.usra.edu...
space.au.af.mil...
edit on 19-1-2011 by FoosM because: Added link



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Shot with Nikon 35mm
color negative,
SA 1600
Normal Film Exposure


Brilliant

Something else to add to the list of subjects that arn't your forte along with physics, space flight, science in general and common sense - Photography.

What exactly is 'Normal film exposure' Foos? How many milliseconds or seconds was it exposed for? And more importantly - SOURCE PLEASE.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM
Shot with Nikon 35mm
color negative,
SA 1600
Normal Film Exposure


Brilliant

Something else to add to the list of subjects that arn't your forte along with physics, space flight, science in general and common sense - Photography.

What exactly is 'Normal film exposure' Foos? How many milliseconds or seconds was it exposed for? And more importantly - SOURCE PLEASE.


And your forte is not spelling or photography.
You don't know what they mean by normal exposure?
Well I do.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Since we have been debating the stars issue.


No, we have not been debating the "stars issue," you have been trying to sucker newcomers to the thread into thinking this question has not been thoroughly answered twelve times before here. Please use your knowledge of photography to explain this mysterious picture:



It appears to be taken at night, yet the stars are invisible! Why is that FoosM? Is it a fake? CGI? Why are there no stars in this picture? One of your own sources provides a vital clue:


35-millimeter Nikon Camera
The 35-millimeter Nikon camera was mounted in the righthand rendezvous window and periodically made time exposures during the dark portion of the lunar orbit. The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether, and to what extent, reflection from dust particles at the Moulton point contributes to the gegenschein. The gegenschein region was not acquired but, instead, the camera photographed another part of the Milky Way as a result of a translation error in coordinates from the ground.


Think, FoosM.


3 days this astronaut was sitting going around and around the moon and he never thought about taking shots of the cosmos? Not for his family, not for himself, not for science? Not even planets? No? Not interested? Just the moon and Earth?


The astronauts were not there taking vacation snaps. As your own source says, there were several scheduled photographic experiments. Even in space, longer exposures are necessary which means that any motion will cause them to be blurry. Even mounted to the CSM, the motion of the craft would lead to disappointing results.



On a side note: the photos from this "camera" could have been taken from Earth orbit. So what was the point of bringing it, and how do we know these photos do not come from satellites?


Just exactly how high would a satellite need to be in order for the Earth to look like this?



I know: it looks fake to you. You spend post after post ranting about "why didn't they bring a little telescope" and when you find out they did, you ask "what was the point of bringing it?" Wow... just wow.

Finally, I enjoyed this so much I want to repost it:


Hysterical! That moron aWe doesn't seem to realize that the "Mercury" footage was a CGI dramatization of the mission! Some people really can't tell reality from infotainment. You sum it up perfectly, FoosM:


Ridicules
and
Unbelievable.





edit on 19-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.

edit on 19-1-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



And your forte is not spelling or photography.
You don't know what they mean by normal exposure?
Well I do.


Then please enlighten us.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
No, we have not been debating the "stars issue,"


Um, yes we have ... maybe you missed it. You should read all the posts, not just skip through them.

What do you have to say about this ... How can they just copy and paste information from mission to mission.


Originally posted by FoosM
What was the purpose of taking the cameras?

Apollo 15:

35-millimeter Nikon Camera
The 35-millimeter Nikon camera was mounted in the righthand rendezvous window and periodically made time exposures during the dark portion of the lunar orbit. The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether, and to what extent, reflection from dust particles at the Moulton point contributes to the gegenschein. The gegenschein region was not acquired but, instead, the camera photographed another part of the Milky Way as a result of a translation error in coordinates from the ground.


Ahhh too bad…

Ok, what about Apollo 16?

35-millimeter Nikon Camera. The 35-millimeter Nikon camera was mounted in the righthand rendezvous window and periodically made time exposures during the dark portion of the lunar orbit. The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether, and to what extent, reflection from dust particles at the Moulton point contributes to the gegenschein. The gegenschein region was not acquired but, instead, the camera photographed another part of the Milky Way as a result of a translation error in coordinates from the ground.


Ahhh too bad…

Ok, what about Apollo 17?

35-millimeter Nikon Camera. The 35-millimeter Nikon camera was mounted in the righthand rendezvous window and periodically made time exposures during the dark portion of the lunar orbit. The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether, and to what extent, reflection from dust particles at the Moulton point contributes to the gegenschein. The gegenschein region was not acquired but, instead, the camera photographed another part of the Milky Way as a result of a translation error in coordinates from the ground.



edit: so on all three missions this occurred " the camera photographed another part of the Milky Way as a result of a translation error in coordinates from the ground."

More importantly, where are all these amazing star studded pictures of the stars from all 3 of these missions?


edit on 19-1-2011 by ppk55 because: added quote + where are all these amazing star studded pictures of the stars from the 3 missions?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Your EYES dont work the same as a camera our eyes and brain have a greater exposure latitude thats why we can look up at the night sky and see stars!.

The exposures on the Moon were for a sunlit object so would have a very short exposure time.

On your post this picture

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Look at the speed rating 1600 so lets have a look at how that affects exposure.

Here is a link to an exposure calculator
www.calculator.org...

You can put in film speed and select the appropriate light level
it will then give you aperture and shutter speed.

Once you have worked out a few example Foosm why dont you shut the _ _ about no stars in moon pics.

If its to complicated for you I or I am sure others like ww etc can show you how to use it.

The ONLY light source on the Moon is the Sun so exposures are similar to taking pictures on a bright sunny day on Earth.

If IDIOTS on YOUTUBE still get confused by this simple VERY BASIC photographic principle how can you really believe the rest of the BS they spout!!!!



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



You should read all the posts, not just skip through them.


Like you? What is your response to the questions I posed to FoosM? For that matter, what is your response to the question I posed to you on the previous page?

In response to your latest post, I will refrain from pointing out that they did not "copy and paste" as, unlike some people on this thread, I recognize a figure of speech when I read one. Instead, I'll simply explain that they were trying to take pictures of dust. The astronauts would have a difficult time finding the target with their naked eyes, so they relied on instructions from the ground to figure out where to point the camera. They missed. They also used the 16mm camera for this purpose, but apparently it wasn't very successful either, because they tried a similar experiment on Skylab.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Do you propagandists just copy and paste the same arguments over and over ...
I've compiled posters repetitive and embarrassing history profiles before, and I'll do it again.
Respond to the above questions raised.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Do you propagandists just copy and paste the same arguments over and over ...
I've compiled posters repetitive and embarrassing history profiles before, and I'll do it again.
Respond to the above questions raised.






Give the full exposure detail for the picure then that is film speed rating aperture and shutter speed ps are you a cinematographer if you are you know f all about exposure

edit on 19-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Do you propagandists just copy and paste the same arguments over and over ...
I've compiled posters repetitive and embarrassing history profiles before, and I'll do it again.
Respond to the above questions raised.


Why not? You Jarrah propagandists keep posting the same questions over and over. I've documented it before, too.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
So ppk55 what question on photography do you want answered obviously you DONT have an understanding of how photography works so whats the question or will you log off as usual

edit on 19-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



he logged off yet again with no reply
edit on 19-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


My spelling? I'm not sure what my spelling has to do with your lack of technical understanding but if you want to comment about my spelling then all I can say is my excuse is time constraints and the fact I write a lot of messages from my phone. Not sure what yours is...

Regarding the photograph, it's all very well saying 'Normal Exposure' but what was it metered from?
What's the shutter speed Foos? As it's a photo of the Aurora it's not going to be a quick 'click' and it's done. There isn't anything bright in the photo Foos, bit like on the hoax believer side of the argument.
Perhaps you would like to elaborate and explain your 'understanding'?

And thank you for at last adding a link to the photo. Perhaps you missed this part in your source:


At times of peaks in solar activity, there are more geomagnetic storms and this increases the auroral activity viewed on Earth and by astronauts from orbit. Photographing them requires careful technique with long exposures and fast film (in this case ASA 1600).

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Emphasis mine.

And please comment on this bit as you so predictably would like to:


Such film can only be used on short-duration Shuttle flights and not from the Space Station because it is sensitive to radiation damage in orbit over time.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


What are you on about? The reason arguments are repeated is because you lot keep posting the same crap time and time again as if it's 'new'. So, in the interest of consistency and the fact that the logical rebuttel to each 'point' has not changed, you are always going to get effectively the same response back.
It doesn't take a lot to work it out, does it genius



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
For that matter, what is your response to the question I posed to you on the previous page?



Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by ppk55
I dare the next poster to reference the apollo lunar surface journal as a source and I will prove to you what a sham that is.
Let's hear what you have.



I'm glad you asked.... ( well, Nat asked but I'm sure you'll be interested )

What was your question .. I can't find it.

Here is the ridiculous claim..



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


So let's get this right, they used a black and white camera because a colour camera would have been too heavy.

But, smuggling a copy of playboy on board was no problem .. no need to tell NASA about the extra weight.

newsfeed.time.com...


Why take another flag? Been there, done that on apollo 11. More weight.

Then of course, in later missions they managed some small extra items like an entire Lunar Roving Vehicle.

And, the UV telescope, extra experiments etc... etc.. not to mention the extra water, food etc that would have been needed for the extended missions.

I'm sure I've missed some other major items.

So how can this statement be true ...


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


edit on 19-1-2011 by ppk55 because: added : what was your question ?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 313  314  315    317  318  319 >>

log in

join