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: 319
377
<< 316  317  318    320  321  322 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

And the amount of movement between shots and motion blur in the night-time photos should give you a good idea they're pretty long exposures.


Of course they are long exposures.
Whats your point?



Were the Moon surface exposures long DOH!!!

No they were typical sunlit exposure times for the speed of film used.

Obviously when a process uses three factors it's to much for YOU and ppk55 to grasp how it works.




Sigh...

Maybe the problem for is that my posts are too long and the details just get jumbled up there in your head. I dont know. All I can tell you is to pay closer attention to what I have posted in the future.

Based upon your thinking.
Apollo astronauts could not take photos of the stars with the Hasselblads because their settings were made for daylight photography.

Conclusion:
Hasselblads are incapable of taking photos of stars because settings for astrophotography, or night shooting, is not possible with the 500 EL models.

Is that correct?
You want to make the statement here in front of everyone that
500 EL series Hasselblads were incapable of astrophotography?
That they had no settings for long exposures?

Manual

And that NASA scientists were perplexed on how to include such settings for it?
Or that they didnt realize that, "Hey, wouldn't it be a great opportunity to study some stars?"

You know you are about to walk into a trap dont you?




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


The reason they could not see the stars from the surface is because the moon acts as a giant reflector.
Why do you think the moon is lit up? IT'S CALLED GLARE. Or also known on earth as light pollution.

That's why Michael Collins said as soon as he got to the dark side of the moon, the whole place lit up with stars! There was no more glaring light from the surface of the moon blocking out just about everything.

Why do you think observatories are placed as far away as possible from cities?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
reply to post by FoosM
 


The reason they could not see the stars from the surface is because the moon acts as a giant reflector.
Why do you think the moon is lit up? IT'S CALLED GLARE. Or also known on earth as light pollution.

Why do you think observatories are placed as far away as possible from cities?



That is not a problem ON the moon because there is no atmosphere to scatter light.
Direct light would be the real problem. Therefore, if you would look up, nothing would block
your view of the stars.

Second, the sun was low in the horizon therefore it created... long shadows on the ground.
From every pebble to rock. And as far as I know, shadows do not reflect light.

Third: The moon's albedo is the same as asphalt and grass.
When is the last time grass gave you problems with photography and normal viewing?
Ouch that grass is bright. LOL.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Where are those Apollo pictures of S t a r f i e l d s?


Thank you for a well thought out post. You make some excellent points.


Potential answers.
1. The Apollo 8 was performing the barbeque roll manouvre during trans-lunar phase (slowly rotating the spacecraft to help balance out thermal radiation absorbed by the surface of the vehicle facing the sun )and it was not technically feasible to do long exposure, dim-light photography for this reason.


A winner right out of the gate. Spacecraft motion made the dim light photos blurry. They were taken, but so dreadful and scientifically useless that only low resolution scans were made. They are difficult to find, but if you hunt through The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal you can find thumbnail arrays made by Ed Hengeveld. I will provide an example at the end of this post.


2. NASA has pictures of Apollo 8 starfields taken from LEO or MEO which could potentially reveal a hoax.


There is not sufficient parallax between the Earth and Moon for the stars' positions to change noticeably; the star fields would appear identical.


3. The surface of the moon is too shiny, outshining all other objects in space (save Venus, which was mentioned to be in a few photographs), therefore, attempting dim-light, long term exposure photography from the surface of the moon would be an exercise in futility.


That is not a problem. If the camera is shielded from the Moon's glare (to prevent lens flares and streaking) a long enough exposure is feasible. In fact, an ultra-violet telescope was deployed:

Larger version.


4. Same argument as 3 but using radiation as the excuse


Only light in the visible portion of the spectrum would be affected by the lens and shutter..


5. Listed as an item of interest by NASA in the December 15 news release (see above) dim-light, long-exposure photography was not undertaken by the Apollo 8 crew nor any subsequent Apollo mission because it did not serve the propaganda need at the time and which television served to specifically do: brainwash the population into believing that some blurry tv show was "a witnessing of history in the making".


This statement sounds programmed. In any event, dim light photographs were taken, especially of the lunar surface. Because they were boring I suppose you are correct on claiming that they did not make for good propaganda. Very few of the thousands of photos taken do.


6. They didn't carry enough cameras or film.


Possible. Any photographer will tell you that they never seem to have enough film!



7. Frank Borman and Houston were aware of this item of interest (see above) but were forgetful or neglectful in pursuing it.


The photographs were taken, they just didn't turn out well.


8. Windown contaminations aboard Apollo 8 significantly impacted the photographic capabilities of the mission.


In fact, many of the photographs show gunk on the windows or lens.

Here is an example of some of the countless photographs taken by the astronauts that were too blurry, boring or scientifically useless to make it past lo-res scanning:

In this case, they are ultraviolet images taken by Apollo 15.

As you can imagine, scanning through all the thumbnails for starfield photographs would be tedious. In any event the gegenschein and libration point point photography was unsuccessful and had to be repeated by Skylab:


Thank you again for a polite and stimulating post.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



DJ you have some apologizing and retractions to do before I answer any of your questions.
Starting with " You've already mistaken a CGI animation with actual telemetry"


Ok, I'm sorry you can't tell the difference between CGI animation and telemetry. Since my first example seems to have confused you, perhaps you can explain why there are no stars in this photograph, taken well away from city lights:


Courtesy the awesome Wade Clark.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


LETS go back to basics just for you Foosm and of course ppk55 whats required for correct exposure

For any ev light level for a set FILM SPEED (in bold for a reason) correct aperture and shutter speed.

Sure IF the film in the Hasselblads was of a suitable SPEED then they could take pictures with correct exposure to see stars.

To get a correctly exposed picture all 3 have to be correct its that simple.

You referred to the Nikon camera used on the other missions do you know the film speed used.

You have a knack of just using whats suits you agenda but with photography and most other subjects you have to compare like with like not what suits YOU!

So as the surface was lit by the sun exposures on Moon were like a sunny day on earth YOU go out and take a picture of stars with a film or digital camera (set at 100-200 asa)with a typical sunny day setting and see how many stars show up. (160 asa used on Moon if irc.) (sunny day 200 asa f16 aperture 1/250th of a second)

Had the astronauts had the right film and more importantly the time they could have taken starfield shots BUT it would have no benefit to the mission on the Moon sorry but thats the TRUTH!




edit on 20-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: spelling



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Where are those Apollo pictures of S t a r f i e l d s?


None of your potential answers are correct. Anders messed up and started taking photos of the lunar surface with Magazine G, which was the high-speed 2485 film. This was at about 71 hours MET. The astronomical observations were to be made around 85 hours MET. Anders realized his mistake a few hours after taking the shots:


074:41:50 Anders: Roger. Since the qual[ity] isn't so good, let me give you a quick rundown of the status of photo targets. You ready to copy?

074:41:59 Collins: Ready to copy.

074:42:05 Okay. At rev 1, we got photo target 90 and terminator photography south for near-side terminator. Starting on rev 2, we've got target 12 and targets 10, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 23. Unfortunately, we got into a high - I got into the high-speed film there somewhere, and I think those 250-mm targets were on high speed. We did change film, and starting out in Tex - Crater Texas, with target 28, 31, 40, 36, plus several targets of opportunity that were recorded on the DSE, but apparently lost. Have you been able to copy?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Sigh...

Maybe the problem for is that my posts are too long and the details just get jumbled up there in your head. I dont know. All I can tell you is to pay closer attention to what I have posted in the future.

Based upon your thinking.
Apollo astronauts could not take photos of the stars with the Hasselblads because their settings were made for daylight photography.


Pay attention, FoosM: no-one is saying that the Hasselblads couldn't be used for astrophotography. We've just been trying to explain why, when set to photograph the bright lunar surface, stars would not register on the film. Your entire post is a straw man gone up in flames.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

The Astronauts had limited time on the surface so why photograph the sky.





Right.....

So astronauts had a limited time on the surface, yet they had plenty of time to plant their flags. Like that had any scientific purpose. Right? Lets see how fabric waves on the moon, right?

And in the CM?

Hmmm... in space, stars and planets are not important to take photos of... but SOUP!?



Now thats what Im talking about! We need photos of soup and liquids!

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The thing's hollow—it goes on forever... and
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Oh my God... its full of STARS!
www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Cant tell if this is the peepee bag or our food...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Its ALIVE!
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Wait... what was our mission again Cap'n?


to determine whether, and to what extent, reflection from dust particles at the Moulton point contributes to the gegenschein.


English please... nevermind.


Cap'n how many rolls of film do we have? Whats that? 8? So potentially 320 photos? Ok!
I can at least waste a roll and a half on this:



and few rolls of headshots of me, and the crew shaving, eating, making funny faces:

Yeah, thats for the science books!

Ill take some weird photos of the moon even though we
are taking photos of the moon with the panoramic camera:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

I even took some photos of the moon with our Hassie
www.lpi.usra.edu...
But we cant ever have enough photos of the moon, right?

Can we say OVERKILL!?
Can we also say FILLER photos!?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Now thats what Im talking about! We need photos of soup and liquids!


Yes, as a matter of fact. we do. It is important to understand how liquids behave in microgravity. On Earth, foodstuffs can separate out... think of the oil rising to the top of a jar of peanut butter. Does this happen in space, FoosM? Would you expect it to? How would you confirm your hypothesis? If it doesn't, what does it do? Can that be fixed?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


to determine whether, and to what extent, reflection from dust particles at the Moulton point contributes to the gegenschein.


English please... nevermind.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it scientifically invalid.


Originally posted by FoosM
I can at least waste a roll and a half on this:


Those are calibration photos.


Originally posted by FoosM
Can we say OVERKILL!?
Can we also say FILLER photos!?

Again, just because you don't understand the rationale doesn't mean the whole thing didn't happen. All you've proven is that you disagree with the subjects they chose to photograph.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Using a diagram from Wikipedia showing the proton flux, we can make a very rough approximation of the areas they passed through:



Distances are all to scale. Times indicate the difference in time from the previous mark.

The inner belt, extending out to a maximum of 9500 km, would have been no problem. They'd be through that in under 25 minutes.



Nat, here is an example that is more fitting, not perfect, but more fitting:



When you look at the trajectory in this way, you can see how
the path of the spacecraft basically goes through all areas of the outer belt.
Right through the hottest zone.
And I suspect, it would also for the inner belt.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor


Originally posted by FoosM
I can at least waste a roll and a half on this:


Those are calibration photos.
.


Nat, what could they possibly be calibrating?
They are not shooting polaroids.

And whats the point of shooting a whole roll of calibration shots if you end up putting a new roll in?

edit on 20-1-2011 by FoosM because: typo



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
no-one is saying that the Hasselblads couldn't be used for astrophotography.


Now that we got that straight.
If the astronauts wanted to, could they use those Hassies for astrophotography?
Did NASA include settings for them?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor


Originally posted by FoosM
I can at least waste a roll and a half on this:


Those are calibration photos.
.


Nat, what could they possibly be calibrating?
They are not shooting polaroids.

And whats the point of shooting a whole roll of calibration shots if you end up putting a new roll in?

edit on 20-1-2011 by FoosM because: typo



It's so the people on earth who are developing the film have an idea of the light conditions that the rest of the films they are processing were shot in.

Most of us here are amateurs, so I really want to see you head over to the Bautforum and try to debate some actual astrophysics folks. Ya know, people who actually build spacecraft and that sort of thing..... I'm sure they would be happy to oblige.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

And whats the point of shooting a whole roll of calibration shots if you end up putting a new roll in?

The calibration shots were made on one roll of film before the mission started. Then that roll of film was sent along with the mission so it would be exposed to all the same environmental conditions as the film shot on the mission. When they returned, additional calibration shots were added to the last roll of film. This allowed them to compare the condition of the film pre- and post-flight.
edit on 20-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

And whats the point of shooting a whole roll of calibration shots if you end up putting a new roll in?

The calibration shots were made on one roll of film before the mission started. Then that roll of film was sent along with the mission so it would be exposed to all the same environmental conditions as the film shot on the mission. When they returned, additional calibration shots were added to the last roll of film. This allowed them to compare the condition of the film pre- and post-flight.
edit on 20-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)


Source?

And why would they be worried about the condition of the film?
Why didnt they do the same for the Hassies?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Source?

And why would they be worried about the condition of the film?
Why didnt they do the same for the Hassies?



Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report:



Since they needed to make very precise measurements of dim light with no reference points, they needed calibration shots. The Hasselblad photos were for photogrammetric use, not densitometric use like this film.
edit on 20-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Nat, here is an example that is more fitting, not perfect, but more fitting:



When you look at the trajectory in this way, you can see how
the path of the spacecraft basically goes through all areas of the outer belt.
Right through the hottest zone.
And I suspect, it would also for the inner belt.


Source? That looks suspect to me because it indicates the moon was at an inclination of nearly 90 degrees at arrival. Obviously that can't be as the moon's maximum inclination relative to the equator is under 30 degrees.
edit on 20-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Source?


Apologies:
en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 316  317  318    320  321  322 >>

log in

join