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: 320
377
<< 317  318  319    321  322  323 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



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:


Guys, way too much technical talk..
Can I ask the SIMPLE question please.?

1) Could any of the cameras or film take descent pictures of stars?
This includes from the moon or the CM given they were there during Moon night and day...




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Apologies:
en.wikipedia.org...



Ah, I see. That's an invalid comparison because you've overlaid an oblique projection on top of an edge-on projection. The radiation topology assumes the plane that goes through the equator (specifically, the magnetic equator) is exactly perpendicular to the plane of the image. In the orbit illustration, the plane of the equator is at an oblique angle to the plane of the image. Thus, the two can't be compared.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
1) Could any of the cameras or film take descent pictures of stars?
This includes from the moon or the CM given they were there during Moon night and day...
The Hassleblads had a maximum aperture of f/2.8. Even with the high-speed B&W film, it would take an exposure longer than 30 seconds to get good starlight. It would be very difficult to hand-hold a photograph that long, so you'd probably end up with a hazy mess.

The Nikons had lenses with bigger apertures, f/1.2. With the high-speed film they'd need exposures in the 8-second range. Again, very hard to hand-hold something like that. And then figure in that they're in a fast-moving craft, which makes staying centered on one subject for the required exposure time even harder. So their best bet was to take the photographs directly parallel to their direction of travel, which is exactly what they did. Even those didn't come out so great:

AS17-159-23911:



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Apologies:
en.wikipedia.org...



Ah, I see. That's an invalid comparison because you've overlaid an oblique projection on top of an edge-on projection.


Its a very valid comparison.
The craft flies in an ellipse.
Its a better comparison than drawing a straight line leaving Earth.
LOL.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Its a very valid comparison.
The craft flies in an ellipse.
Its a better comparison than drawing a straight line leaving Earth.
LOL.


More importantly: THE OVERLAY IS NOT TO SCALE!!! It's a diagram to illustrate the timing of the TLI burn. The sizes of the Earth and Moon are not even portrayed in proportion to their distance. Overlaying that on a chart that is to scale is intellectually dishonest to say the least.
edit on 20-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nataylor
 



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:


Guys, way too much technical talk..
Can I ask the SIMPLE question please.?

1) Could any of the cameras or film take descent pictures of stars?
This includes from the moon or the CM given they were there during Moon night and day...



Hasselblads were gimped to only take 1/250th shutter speed.
Hassies can normally take long and timed exposures.

35mm Nikons could very well take photos of the cosmos.
They didnt need to be hand held either.
So even in the CM the shots wouldnt be that bad.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
(less streaky than what Nat provided)

Point is, they could have provided the tools for it too happen.

What I would like to see is the 35mm photos from
Apollo 15 & 16.

I want to see the photos from the STELLAR camera

The stellar camera was mounted on an axis at 96° from that of the mapping so that it photographed the sky while the mapping camera photographed the lunar surface. Any photography designated "stellar" refers to this photography, except that discussed as Special Photography and Experiments. The film cassette containing stellar and mapping photography was removed from the SIM bay by the command module pilot during trans-Earth trajectory and was returned to Earth in the command module.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

I want to see the photos from the UV camera



Description/Purpose:
A miniature observatory that acquired imagery and spectra in the far-UV range...
The goals of the experiment were to 1) determine composition and structure of the upper atmosphere of Earth from its spectra 2) determine the structure of the geocorona and study day and night airglow and polar aurorae 3) obtain direct evidence of intergalactic hydrogen in distant galaxy clusters 4) obtain spectra and imagery of the solar wind and other gas clouds in the solar system 5) detect gasses in the lunar atmosphere, including volcanic gasses, if any 6) obtain spectra and colors of external galaxies in the far UV 7) obtain spectra and colors of stars and nebulae in the Milky Way 8) evaluate the lunar surface as a site for future astronomical observatories....
The A-16 timeline allotted ~8 minutes to offload and deploy the unit and another ~7 minutes to align it.
178 frames were obtained, including data on the airglow and polar auroral zones of Earth and the geocorona, and over 550 stars, nebulae, or galaxies.


ares.jsc.nasa.gov...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I want to see the photos from the STELLAR camera
I want to see the photos from the UV camera


Either request them from the NSSDC or stop tantruming,

Edit to add: Request NSSDC ID: ASVI-00009 Simbay Stellar Photography Support Data. They'll send you a microfiche.

edit on 20-1-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   


Nahhh that cant be stars.
That must be stardust...

Look how active space is!
Shoots stars everywhere... or are those ufos?
LOL.

And look how NASA can turn off the stars: 6:30


That brings up another issue,
Why didnt they have live TV in the
CM? This way the crew could have simply
floated the camera to the window and let the world
see our beautiful universe LIVE on tv.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



I want to see the photos from the STELLAR camera
I want to see the photos from the UV camera


Either request them from the NSSDC or stop tantruming,


edit on 20-1-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)


We shouldnt have request anything that should be part of the public record
Its 40 years, everything should be released into the public domain.
Its all payed for

And I bet you dollars to donuts you probably have to go through hoops and hurdles to get it.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Nahhh that cant be stars.
That must be stardust...


Or maybe ice crystals? The ignorant mock what they don't understand.



That brings up another issue,
Why didnt they have live TV in the
CM? This way the crew could have simply
floated the camera to the window and let the world
see our beautiful universe LIVE on tv.


They did. You've even linked to a video clip earlier in the thread. This brings us back to the question of exposure you've been dodging, and in the case of TV the additional complication of scanning resolution.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Well you did what I said change the subject lets see the Hasselblad cameras were set up so the Astronauts didn't need to worry to much about exposure, for a given film speed in bright sunlight a shutter speed can be preselected.

Depth of field of the lens was also used to reduce the need to focus although some shots did not turn out right most did.

The above tricks are what any decent keen amatuer photographer would know but you average internet IDIOT like say JW and a few others would obviously not have a clue.


If anyone else doubts what myself and others like DJW001 are saying they can look at astrophotography sites and see pictures with exposure setting for the Moon and stars they will also see how selective you are in what you quote and that you seem to have some kind of personal grudge against the Moon landings did one of your relatives get a knock back from NASA or something , AH thats what it is great uncle Foosm was made of the wrong stuff



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



We shouldnt have request anything that should be part of the public record
Its 40 years, everything should be released into the public domain.
Its all payed for

And I bet you dollars to donuts you probably have to go through hoops and hurdles to get it.


It has been in the public domain for 40 years. Ever hear of the "law of supply and demand?" Other than a few hundred research scientists 40 years ago, you are probably the only person to exhibit an interest in the data. As a taxpayer, I would expect you to pay for the duplication of the microfiche. The bet is on; document just how many hoops they make you jump through when you file your request.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



The bet is on; document just how many hoops they make you jump through when you file your request.



Seems fair to me Foosm..
Let us know how you go....



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
1982 people


The crew of Space Shuttle STS-4 show how space telescopes placed above the Earth atmosphere can work.


Its getting harder and harder to come up with excuses for the lack of stars
in the Apollo missions defenders. Very hard.



Happy Birthday Buzz...


LOL... 'WWF... uhhh E...'



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You give NO camera or exposure details so another disingenuous post but then again it came from you.

Its like showng this



and claiming it could win NASCAR well it is a car !

You have been shown MANY pictures over the last 300 + pages that PROVE you distort the truth anyone who looks at your posts can see that.

Just because YOU and ppk55 cant understand the basics of photography doesn't mean others cant and like I have said a quick check on astrophotography sites just show that for some reason you lie or post disingenuous pictures /videos about the subject with no back up info.

edit on 20-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: missing word



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 




I watched the vid Foosm..
How can you say they are stars when I see many are moving differently to the rest.??
Stars don't do that..They stay where they are reletaive to other stars...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I think you're catching on, to the tactics....



How can you say they are stars when I see many are moving differently to the rest.??


There has been a LONG trend, in this thread, of certain individuals attempting to deflect, and post ANY thing, no matter how irrelevant, in order to distract from the outing of their "hero" (the TOPIC of this thread!), who has conclusively been exposed as a liar and fraud...not to mention, a science dolt.

Has been obvious for months, and PAGES.....reflects on whom, exactly, would you think???



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Has been obvious for months, and PAGES.....reflects on whom, exactly, would you think???


Not me Weed, I'm open only to true, provable facts regardless of which side of the argument it proves..

I'll callout/question both sides of debate if I see something I think is not right


That's how unbiased debate should work....



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Its a very valid comparison.
The craft flies in an ellipse.
Its a better comparison than drawing a straight line leaving Earth.
LOL.


More importantly: THE OVERLAY IS NOT TO SCALE!!! It's a diagram to illustrate the timing of the TLI burn. The sizes of the Earth and Moon are not even portrayed in proportion to their distance. Overlaying that on a chart that is to scale is intellectually dishonest to say the least.
edit on 20-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.


yeah yeah cry all you want about it.
You guys have been using diagrams not to scale for years to support your theories.
This diagram helps people to see visualize that the craft would hit all areas of the belts.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

I watched the vid Foosm..
How can you say they are stars when I see many are moving differently to the rest.??
Stars don't do that..They stay where they are reletaive to other stars...



Oh you mean the UFOs.
Yeah, strange right.
Makes you wonder whats really up there.
But I suppose thats fodder for another thread.




top topics



 
377
<< 317  318  319    321  322  323 >>

log in

join