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: 322
377
<< 319  320  321    323  324  325 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by webstra
 



....and 2 hours in radiation is really something.


??

Well . . . . depends now, doesn't it?

The intensity of the *radiation*....right? AND, the length of time of exposure.

Nothing about the Van Allen Belts makes them particularly "deadly"....that's one of the biggest fallacies of this entire "hoax". . . . . and, by "hoax", I mean the HOAX belief of the "fake" Apollo....because, the whole concept of a "fake" Moon mission (several of them) is the real hoax.

Using the generally uneducated public's natural fear and misunderstanding of that BoogeyMan, "RADIATION", is part of their toolkit.




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by webstra
These pictures also show how unbelievable ridiculous far the trip was.


I know it's amazing isn't it, these days we can even fly robots to other planets and then drive them around and everything. It's just like, so frikkin awesome dude.



and 2 hours in radiation is really something.


Wow isn't it, I bet that was dangerous wasn't it? Wrong. Take a physics lesson... Please



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
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.


I've already explained why you can't just overlay that one graphic on top of the other, since their equatorial planes are not parallel to each other.




Can you include one with the inner belt as well?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by webstra
These pictures also show how unbelievable ridiculous far the trip was.

and 2 hours in radiation is really something.


This helps as well to scale:

upload.wikimedia.org...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Here's an animated rotation of the earth overlaid with the VAB graphic, if that helps people better visualize the relationship. I suggest watching it in HD since the lines are so thin.




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Source
Evidence
Link


The SIM stellar photography was done for surveying purposes, in other words, by knowing the orientation of the mapping cameras with respect to known stars, it was possible to pinpoint the surface features being photographed. These photographs suffered from "motion blur" but were good enough for the purpose in hand. They didn't need to be pretty. As for the 70 mm photographs of the gegenschein, perhaps you would care to characterize them in your own words:
Apollo 17 gegenschein photography.

You can see why NASA had another go at this during the Skylab program. Oh, by the way, doesn't this also blow the whole "astronauts never took photos of stars in space" meme out of the water?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Can you include one with the inner belt as well?


Sure, here's one. Looks like they pretty much bypass it entirely:



jra

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure I've posted these earlier in this thread, but since we're talking about the Van Allen belts (again)...






posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Thats nice and all, but are you saying that astrophotography was impossible on the moon and/or in the CM/LM during the time of Apollo?
Not at all. Just making sure people understand the difference in the amount of light between sun-lit landscapes and stars, so they understand why photos of stars would need big apertures, sensitive film, and long exposures.


Nobody here, on both sides of the debate, wants to claim that astrophotography was not possible with camera technology back during the era of Apollo.



They could have at least matched what amateurs can do today here on Earth.
But then, we read that NASA with Apollo did take photos of the cosmos... except we cant seem to find any evidence of this in the various image databases.

Well maybe the Astronauts weren't bothered to take photos of stars because
they didnt see any? We all agree thats not true.
There are very few accounts of this.
But they tend to be mentioned in books and interviews years after the "landings" happened.
Maybe space travel improves your memory?

LOL.



I think we can all agree the stars and planets should be easily visible on the dark side of an orbit. Whether that be the Moon or Earth. So this leaves the debate to how easy it is to see stars on the day side of the moon or Earth. To see if Neil Armstrong and Collins lied during the debate.


Why can't we see the stars during the daytime?
You can see one star during the day -- the Sun! But because the sky is so bright (due to the Sun being bright), other stars are not visible. On the Moon, if you shield the Sun with your hand and let your eyes dark-adjust, you can see stars during the "day".

Dr. Eric Christian
(August 2000)


I tell you, you cant have it both ways.
Somebody is lying.
Either these scientists and LEO astronauts or the Apollo astronauts.


Question NASA Mercury and ISS Stars (Part 2 reaction from NASA)


Question NASA Mercury and ISS Stars (Part 2 reaction from NASA).
Is NASA following the AwE130 whisper, within one week NASA is reacting to (Question NASA Mercury and ISS stars part 1).
Again they make the whisper a murmur, time is the answer to any question.




AwE130 is ending the debate with NASA by showing that stars are seen from earth orbit looking into the sun. Thanks to many youtube users it is game set match on the earth orbit star front. NASA it is you that made the whisper. It is proven beyond the doubt that stars are seen from earth orbit.
Stars are shown STS 63, ISS footage from NASATV.









edit on 21-1-2011 by FoosM because: link: helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Source
Evidence
Link


The SIM stellar photography was done for surveying purposes, in other words, by knowing the orientation of the mapping cameras with respect to known stars, it was possible to pinpoint the surface features being photographed. These photographs suffered from "motion blur" but were good enough for the purpose in hand. They didn't need to be pretty. As for the 70 mm photographs of the gegenschein, perhaps you would care to characterize them in your own words:
Apollo 17 gegenschein photography.

You can see why NASA had another go at this during the Skylab program. Oh, by the way, doesn't this also blow the whole "astronauts never took photos of stars in space" meme out of the water?


Those were made with 35mm camera.
And where is the source regarding the "motion blurred" STELLAR photos?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Can you include one with the inner belt as well?


Sure, here's one. Looks like they pretty much bypass it entirely:



Thanks, but I suppose if we really want to be accurate as possible,
can you use the AP8MAX models instead of the MIN.
Also both the MAX models for the Electron & Proton intensities
since they are both hazardous in different ways.

By the way, the inner belt goes up to 3 Earth radii.
Those models that you and I have been using are really not differentiating between the two belts.


AP8MAX Proton fluxes for solar maximum conditions
AP8MIN Proton fluxes for solar minimum conditions
AE8MAX Electron fluxes for solar maximum conditions
AE8MIN Electron fluxes for solar minimum conditions


Apollos launched during solar max of course.
Might even make the belts smaller actually.

When I originally asked you to make a model for the Inner Belt I was hoping you would use this:
forgetomori.com...

I would of like to see what happened much closer to the TLI.
Did the craft pass through the SAA for example?




modelweb.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Thanks, but I suppose if we really want to be accurate as possible,
can you use the AP8MAX models instead of the MIN.
Also both the MAX models for the Electron & Proton intensities
since they are both hazardous in different ways.


If you can find AP8MAX and AE8MAX plots, I'd be happy to include them. Given the trajectory goes at such a steep angle to the equator, I don't think it would matter.


Originally posted by FoosM
I would of like to see what happened much closer to the TLI.
Did the craft pass through the SAA for example?


As this graphic shows, they were up and out very quickly. If you consider the circle of the earth a clock face, the SAA would be at 4:30 on here. They were way above it.



And then there's the fact that their distance from the earth increased so rapidly, they essentially bypassed the SAA. Here's a video looking down from above the north pole. The longitudes covered by the SAA are marked with the green wedge. The TLI burn started over the Pacific, a little west of Hawaii. By the time there're actually directly over the SAA, they are already halfway to the moon. This animations covers 24 hours starting at the TLI ignition:


edit on 21-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Thanks, but I suppose if we really want to be accurate as possible,
can you use the AP8MAX models instead of the MIN.
Also both the MAX models for the Electron & Proton intensities
since they are both hazardous in different ways.


If you can find AP8MAX and AE8MAX plots, I'd be happy to include them. Given the trajectory goes at such a steep angle to the equator, I don't think it would matter.


Wait a minute.
You cant find the AP8MAX
plots for protons and electrons?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Those were made with 35mm camera.
And where is the source regarding the "motion blurred" STELLAR photos?


The CSM was moving. Think, FoosM, what happens when you take an exposure long enough to see stars with a moving camera? Think for yourself for a change. The photos I linked you to should give you some idea. In any event, the stellar photography was not for the purposes of studying the stars, it was to allow cartographers to determine the exact orientation of the mapping camera. If you must have some documentation, how about this:

Scroll to page 22.

As I said, it's difficult to find the pictures online because they're just not very interesting. Just because something isn't online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I showed you where to get them, so either order them or admit you're not really interested.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I tell you, you cant have it both ways.
Somebody is lying.


Yes, you are, or at least being deliberately obtuse and/oe misleading.



Why can't we see the stars during the daytime?
You can see one star during the day -- the Sun! But because the sky is so bright (due to the Sun being bright), other stars are not visible. On the Moon, if you shield the Sun with your hand and let your eyes dark-adjust, you can see stars during the "day".


It can take over 40 minutes for eyes to dark adjust.

As for that silly aWe video, I finally got a chance to listen to it and I must admit I owe you an apology. From your "set up" I thought you believed that the CGI sequence "proved" stars were visible from Mercury. I apologize. You do know the difference between CGI and telemetry; you don't know the difference between the narration for a film designed to make fifth graders say "gee science is cool" written by an edumacationalist who has never personally been to Mercury and a statement by a NASA research scientist. Incidentally, the man being interviewed, who I assume is a scientist (although we don't know since aWe is as careful to conceal his sources as JW is) explains that in the absence of an atmosphere the sky is black, Did you hear him say anything about seeing stars in the daytime? I sure didn't. And as for the astronaut on the ISS: wiw, that sure was an abrupt cut. I wonder what the rest of the sentence was? Might it have ended: "--when we are on the night side of Earth?" Honestly, FoosM, what do you think?

And while I'm ranting, who is this NASA guy you hoax propagandists keep talking about? "NASA says this" and "NASA says that." NASA is a huge bureaucracy filled with people with different agendas and opinions. Some of them are talking to math teachers in an attempt to make the curriculum fun. Others are talking to journalists, trying to help the reporters communicate what's going on to the general public. Yet others are talking to scientists and engineers who understand photogrammetry and specific impulse. "NASA says" doesn't cut it.



edit on 22-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.

edit on 22-1-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Those were made with 35mm camera.
And where is the source regarding the "motion blurred" STELLAR photos?


The CSM was moving. Think, FoosM, what happens when you take an exposure long enough to see stars with a moving camera? Think for yourself for a change. The photos I linked you to should give you some idea. In any event, the stellar photography was not for the purposes of studying the stars, it was to allow cartographers to determine the exact orientation of the mapping camera.


Where is the source that the photos were blurred?
If its in that linked file, then tell us the page # or post the text.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


I tell you, you cant have it both ways.
Somebody is lying.


Yes, you are, or at least being deliberately obtuse and/oe misleading.


How am I lying?
You and many others here love to label people and actions without a second thought.
It completely kills your credibility.





Why can't we see the stars during the daytime?
You can see one star during the day -- the Sun! But because the sky is so bright (due to the Sun being bright), other stars are not visible. On the Moon, if you shield the Sun with your hand and let your eyes dark-adjust, you can see stars during the "day".


It can take over 40 minutes for eyes to dark adjust.


I really dont know the point of this.
Why dont you simply state where you stand:
Is it possible for people to see stars during the "day" on the moon?
Yes or No?




As for that silly aWe video, I finally got a chance to listen to it and I must admit I owe you an apology. From your "set up" I thought you believed that the CGI sequence "proved" stars were visible from Mercury. I apologize. You do know the difference between CGI and telemetry;


One of many Im expecting.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


How am I lying?
You and many others here love to label people and actions without a second thought.
It completely kills your credibility.


In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the one with the credibility issues here.


I really dont know the point of this.
Why dont you simply state where you stand:
Is it possible for people to see stars during the "day" on the moon?
Yes or No?


I don't understand the point of this either. You've just posted your answer.It is possible to see stars on the lunar surface during the day if you shield your eyes and wait twenty to forty minutes. We covered this earlier in the thread. Did any of the astronauts shield their eyes and stand around doing nothing foe half an hour? No? Then it's no surprise that the astronauts wouldn't remember seeing any, although one did spot Venus, which is also visible from the Earth in daylight. There, you've got your answer, so proceed with the cut and paste extravaganza you've been loading up.

By the way, why can't you see any stars in this picture?




posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by webstra
These pictures also show how unbelievable ridiculous far the trip was.

and 2 hours in radiation is really something.


This helps as well to scale:

upload.wikimedia.org...


Thanks Foosm,

It's especially strange in relation to anything manned after.....no more than 400 miles.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 319  320  321    323  324  325 >>

log in

join