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: 323
377
<< 320  321  322    324  325  326 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.


Well then you are not the same DJW001 that has been posting lately.
But you are doing a good job following in his foot-steps.






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?


Probably not, and why would they have to?


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,




I love it.
First he comes up with this 40 minute number out of... where exactly?
Then he casually mentions 20 to 40 minutes... based on what exactly?
Then using these specious numbers uses this as the frame for arguing that
Astronauts didnt have the time to sit there for 20 to 40 minutes having their
eyes
adjusted to the dark.



Then he wants us to believe that these same astronauts, that had problems seeing
stars, managed to notice Venus that was basically right above them. How long
before they dark adapted to see Venus? How long were they straining their necks to see it?




so proceed with the cut and paste extravaganza you've been loading up.


What? Something wrong with backing up my claims?
I mean, I know you are not just going to take my word for it,
So its best to you hear it from your own heralded heroes.
I know it sucks when you are on the receiving end.

Well without further ado by popular demand...



"Now, how would you feel, Mrs. Armstrong, if it turned out - of course nobody knows - but if it turns out that your son is the first man to land on the moon? What, how do, how would you feel?




Armstrong- " We were never able to see stars on the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics."

Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Journal, Gene Cernan:


"...when you were on the surface in the LM's shadow, there were too many
bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible. But I
remember that I wanted to see whether I could see stars, and there were
times out on the surface when I found that, if you allowed yourself to just
focus and maybe even just shielded your eyes to some degree, even outside
the LM shadow you could see stars in the sky.
I could see stars through my
helmet visor; not easily, but it can be done."






Armstrong- " We were never able to see stars on the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics."



Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin used the circular lunar surface star chart to determine their exact position on the moon after landing on the planet's surface on July 20, 1969, according to the auction catalog.

The device shows the Earth, sun, planets and constellations on one sheet; a transparent overlay is imprinted with six overlapping circles.

"This star chart was the most critical navigational device we used while on the Moon," read a letter accompanying the chart and signed by Aldrin.

The tool had been expected to bring in $70,000 to $90,000, according to the auction house. Bonhams New York did not identify the buyer.


Ouch did somebody get ripped off!

Armstrong- " We were never able to see stars on the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics."




Armstrong,Aldrin and Collins had not seen the moon on the way out, but according to the flight plan they were supposed to take some pictures of it a few hours before braking into lunar orbit. As they finished breakfast, a sudden darkness came around them and for the first time in the flight the sky was full of stars, too many to count, each with a steady, gemlike brilliance. They had flown into the lunar shadow. Through the windows of the slowly turning spacecraft they looked out at the place where the sun had once been, and there was the moon: a huge, magnificent sphere bathed in the eerie blue light of earthshine, each crater rendered in ghostly detail,all except for a third of the globe,which was a crescent of blackness. As their eyes adapted to the darkness they saw that the entire moon was set against a giant ellipse of pearly white light,the glowing gases of the suns outer atmosphere which stretched beyond the moon into the blackness. Somehow in these strange, cosmic illuminations the moon looked decidely three-dimensional. bulging out at them as if to present itself in welcome,or, perhaps, warning.

A MAN ON THE MOON P.187 ANDREW CHAIKIN.

Gene Cernan

But I knew that if we lost all of our guidance computers, I could have flown that LM into lunar orbit for a rendezvous with Ron Evans. Manually. And by 'manually', I mean (visually guiding) with the stars (and) with the horizon of the Moon. I'd done it enough in the simulators that I knew what my remaining systems were going to tell me; and I had confidence that Jack was going to give me whatever information I need from him





www.thefreelibrary.com...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
edit on 22-1-2011 by FoosM because: none



jra

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I don't think any of the astronauts spotted Venus themselves, as far as I know. To my knowledge it was only noticed in some Apollo 14 photos just a few years ago.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



First he comes up with this 40 minute number out of... where exactly?
Then he casually mentions 20 to 40 minutes... based on what exactly?
Then using these specious numbers uses this as the frame for arguing that
Astronauts didnt have the time to sit there for 20 to 40 minutes having their
eyes adjusted to the dark.


I'm sorry, I wasm't aware that we need tp document things that any five year old child know knows from their own experience:


The eye takes approximately 20–30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness and become ten thousand to one million times more sensitive than at full daylight. In this process, the eye's perception of color changes as well. However, it takes approximately five minutes for the eye to adapt to bright sunlight from darkness. This is due to cones obtaining more sensitivity when first entering the dark for the first five minutes but the rods take over after five or more minutes.[1]

Wikipedia.

Now, was Chakin in the CSM with the astronauts? You'll need to document that he was. Was Cernan on Apollo 11 with Armstrong? You'll need to demonstrate that he was if you want your manufactured "contradiction" to hold water.

Now: why can't you see any stars in this picture?



There are no "contradictions" for you to account for, other than your complete lack of knowledge of photography contradicting your pretense of omniscience.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
reply to post by DJW001
 


I don't think any of the astronauts spotted Venus themselves, as far as I know. To my knowledge it was only noticed in some Apollo 14 photos just a few years ago.


Odd though..Most astronauts know a fair bit about astronomy yet the didn't bother to look at the stars in the hours they would have had a view unheard of on earth?
You say it's true but I find it strange...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The only way some people will know how the reality works is to buy their own camera and go take pictures of moon/stars. Instead they seem to like to sit on their bums and argue it to no end on the internets. Trolls I say.
edit on 22/1/2011 by PsykoOps because: removed extra the



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Why?


...yet the didn't bother to look at the stars in the hours they would have had a view unheard of on earth?


Really, the stars look no different, all that much. Ya know, those men HAD flown before, in space??

It's not like they were going to stare in awe, again...they had work to do....plenty of time for stargazing, and reflection later. You can spend hours on your back, in the woods, on a clear night...and see much better...undisturbed, relaxed, no pressure...just starng at stars. They will look the same.

At night, from the cockpit, and at 39,000 feet? No moon, all interior lights turned off...AND, give your eyes time to adapt they are steady, barely any twinkling. Be almost as good as being in a vacuum.

And, gets boring real fast.

Oh, and BTW...a modern airliner has MUCH BIGGER WINDOWS to look out of, than the Apollo CSM!!!!!



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Weed, your posts contradict each other.

On the one hand you say this ...


Originally posted by weedwhacker
they had work to do....plenty of time for stargazing, and reflection later.


But when the issue of them spending 1 hour in total over 6 missions setting up 6 flags ... you say this ...


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Pictures of the flag,??? Who flippin' cares?!?
The Astronauts??? Nah...they wanted to do the science.


Surely they could have sacrificed the setting up of just one flag, and used that time to take some incredible pictures of the stars that would leave the world in awe.

Unseen, astounding pictures of the cosmos, or another shot of another flag?

Which one sounds like science to you?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


How long did it take to set up each flag?? AND< only one needed to do it, while the other did something else.

You still think they should just stand still for 20 minutes, close their eyes to let them light adapt.....?? Then what? Stand around some more, and look at the stars because......????

Oh, now you think they should ALSO take more special camera equipment?:


Unseen, astounding pictures of the cosmos...


FAR, FAR better photos had already existed, for long time....from TELESCOPES on Earth. Lots of telescopes are built up in the mountains...for a reason, ya know.....AND, the "astounding cosmos"?? You will need a very heavy, complcated long lens, with your camera....IF you think it "needed" to be done from the Moon. Oh, and BTW.....did you know that, depending on where you are on the Moon's surface, the Earth is always hanging around, in about the same spot!!

Face it, this is silly, this "stars" 'argument'.

It is being used to DISTRACT from the fact that "Jarrah WHite" has been caught out as a liar and a fraud...not to mention not very bright, in terms of the science and astrophysics involved....

edit on 22 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Just a brief visit... I can't resist taking a poke at this latest ppk masterpiece...

Originally posted by ppk55
Weed, your posts contradict each other.

I'm not sure where.. Anyway, ppk55, shall we see if your post is well-considered?


Surely they could have sacrificed the setting up of just one flag, and used that time to take some incredible pictures of the stars that would leave the world in awe.

Ok, time for you to step up to the plate, ppk.. Now's the time to actually show your knowledge.

BE SPECIFIC. Please answer EACH ONE of these questions, in DETAIL. I've numbered them for you - don't forget any - there's only five...

Now, if you don't know the topic well enough, I suggest you say so now, rather than be very embarrassed later. But it's up to you... Oh, and I've even kindly included a few hints..

1. How exactly would these images, taken from the sunlit side of the Moon, be 'astounding'?

2. What sort of equipment would you suggest they use, and how?

3. Just how many f-stops advantage would there be? (Or if you prefer, what would be the limiting magnitude advantage?)

4. What effect would using a different speed film (from those available at the time) have on all this, or would you suggest an electronic sensor? How much dynamic range did the films/sensors of that era have, and why is that relevant?

5. How would these 'astounding pictures' compare to those from say the Palomar 48", or perhaps the Cerro Tololo or Kitt Peak 158" scopes?


Which one sounds like science to you?


A very good question. let's discuss that science, shall we?

Anyway, I'm not back for long, other than to flesh this little topic out in painful detail for ppk.

But one other thing - the radiation thing is almost finished - I'll be posting a link shortly...

ppk, will you be taking a good long look at my analysis and picking it to pieces with your extraordinary scientific knowledge? I'm really looking forward to seeing that..



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Traveling to the stars but NOT taking pictures of them just seems off to me..
Kind of like the Mars mission not caring about TRUE colour..

Just seem the space missions, paid for by tax payers, cared nothing for what them tax payers would care to see..

Odd, very odd....



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



1. How exactly would these images, taken from the sunlit side of the Moon, be 'astounding'?


The CM and ALL astronauts spent plenty of time outside the sunlit side of the moon...



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Traveling to the stars but NOT taking pictures of them just seems off to me..
Kind of like the Mars mission not caring about TRUE colour..


They didn't travel to the stars, they traveled to the Moon. The stars look exactly the same there as they do on Earth, but they don't twinkle. The "what color is Mars" debate has its own thread, but in the context of this thread, let's just say there are more important things to find out about Mars than exactly what color the sky is there.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

5. How would these 'astounding pictures' compare to those from say the Palomar 48", or perhaps the Cerro Tololo or Kitt Peak 158" scopes?




Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo both had first light after the Apollo missions.
Silly to use those observatories as examples.
The unique opportunity was DURING Apollo, who cares what the advancements in
telescope technology could do AFTER Apollo.
edit on 23-1-2011 by FoosM because: grammar



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Traveling to the stars but NOT taking pictures of them just seems off to me..
Kind of like the Mars mission not caring about TRUE colour..

Just seem the space missions, paid for by tax payers, cared nothing for what them tax payers would care to see..

Odd, very odd....


Borman makes it VERY clear what the Apollo missions where all about:



This doesn't prove hoax, but it does throw a wrench into the idea that
Apollo was science based and not military based.

Lets not forget, the Astronauts were made up of 99% if not 100% military personnel.
They were soldiers not scientists.

If science was not the objective,
how easy would it be to just fool the enemy into thinking
you are more advanced then you are.

Failure was not an option.
Lying, subterfuge, propaganda,
etc is all common practice in politics and war.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ppk55
 


How long did it take to set up each flag?? AND< only one needed to do it, while the other did something else.

You still think they should just stand still for 20 minutes, close their eyes to let them light adapt.....?? Then what? Stand around some more, and look at the stars because......????




They didnt have to stand around, just by working on the surface of the moon their eyes became adapted (so they said). So by the time they planted the flag, their eyes should have been adapted enough to make comments about their environment OTHER than the dirt under their feet. LOL.

edit on 23-1-2011 by FoosM because: fix text



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



First he comes up with this 40 minute number out of... where exactly?
Then he casually mentions 20 to 40 minutes... based on what exactly?
Then using these specious numbers uses this as the frame for arguing that
Astronauts didnt have the time to sit there for 20 to 40 minutes having their
eyes adjusted to the dark.


I'm sorry, I wasm't aware that we need tp document things that any five year old child know knows from their own experience:


The eye takes approximately 20–30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness and become ten thousand to one million times more sensitive than at full daylight. In this process, the eye's perception of color changes as well. However, it takes approximately five minutes for the eye to adapt to bright sunlight from darkness. This is due to cones obtaining more sensitivity when first entering the dark for the first five minutes but the rods take over after five or more minutes.[1]

Wikipedia.


Ah, so it took them only 5 minutes to adjust to their surroundings.
Interesting. That is a far cry from the 40 you posted. LOL.



Now, was Chakin in the CSM with the astronauts? You'll need to document that he was. Was Cernan on Apollo 11 with Armstrong? You'll need to demonstrate that he was if you want your manufactured "contradiction" to hold water.


Oh, my bad. The sky was cloudy when Neil et al landed on the moon, and Cernan & Co. had clear and sunny days.

And Chakin? Well he is an...



Award-winning science journalist and space historian Andrew Chaikin has authored books and articles about space exploration and astronomy for more than 25 years.


Are you?


author of the book "A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts," which is widely regarded as the definitive account of the Apollo moon missions


Do you have any better sources? Anybody that


has been an advisor to NASA on space policy and public communications.


I mean, you have all the opportunity in the world to find accounts contrary to what I have posted. Why try to attack the messenger if he or she makes statements you dont like to hear?

LOL.

365daysofastronomy.org...



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


????????


Ah, so it took them only 5 minutes to adjust to their surroundings.
Interesting. That is a far cry from the 40 you posted


Proof that your reading comprehension is a bit off?

WHERE is the "5 minutes to adjust" mentioned in that quoted saurce, again? In reference to WHAT???

Start there, then re-evaluate your entire post......



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Wrong.


They didnt have to stand around, just by working on the surface of the moon their eyes became adapted (so they said).


Wrong.

You are intentionally being obtuse? I hope not....for it is always enjoyable to help educate those who are in dire need. When you teach, and they learn....and the light bulb goes on over their head, it is very satisfying. You, however, are a difficult student!! You must strive to try harder. Get serious, would be a good start. We aren't playing games, anymore....poor classroom environment......(still, hoping even if you don't ever get it, we have those readers who drop by who WILL learn a thing or two....)...

Because, it is very easy to understand how the reality worked. Outdoors (that is where they were) and the Sun was very bright (because it was Lunar "morning"....) and, the surrounding terrain was thus, very bright. Everywhere they looked, their pupils would tend to narrow, quite a bit, in order to protect the retina from the brighthess. You CANNOT control your pupil dilation rates consciously!!!! AND, yes....it would take a good, long time for the pupils to dilate large enough (and, during that time, no more bright lights, because again, they would slam narrow!).

It is entirely involuntary. It is a product of millions of years of evolution, an adaptation...it is common in millions of species on this planet.

OTHER species are adapted diffently, and perhaps CAN adjust from bright, to dark, more rapidly. It depends on the arrangement of cells, and the proportions, in the eyes' retinas. Cones/Rods (you really should take a break, and go learn something for a change. A basic book on biology might help in furthering your comprehension).


edit on 23 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


????????


Ah, so it took them only 5 minutes to adjust to their surroundings.
Interesting. That is a far cry from the 40 you posted


Proof that your reading comprehension is a bit off?

WHERE is the "5 minutes to adjust" mentioned in that quoted saurce, again? In reference to WHAT???

Start there, then re-evaluate your entire post......



Weed.
Think about it.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Because, it is very easy to understand how the reality worked. Outdoors (that is where they were) and the Sun was very bright (because it was Lunar "morning"....) and, the surrounding terrain was thus, very bright. Everywhere they looked, their pupils would tend to narrow, quite a bit, in order to protect the retina from the brighthess. You CANNOT control your pupil dilation rates consciously!!!! AND, yes....it would take a good, long time for the pupils to dilate large enough (and, during that time, no more bright lights, because again, they would slam narrow!).


Were their visors not made to keep out a lot of sunlight??
That would create problems for their eyes if not....



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 320  321  322    324  325  326 >>

log in

join