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: 324
377
<< 321  322  323    325  326  327 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:27 PM
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. LOL.


It takes five minutes for the eye to adjust to bright light. It can take up to forty minutes for an eye to become sensitive enough to make serious astronomical observations.



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


You're raving.


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?


What makes you think I'm not? Would it make any difference if I were, or would you then claim I am a "paid disinfo agent?"

You have entirely manufactured the "contradiction" you claim by taking three separate statements completely out of context. Speaking informally, Armstrong reported that he was unable to see the stars on the day side of the Moon or the lunar surface, which they visited by day. He says nothing about the night side. He does mention the "optics."

Chakin, who was not present, imagines what the stars would look like on the night side of the orbit. I see no contradiction here.

Gene Cernan says that he was able to see stars if he shielded his eyes and allowed them to adjust. This is in complete agreement with what Dr. Eric Christian says:


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".


Just because Gene Cernan, one of NASA's most experienced pilots took a moment to look for the stars on his second trip to the Moon and Neil Armstrong was too busy to on his only trip to the Moon does not even imply a contradiction. (He does not mention waiting for his eyes to adjust completely, just long enough.)


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."


When Cernan talks about flying by the stars, he was undoubtedly referring to this:


Optical unit

The CM had a fixed sextant the AOT, which could measure angles between stars, and Earth or Moon landmarks and planetary horizon. The unit included a scanning telescope for star sightings, and could be used to determine position and orientation in space. In contrast, the LM had an Alignment Optical Telescope, and could only determine the craft's orientation. The outer element of the AOT was a sun-shielded prism that could be rotated to one of three fixed positions relative to the LM, in order to cover a large portion of the lunar sky. When rotated, the AOT's position was readable by the AGC; by pointing the reticule at several different stars, the computer could determine the craft's orientation [1].

Wikipedia.

This would be part of the "optics" that Armstrong mentioned. Complete agreement across all sources.


Lying, subterfuge, propaganda,
etc is all common practice in politics and war.


Not to mention this thread.




posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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. LOL.


It takes five minutes for the eye to adjust to bright light.


Hello!




I just want people to pay attention to the detail that Armstrong describes his surroundings.
While he is in the shadow side of the LM. Pitch black shadow. Any sources of light would be very noticeable.
First time on a new planet what would you do?
Look around?
Does Armstrong?
edit on 23-1-2011 by FoosM because: added text



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:19 PM
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.


Since you brought it up



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


All you do is distract. Read the entire (and this is only the Apollo 11 Surface Journal) list of activities. They alloted time for them all, and they completed them all.

And, if you watch from other missions, you see that in some cases, one does most of the work, the other comes over briefly, just as another pair of hands. AND, after Apollo 11, they got a bit faster at the process. On 17, took about two - three minutes. What kind of "science" can you do in...oh, even ten minutes?? And, what percentage of the total EVA time did the "flag" takeup??? Perspective, Foos...perspective. 'JW' lacks it, but you don't have to follow him off the cliff of ignorance....

One of these posts, hope to see something that's substantial. SO far, all you keep doing is proving the facts and reality of Apollo...which is great.


But, I thought you had another agenda? To "defend" 'Jarrah White's silly claims? SO far on that mission....


Oh, and why have you suddenly changed the subject?? For the last hundred (seems like it, anyways) pages?, Away from the radiation fiasco, and the exposed lies of 'JW'?? Shall we go next to his other lies and distortions?? There are loads more of 'em, since it seems you have acquiesed on the radiation 'argument' failure......
edit on 23 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You got it wrong.....again:


While he is in the shadow side of the LM. Pitch black shadow.


It wasn't "pitch black"...shot yourself in the foot. The video camera could see him. Know why? Reflected light. Same light that affected their dark-adaption abilities.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo both had first light after the Apollo missions.


Palomar 48" was operational in 1949 - why did you not comment on that one? I threw the other two in to see if anyone would get their dates wrong, and sure enough...

So tell us, FoosM, why didn't you give the actual year the other two commenced operation? 1970. Yes, 1970 - Apollo 11 landed in July 1969, and the last Apollo mission (17) was in... 1972, yes that would be NINETEEN SEVENTY TWO. Now, is 1972 before or after 1970, FoosM? Do you want some think music?

Do you think NASA didn't know about the construction and inception of two of the largest telescopes in the world, even at the time of Apollo 11?


Silly to use those observatories as examples.

Silly? I'll let others decide that, NOW THAT THEY KNOW THE YEARS. And was it deliberately deceitful for you to ignore Palomar and not post the other dates, and completely avoid the point? Or just a moment of ignorance?

By the way, those telescopes were chosen to make a rather large point. In point of fact, even a simple home made ten-inch scope from a good high altitude location on earth would give a *hugely* better image than anything that could be taken to the Moon and used in daylight... And if you check your telescope history, there were many others, like Hale... but the point was made, and you stepped right into the mud as usual.


ANSWER THE FIVE QUESTIONS, or go back to the kiddy pool, FoosM.



The unique opportunity

WHAT unique opportunity, FoosM - EXACTLY HOW much brighter or clearer or different were those stars, FoosM? Answer the questions. WALK THE WALK.


who cares what the advancements in telescope technology could do AFTER Apollo.

As shown above they were NOT after Apollo. So firstly you are WRONG.

Secondly, you, and other people ignorant of technology probably don't care. But educated people who understand what is being discussed here do - they know why earth based telescopes of even a hundred years ago could give a better result than trying it from the Moon in broad daylight, and they can see just what a ridiculous diversion tactic this is...

Anyway, I'll let ppk try - maybe he can do better. At least he might check his telescope operation dates...

I think I hear him now, furiously googling to see how he can get out of this one... Or maybe ... "Jarrah, what do I say now???"



PS - Just curious... Did ppk email foosm and yell "help - we need lots of distracting posts", or did it just sorta happen...



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Do you think NASA didn't know about the construction and inception of two of the largest telescopes in the world, even at the time of Apollo 11?


Ding ding ding ding
Thats right, they would.
And they wouldn't want the risk of their images being
compared to anything else.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


You got it wrong.....again:


While he is in the shadow side of the LM. Pitch black shadow.


It wasn't "pitch black"...shot yourself in the foot. The video camera could see him. Know why? Reflected light. Same light that affected their dark-adaption abilities.


Yes images clearly show there was second light sources, such as studio lamps.

But they did START in the (pitch) dark and went into the (Bright) light.
Which made them have to LIGHT ADAPT. And light adaption takes about 5 minutes according to DJ's source.

Now going into the SHADOW from the BRIGHT sun would make them have to DARK adapt.
And now you have to wonder, how they got anything possibly done like photography bringing down
materials if their eyes needed to adjust for 20 to 40 minutes



So either the eye adaptation on the lunar surface wasnt as bad as you guys make it out to be, and they should have easily seen the stars, or it was as bad as it supposed to be, and going to and fro from the LM's shadow into the Sun would severely screw their vision, but not only for seeing stars, but for even working.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ


PS - Just curious... Did ppk email foosm and yell "help - we need lots of distracting posts", or did it just sorta happen...


No, your post is a distraction.
You think you are making a point, but you are not.

It has been established that:

1. Astronomers wanted to have a moon based telescope.
And believed Apollo would provide it.

However,
a. None of the astronauts talked about seeing stars
b. NASA gimped the cameras for easily taking such photos.
c. They blamed it on system failures or mistakes
d. The possible photographs that were made, look lousy, and others are being kept under lock and key.

2. When Apollo finally brought a telescope/camera it was only for UV, yet
the US had just launched satellites that could do the same thing. So what was the point?

3. I asked everyone here who didnt think Astrophotography was not possible during the Apollo era.
those who answered said, yes it was possible. Do you have a differing answer? Do you want to state "NO"
it wasn't possible?

So who cares what some observatory was or wasn't doing. If one or three observatories were so good at taking
images of the cosmos, why are we spending money on new telescopes and larger telescopes and orbiting telescopes? We seem to have an unusual fascination with looking at stars.

We are all just wondering why NASA and its Apollo program didn't have such a fascination for it. We could have added their images as a special collection to our growing library of images.



edit on 24-1-2011 by FoosM because: typo



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I won't bother responding further to someone who posts such ridiculous and completely unsupported tripe. So enjoy this one while i wait patiently for ppk or anyone who WILL answer the five questions that are being run away from by FoosM...



Originally posted by FoosM
It has been established that:
1. Astronomers wanted to have a moon based telescope.
And believed Apollo would provide it.

Astronomers have always wanted to base a LARGE telescope beyond the earth's atmosphere. But there are many problems with the Moon - eg the daylight issue, the temperature variations, the distance if servicing is required... But to you, it's easy huh? Apollo shoulda just taken one up, eh?


Now, would you be kind enough to provide a citation for your comment that there was a genuine expectation that Apollo would do that?

Thanks in advance, not holding breath.


However,
a. None of the astronauts talked about seeing stars

Not at all true, there are plenty of references to their inability/difficulty seeing stars in the DAYLIGHT, unless they took certain steps to protect their eyes (difficult in helmets). The fact that you haven't seen all those references, many of which are in this thread, indicates you are either suffering from some sort of memory problem or are trolling.


b. NASA gimped the cameras for easily taking such photos.

What does 'gimped' mean, and please supply a citation for this - were the cameras properly set up for a daytime exposure or not? Were they meant to be taking pictures of their activities in daytime or not? What would have been required for a decent star image?

I can assure you that I and many folks here know the answers to those questions. The fact that you do not, is sad but unsurprising.


c. They blamed it on system failures or mistakes

What exactly is 'it'? The fact that they didn't take star images??? Are you seriously this ill-informed that you have to make up such drivel? Please CITE where NASA blamed whatever 'it' is on equipment failures.


d. The possible photographs that were made, look lousy, and others are being kept under lock and key.

What are you talking about? Which images - the UV ones? They were an 'experiment' - some of the experiments worked better than others - now there's a surprise. And which images are under lock and key, and how do you, special secwut agent that you are, know about them? I mean seriously, do you have any idea how lame this made up crap is? Why on earth do you bother making up such absolute garbage?


2. When Apollo finally brought an telescope/camera it was only for UV, yet
the US had just launched satellites that could do the same thing. So what was the point?

WTF has the UV camera got to do with this topic? Can't you keep your mind on the game at all? Do you think it isn't noticed how you wander off in 50 different directions throwing poo in the hope it hits someone?

I'll give you a hint, it's only hitting those as gullible and ill-informed as you.


3. I asked everyone here who didnt think Astrophotography was not possible during the Apollo era.
those who answered said, yes it was possible.

Who is everyone and why should we care? WHO exactly said astrophotography wasn't possible during the Apollo era? What sort of lame strawman is this?


Let me spell this out for you (well actually it's for any other reader, as you are a lost-cause-troll) in simple terms.

1. The difference between a lunar almost-vacuum and a high altitude location on earth is trivial - in the order of less than a single f-stop, and only a couple of stellar-magnitudes. (There's part of one of your answers, ppk...)

2. HOWEVER the difference between a huge light gatherer (like a 48" telescope) and, say a 12" or so that might be portable to the Moon, is VASTLY greater than the tiny difference mentioned above. Many, many orders of magnitude. Only a very uninformed person or troll would suggest that even a medium-sized telescope on the daylit lunar surface would offer a better view than any decent observatory on earth. It's ludicrous, ignorant suggestion.

3. They were on the Moon in DAYLIGHT. Apart from all the issues associated with the astronaut's own eye adpatation, the stray light issue is a big one. Even in the near vacuum on the lunar surface - this was an area of a lot of activity, with static electricity, stray gases etc, so there will be some fine dust/gas particles in the environment scattering photons and other particles/rays. And it is INCREDIBLY difficult to 'shield' a scope to ensure the front element is untouched by any stray light - even a small trace of it will destroy any of that tiny advantage.


So, as any KNOWLEDGEABLE astronomer knows (in other words, not the 'everyone' you just allegedly asked..), the big advantage you get on the Moon is that OTHER atmospheric/magnetic-field related influences are different or absent, so you might do some experiments that involved, oh say UV, or high energy particle experiments. BUT NOT IN TERMS OF VISIBLE LIGHT.

Oh, wait, what a coincidence - those experiments are exactly what they did. Gee, maybe they know more than you and ppk...

Let me spell all that out in even more simple terms.

ON THE DAYLIT LUNAR SURFACE, THE STELLAR VIEW IS NOWHERE NEAR AS GOOD AS IT IS FROM A MODERATELY HIGH ALTITUDE SITE ON EARTH, GIVEN A CLEAR NIGHT SKY.


Read that again and see if it sinks in. And again..

(During the night, that changes.. BUT THEY WEREN'T THERE DURING THE NIGHT. AND TO GAIN ANY ADVANTAGE OVER EARTH BASED OBSERVATORIES, THEY WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO TAKE A HUGE (H U G E) TELESCOPE..)


Are you getting this yet?? How about you, ppk???


Bye Foos. That's all you get. But do keep changing the subject and asking strawman questions - in fact there are many other disinfo techniques you can try - why don't you do a bit of reading and use some new ones?

You are boring me witless.


BTW - I have little challenge for you, FoosM. A minute ago you rolled out the 'everyone', suggesting you might be talking to a group of knowledgeable astronomy folk. OK, then... Take this entire posting, and go to ANY astronomy club. Show it to the head honcho at that club, and get his/her comments on who is correct.

Then come back here, tell us how it all went, show us exactly what was said, and name the club and the head honcho. Or by all means, if any of your 'everyone' is suitably qualified, simply name them.


edit on 24-1-2011 by CHRLZ because: missed a bold code



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
well this is going to be the longest B.S thread in ATS history come 2015-2020 when Russia becomes the 2nd country to go to the moon. When they go and do it in the next few years and find that wow their is a-lot of space junk left from Apollo and the American's and they do it live.

What are you going to say than? have a whole new thread on how Russia never went there..

My prediction going to happen some time between 2015-2130 Foosm is going to make a thread titled The U.S and Russia never went to the moon. JW will have brand new Videos with B.S science detailing how they never went. Morons will still fallow him.

Rinse Repeat Rinse Repeat.

The people who said we never went to the moon will be the biggest Joke Ever on ATS come the new moon landings.. I'll be expecting an apology Thread by those who kept this crap up this long.. for wasting so mush server space and people time trying to educate the uneducated.


edit on 24-1-2011 by Reaper2137 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



BTW - I have little challenge for you, FoosM. A minute ago you rolled out the 'everyone', suggesting you might be talking to a group of knowledgeable astronomy folk. OK, then... Take this entire posting, and go to ANY astronomy club. Show it to the head honcho at that club, and get his/her comments on who is correct.


Sorry, but a normal person would just laugh and ask who is the rude %$#$ writing like that..
Your points, which maybe correct, lose meaning in your rude tone..

Oh BTW, I think I read the astronauts screwed up and used the wrong film in the camera at one stage..
That mucked up the pics...

And if you post back to me with the same rude tone, I suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for a reply...
Being civil is easy.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137
well this is going to be the longest B.S thread in ATS history come 2015-2020 when Russia becomes the 2nd country to go to the moon. When they go and do it in the next few years and find that wow their is a-lot of space junk left from Apollo and the American's and they do it live.


Wait a minute.
Dont go anywhere.
2015?
I havent looked into the Russian space program, but you are claiming the Russians
Are far enough to land (or just send) men on the moon in 4 years?

Which program is this and when did it start?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

1. The difference between a lunar almost-vacuum and a high altitude location on earth is trivial - in the order of less than a single f-stop, and only a couple of stellar-magnitudes. (There's part of one of your answers, ppk...)


You made a lot of claims,
but where are your sources?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ


b. NASA gimped the cameras for easily taking such photos.

What does 'gimped' mean, and please supply a citation for this - were the cameras properly set up for a daytime exposure or not? Were they meant to be taking pictures of their activities in daytime or not? What would have been required for a decent star image?


When I use the word "gimped" I am saying "crippled" or "disabled".

What I am saying is that the Hasselblads had the ability to take timed or long exposures.
This was taken out, or disabled, during the modification process.
So that the Hasselblads were unable to take any decent photo of the cosmos even if the Astronauts would want to.

NASA could have easily made one additional setting for star or distant planet photography if they chose to. But they didnt. And we wonder why.

Well the why is simple for those of us who believed the missions were faked.

The cameras were, as they say in the military, "set up to fail"

So if and when members of the public would ask the question, "Where are the stars?"

NASA and its defenders, would say, "What are you stupid; how can you take pictures of stars with daylight settings? You need long exposures! Do you see any such settings for the night sky on this camera?"

But now the public can retort, "Dude, you made it so that the cameras cant take pictures of stars, why would you do that? The whole sky is black like night for god-sake. It would have been a beautiful opportunity!"

NASA et alia would reply, "Hello! What you think Apollo was some kind of scientific adventure? Or some kind of holiday where we could lollygag and take vacation photos? It was a race, a space race to beat those commie cosmonauts! In a race you dont have... "TIME". Now get with the program. And besides, we got plenty of telescopes here on this planet where you can attach a camera to and take pictures of stars all you want, all day- I mean night long. Why would we waste time setting up a telescope on the moon when we got feathers and hammers to drop?"



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Yes images clearly show there was second light sources, such as studio lamps.


BUZZ! Wrong, as pointed out probably hundreds of times on this thread alone. The astronauts were constantly illuminated by the light reflected by the lunar surface even when in shadow,


But they did START in the (pitch) dark and went into the (Bright) light.
Which made them have to LIGHT ADAPT. And light adaption takes about 5 minutes according to DJ's source.


They started in the LM, which was slightly dimmer than daylight. The moment they stepped on the lunar surface, their pupils would dilate further, and within five minutes they would be incapable of seeing all but the brightest stars.


Now going into the SHADOW from the BRIGHT sun would make them have to DARK adapt.
And now you have to wonder, how they got anything possibly done like photography bringing down
materials if their eyes needed to adjust for 20 to 40 minutes


Even if they are standing in shadow, their eyes are still adapted to the dazzling bright landscape around them. Their cameras had a sticker indicating what exposure settings to use under different lighting conditions. I'm pretty sure this has already been posted on this thread, but here:




So either the eye adaptation on the lunar surface wasnt as bad as you guys make it out to be, and they should have easily seen the stars, or it was as bad as it supposed to be, and going to and fro from the LM's shadow into the Sun would severely screw their vision, but not only for seeing stars, but for even working.


Do you genuinely not understand, or are you hoping people are so inexperienced that they've never gone around the corner of a building from light to shadow or shadow to light? It's exactly the same on the Moon.


No, your post is a distraction.
You think you are making a point, but you are not.


Brilliant: "I know you are but what am I?" Just how old are you anyway, FoosM? Speaking of distractions, why are there no stars visible in this photograph?




1. Astronomers wanted to have a moon based telescope.
And believed Apollo would provide it.


Yes, sometime in the 1980's! In the meantime, they contented themselves with actually physically exploring the surface of another planet. They eventually did get a manned, space-based observatory using proven Apollo era hardware:




However,
a. None of the astronauts talked about seeing stars


Now you are the one contradicting yourself. What about the quotation from Gene Cernan you posted in your devious attempt to create a false "contradiction?" Ooops.


b. NASA gimped the cameras for easily taking such photos.


I'm sorry, you have used this phrase several times but no-one has bothered to ask you what you mean. What do you mean, and can you provide some documentation for this (I assume) allegation.


c. They blamed it on system failures or mistakes


They blamed what on system failures or mistakes? The UV telescope worked perfectly, although its function was chiefly to provide UV photographs of a known atmosphere (Earth's) for comparison to those being taken by probes of other planets. They also photographed one of the Magellenic Clouds:




d. The possible photographs that were made, look lousy, and others are being kept under lock and key.


The photos taken from orbit look bad because of motion blur. What causes motion blur, FoosM? You still haven't explained why a starfield looks blurry when you photograph it. The stars in the gegenschein photographs all left trails, but they weren't the subject of the photos; the gegenschein was. (You do know what the gegenschein is and why it is of interest, right?) As for the stellar photography conducted by the lunar mapping cameras, it was used for cartographic purposes, as explained here:



As I have explained, these photos can be ordered in microfiche format.


2. When Apollo finally brought a telescope/camera it was only for UV, yet
the US had just launched satellites that could do the same thing. So what was the point?


Brilliant. Apollo is a hoax because they didn't do astronomy, but there is no point to doing astronomy on Apollo because other satellites could do it. Think before you post.


3. I asked everyone here who didnt think Astrophotography was not possible during the Apollo era.
those who answered said, yes it was possible. Do you have a differing answer? Do you want to state "NO"
it wasn't possible?


Pay attention FoosM. They did do astrophotography on Apollo missions.You just don't like the results. In any event, what's your point. You seem frustrated because you've dreamt up a cunning trap and no-one seems to be rising to the bait.


So who cares what some observatory was or wasn't doing. If one or three observatories were so good at taking
images of the cosmos, why are we spending money on new telescopes and larger telescopes and orbiting telescopes? We seem to have an unusual fascination with looking at stars.


You seem to be unable or unwilling to understand the concept of "progress." You also sound more authentic when you seem to find the concept of looking at the stars as "unusual." Whenever you pull out the "glorious cosmos" rhetoric you come across as insincere. You have made it clear that your world is hostile and bounded by an electric fence.


We are all just wondering why NASA and its Apollo program didn't have such a fascination for it. We could have added their images as a special collection to our growing library of images.


No. You are wondering why the Apollo program, which had the physical exploration of another planet as its primary goal, didn't take the pictures you claim to be interested in. Why should they have? They knew NASA would eventually build something like this:



But then. you probably think Hubble is fake, too.









edit on 24-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct grammar.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Really....how ridiculous, and getting worse, at each misstep:


Yes images clearly show there was second light sources, such as studio lamps.


You're actually moving BACKWARDS, there!!! Amazing..... :shk:

NO SECONDARY SHADOWS!! Ever!! NO SECOND "light sources"!! Man, that one is long, long dead. Desperation?



But they did START in the (pitch) dark and went into the (Bright) light.


What?? Where did they "START in the (pitch) dark"?? If you're going to say, the LM...oh, please, please do!!!



Which made them have to LIGHT ADAPT. And light adaption takes about 5 minutes according to DJ's source.


Irrelvant, since they WERE NOT in a "(pitch) dark" place to begin with!



Now going into the SHADOW from the BRIGHT sun would make them have to DARK adapt.


Do everyone (and yourself) a favor. If you're Down Under (southern hemisphere), it's summertime. (Or, perhaps you are fortunate to live near the Equator?). Go to the beach. Or, if not near the ocean or lake, a field. About mid-morning. Find a structure, and stand in its shadow. Gaze out at the beach, at the sea, or at the field, whilst standing there. Are your eyes "dark adapted"??? Any problems seeing things???

Man....do you not have any outdoor experience? Sorry, I do hope you don't suffer from some physical disability that keeps you housebound...if so, my sympathies.....


And now you have to wonder, how they got anything possibly done like photography bringing down
materials if their eyes needed to adjust for 20 to 40 minutes ...


Huh?? I forgot, when you go to the beach, and are standing in the shade (assuming, again that you can leave your house)....take a camera with you. Make some experiments. See how easy it is to operate your camera. Or, if that's impossible, ask a good friend (or two) to do it, and to video it for you, so you can see it later, and learn from it.........


edit on 24 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



When I use the word "gimped" I am saying "crippled" or "disabled".

What I am saying is that the Hasselblads had the ability to take timed or long exposures.
This was taken out, or disabled, during the modification process.
So that the Hasselblads were unable to take any decent photo of the cosmos even if the Astronauts would want to.


This is getting tedious. I'll just let you argue with yourself for a while:


You made a lot of claims,
but where are your sources?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Reaper2137
well this is going to be the longest B.S thread in ATS history come 2015-2020 when Russia becomes the 2nd country to go to the moon. When they go and do it in the next few years and find that wow their is a-lot of space junk left from Apollo and the American's and they do it live.


Wait a minute.
Dont go anywhere.
2015?
I havent looked into the Russian space program, but you are claiming the Russians
Are far enough to land (or just send) men on the moon in 4 years?

Which program is this and when did it start?


google can be your friend...www.thespacebuff.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also learn that china is making a run for it as well

en.wikipedia.org...

* First phase lunar program (嫦娥-1 工程) — launched in 2007 with CZ-3A: two unmanned lunar orbital probes
* Second phase lunar program (嫦娥-2 工程)— to be launched in 2012 with CZ-5/E:first Moon landing of a couple of rovers
* Third phase lunar program (嫦娥-3 工程) — to be launched in 2017 with CZ-5/E: automated Moon landing and return sample
* Fourth phase lunar program (嫦娥-4 工程) — to be launched in 2024 with CZ-7: manned mission and permanent bases (月面驻留)[65]

Even tho Japan has also stated that they will go by 2025
en.wikinews.org...

Like I said Foosm its going to be pretty hard to say we never went to the moon pretty soon here.. I wonder how when these other country's land are you going to be able to say that the united states didn't? I don't think so.. it will also blow a lot of the crap you say out of the water..



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Reaper2137
well this is going to be the longest B.S thread in ATS history come 2015-2020 when Russia becomes the 2nd country to go to the moon. When they go and do it in the next few years and find that wow their is a-lot of space junk left from Apollo and the American's and they do it live.


Wait a minute.
Dont go anywhere.
2015?
I havent looked into the Russian space program, but you are claiming the Russians
Are far enough to land (or just send) men on the moon in 4 years?

Which program is this and when did it start?



google can be your friend...www.thespacebuff.com...

en.wikinews.org...

Also learn that china is making a run for it as well

en.wikipedia.org...

* First phase lunar program (嫦娥-1 工程) — launched in 2007 with CZ-3A: two unmanned lunar orbital probes
* Second phase lunar program (嫦娥-2 工程)— to be launched in 2012 with CZ-5/E:first Moon landing of a couple of rovers
* Third phase lunar program (嫦娥-3 工程) — to be launched in 2017 with CZ-5/E: automated Moon landing and return sample
* Fourth phase lunar program (嫦娥-4 工程) — to be launched in 2024 with CZ-7: manned mission and permanent bases (月面驻留)[65]

Even tho Japan has also stated that they will go by 2025
en.wikinews.org...

Like I said Foosm its going to be pretty hard to say we never went to the moon pretty soon here.. I wonder how when these other country's land are you going to be able to say that the united states didn't? I don't think so.. it will also blow a lot of the crap you say out of the water..

edit on 24-1-2011 by Reaper2137 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 321  322  323    325  326  327 >>

log in

join