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: 326
377
<< 323  324  325    327  328  329 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

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



Originally posted by FoosM
Since you brought it up


So it seems that it did take two astronauts to allegedly set up the flag based on the video above.

I just can't understand why they would repeat this excruciating ordeal 6 times. Yes, 6 times.

If science was the priority, which it should have been on Apollo 12 - 17 then this ridiculous excercise of erecting a flag on each and every mission becomes even more absurd.

Any scientist would agree with this. Precious, invaluable time spend erecting another flag.

Pardon the pun, but this is the biggest flag that they were not genuine missions.

Subtract the 50 minutes spent setting up flags from A12-A17 and instead, they could be taking just one picture of the stars. Where is that picture?


edit on 25-1-2011 by ppk55 because: added word 'allegedly'


So, your argument is that setting up a flag on the moon takes time, therefore it didn't happen?

Sounds reasonable.

Of course, your "point" loses credibility when you think about it for 30 seconds. Setting up a flag doesn't prevent science from happening. Also... umm, who paid for the missions to the moon again?

I doubt that when the decision was made to send a US flag wherever they were going, no one in the room thought: "Wait wait wait... if we do send up another flag, people might think we're faking the whole thing! After all, if we have the astronauts set up a flag, then this team of physically fit, advanced PhD's won't be able to do other science!"

I hope this isn't the best "evidence" you have.




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Didn't you read the thread, at all??? This has been discussed, but here's a question:

Of what use would ~ten-minutes per mission, for a picture or two of the "stars" with a Hasselblad camera that had...and get this very clearly .... NO TELEPHOTO LENS??


Subtract the 50 minutes spent setting up flags from A12-A17 and instead, they could be taking just one picture of the stars.



Why keep bringing it up?? It's been discussed to death!! Remember? Read back....telescopes ON EARTH were far, far better...it would have been the height (pun) of stupidity to waste time on such frivolous efforts.

See, intelligent people, who participated in planning all of this, knew already.

Face it....to date, neither you, nor FoosM have brought anything substantial to this "claim" of an Apollo "hoax". Each and every time the sheer volume of evidence is overwhelming these weak attempts.

You fool no one but yourselves.......



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I believe the last few pages have extensively covered the issues
conspiracy theorists have with the lack of stars in the photographic record
of Apollo, and the lack of discussion by the Astronauts regarding seeing any
stars.

And when I mean by the lack of discussion, I'm referring to the initial
reactions from the Astronauts, like in the Apollo 11 press conference, about
their experiences going to and landing on the moon.
Not their recollections of the adventure 10, 20 years later in books, conferences, etc.
But when we do compare, what we have regarding seeing stars, we get
conflicting testimony between astronauts and scientists.
This is a problem.

Now we get to the cameras.
Through my research, I realized that the Hasselblad cameras
were modified to settings where they could not have taken photos of the stars.
The camera in a sense became a red-herring.
Over the past several years the debate has been whether or not Apollo photographs should have had stars in them.
Instead, the debate should have been, why did NASA modify the Hasselblads so they could NOT take photos of the stars?

I have also revealed that even though the Hassies could not take photos of the stars with their constricted settings, the 35mm cameras could. And I provided photos of galaxies, etc from 35mm cameras taken aboard LEO missions.

We also have learned that there were pictures of the cosmos made in concert with lunar photography via the CM, but these photos must be ordered and are not readily available like their lunar topographic counterparts. And if persons have asked for these photos, why we seen so few of these pictures presented in books, magazines, online? Defenders would say, they were blurry, etc. But thats not possible if the pictures of the lunar surface is sharp, then by the sheer distance of the stars, they, the stars, would look even better!

So that is all now out in the open.
This has left the defenders of Apollo into a corner with the best the defense of:
The Astronauts weren't there to study the stars, but the moon and therefore why
waste time with astrophotography?

And here is where I agree in a sense with the defenders.
NASA had no obligation to take stellar photography.
What I can say is that I find the excuse very lame and suspect.

So Im done with this stars issue.
Its not the gun of the smoking gun,
but its definitely one of the bullets.

I want to turn my attention to the LM.
Im very curious about the docking procedure during the
translunar coast.

The Apollo craft is flying through space, it releases the CMS to
dock with the LM and continue on in that fashion. What I want to know is,
How does the LM power itself on?
If not, when does it get turned on?
Or was it on the whole time?
Do the astronauts go into the LM and turn it on?
How early do they go inside the LM to check if everything is OK?
Right after docking? Or do they wait till they get to the moon?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   


Originally posted by CptObvious

Subtract the 50 minutes spent setting up flags from A12-A17 and instead, they could be taking just one picture of the stars. Where is that picture?


edit on 25-1-2011 by ppk55 because: added word 'allegedly'


So, your argument is that setting up a flag on the moon takes time, therefore it didn't happen?

Sounds reasonable.

Of course, your "point" loses credibility when you think about it for 30 seconds. Setting up a flag doesn't prevent science from happening. Also... umm, who paid for the missions to the moon again?

I doubt that when the decision was made to send a US flag wherever they were going, no one in the room thought: "Wait wait wait... if we do send up another flag, people might think we're faking the whole thing! After all, if we have the astronauts set up a flag, then this team of physically fit, advanced PhD's won't be able to do other science!"

I hope this isn't the best "evidence" you have.


Ummm... no, isnt it OBVIOUS CaptObvious that this discussion is in regards to why the Astronauts didnt have "time" to conduct astrophotography? By doing silly things like planting the flag over and over again, the astronauts are "eating time". And NASA then can claim, we didnt have "time" to conduct various experiments.
NASA doenst want to do the many experiments during Apollo because they will have to be later peer reviewed.
You will notice that many of the so called experiments NASA conducted during Apollo failed.
Convenience or just bad luck?
NASA would conduct experiments that they can probably replicate at home, or in low earth orbit.
Just like the UV photos.
Those could have easily been done by the satellite of the time.

There is not point in planting a flag on the moon after you have done it once.
Here is another thing.
One day in the future when man finally send men to the moon, the will go looking for these flags and
wont find them. NASA will say, oh hey but those things weren't permanent. They were cloth, how long do you think they would last in such a hostile environment?

No, NASA could have placed indestructible plaques. Something that could survive the lunar environment.
Something that would not be blown over by the ascent engine. LOL.
The could have planted a radio beacon, something more significant than flags.



edit on 25-1-2011 by FoosM because: quote fix



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Why keep bringing it up?? It's been discussed to death!! Remember? Read back....telescopes ON EARTH were far, far better...it would have been the height (pun) of stupidity to waste time on such frivolous efforts.


And moon golf proved what?
Javelin throw proved what?
Feather and hammer proved what?

Its sure didnt prove they were on the moon, and it didnt push science and further.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ppk55
 


Didn't you read the thread, at all??? This has been discussed, but here's a question:

Of what use would ~ten-minutes per mission, for a picture or two of the "stars" with a Hasselblad camera that had...and get this very clearly .... NO TELEPHOTO LENS??

Why keep bringing it up?? It's been discussed to death!! Remember? Read back....telescopes ON EARTH were far, far better...it would have been the height (pun) of stupidity to waste time on such frivolous efforts.



First of all, who cares if telescopes on Earth are better?
The point is, it would be a good chance to see how well astrophotography COULD work on the moon.
But alas, we dont know do we cause we cant compare them.

The second, why do you need a telephoto lens, and whose fault was it there wasn't one available?

Third, they could have taken many shots! Why? They could have set up the camera/telescoop IN the LM and let it take multiple shots over the entire period they were on the moon. They had two windows after all.

But yeah, all of sudden everyone just got stupid. They could figure out how to land men on the moon, but had no idea how to do astrophotography. But taking pictures of footprints
LOL.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Instead, the debate should have been, why did NASA modify the Hasselblads so they could NOT take photos of the stars?


How, exactly, are you claiming the cameras were modified?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Instead, the debate should have been, why did NASA modify the Hasselblads so they could NOT take photos of the stars?


How, exactly, are you claiming the cameras were modified?



Well lets turn the question around, which shutter speed settings were available for the astronauts with the Hassies?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


As seen in the Apollo 15 Data Users' Note,
the 60mm f/5.6 lens had shutter speed settings from 1/500 to 1, and Bulb.



So again, how, exactly, do you claim NASA modified them so as to be unable to take pictures of stars?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM


As seen in the Apollo 15 Data Users' Note,
the 60mm f/5.6 lens had shutter speed settings from 1/500 to 1, and Bulb.



So again, how, exactly, do you claim NASA modified them so as to be unable to take pictures of stars?


Where those the cameras used on the surface of the moon?
Link doesnt work btw



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



BiB, and you'll note I am asking very nicely.. I gather you agree that JW "does a good job supporting his theories".
So may I ask you (and apodictic) to be specific and tell the forum which particular 'theory' of his you find most compelling, and best supported.
I shall then engage you in a point by point debate, in a most courteous fashion...


Now see, that's the problem..
If you had read my posts you would see I have questioned some aspects of the moon landings but other posters have pointed out facts to me..
I did this mainly in u2u's because I got tired of being insulted merely for asking a question..
I've seen nothing in JW's videos to convince me he is correct..
No smoking gun evidence..
My only questions regarding apollo relate to things they didn't do and it's impossible to decide from that as obviously there is no evidence..



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Where those the cameras used on the surface of the moon?
Link doesnt work btw


Yes they were used on the surface of the moon.

Here's the corrected link:

Apollo 15 Data Users' Note



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Where those the cameras used on the surface of the moon?
Link doesnt work btw


Yes they were used on the surface of the moon.

Here's the corrected link:

Apollo 15 Data Users' Note


These cameras were also available on Apollo 11 - 14?
The ASA available for this camera, was that 1600 - 6000?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Hi Foosm
Lets see hammer and feather was to prove how gravity worked on objects.
What clown would want to take pictures out of a window, saying nothing

Cameras were modified to make it easy to take pictures on the Moon surface as
it is sunlit.

You have shown many many times on this thread YOU ignore all FACTS YES FACTS
regarding photography that you must have a hidden agenda with regards to NASA
will say this again maybe you or a family member had the WRONG STUFF and now
have grudge againts them.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
These cameras were also available on Apollo 11 - 14?
The ASA available for this camera, was that 1600 - 6000?


The same 60mm f/5.6 lens was used on all the missions. ASA specs for the different types of film ranged from 40 to 6000.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Hi Foosm
Lets see hammer and feather was to prove how gravity worked on objects.


That wasnt for science, that was for the public.
If it was for science the experiment would be more elaborate and measuring instruments would be used.

If they were actually on the moon, their movements would be enough proof of how gravity works.
And why wait till Apollo 15 to conduct the experiment?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
These cameras were also available on Apollo 11 - 14?
The ASA available for this camera, was that 1600 - 6000?


The same 60mm f/5.6 lens was used on all the missions. ASA specs for the different types of film ranged from 40 to 6000.


So what you are saying that the Hasselblads on the lunar surface were capable of being used for astrophotography?
Do you know which magazines was ASA 6000 used? I cant seem to find them/it.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Do you know which magazines was ASA 6000 used? I cant seem to find them/it.

Magazine R on Apollo 15 was ASA 6000.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Do you know which magazines was ASA 6000 used? I cant seem to find them/it.

Magazine R on Apollo 15 was ASA 6000.


Are these stars?? Look like it..




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Do you know which magazines was ASA 6000 used? I cant seem to find them/it.

Magazine R on Apollo 15 was ASA 6000.


But that is from the CM (or LM in orbit) what about on the lunar surface?


The commercial Hasselblads had switch for long exposures:


Here is a description of the features of the "LOT" switch:

"L" stands for "lock", and the camera can not be fired in this position. You would set the switch to this setting to prevent the camera from accidentally firing, when not being used, or when transporting the camera.

"O" stands for "operate". You would set the switch to this setting when using the camera.

"T" stands for "time exposures". You would set the switch to this setting when making exposures for longer than one second. Let's say that you wanted to make a five second exposure. You would set the shutter speed setting on the lens to "B". When you want to start the exposure, you would move the lever to the "T" setting. This begins the exposure. Five seconds later, you would move the lever from the "T" setting to the "O" setting to end the exposure. The lens shutter would close, ending the exposure, then the camera would wind to the next frame, the lens shutter would open, the mirror would be in the down position, and the rear flaps would close. The camera would now be in the normal setting.





Was this switch available on the modified Hasselblads?



www.photoethnography.com...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 323  324  325    327  328  329 >>

log in

join