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: 335
377
<< 332  333  334    336  337  338 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


Oh, I had promised myself to stop feeding....but:


Satellites could have been taken photos of earth in LEO and then used to compose several of the
Apollo photographs.


THAT is truly hilarious, and a soon-to-be-classic!

Thanks for the chuckle.


Funny though because there is a pic where they DID paste Earth into the background...
It was a pic I posted earlier of the astrobauts with Earth showing but the Earth was cut out of an Apollo 8 pic..
BTW, that's not to say NASA did it..I'll have to find the pic and see..




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



See, now, why a photo from the surface of a portrait of a person, with landscape in background, AND with the earth in the background also wasn't feasible???


Why do you continue to twist and lie???
I DID NOT say landscape for the very reason you mention though there IS a pic with the LM and Earth..
I said "maybe" stars because I know now how hard that is..

Yes, the Earth would be high in the sky but it would also be HUGE ..
The only pics I have seen show it quite small and out of focus...

Guess I don't need to mention where I think you should but your perspective..



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


YOU did not say "landscape"....but, MY point was, you asked for an "Astronaut with the Earth and stars behind him". I pointed out the position of the Earth in the sky, being way up towards the zenith (you got that part, right?) would make that implausible. Since you specifed the Astronaut being in the frame (and at most they were only about 6 feet tall) then, it would be logical that a "moon"scape would more than likely be included, in the background. It's all about 'perspective' again, camera angles, and the relative heights available to them....

...now, in a fantasy world, where they were trying to be "artistic", and getting creative to shoot at very unusual angles (and wasted hours looking around, to get set just right)....then, they maybe could have found a hill. One could position himself up, while the cameraman was lower.....and contorted around, until the shot maybe could have been composed into the frame......sounds silly, doesn't it??

AND, some people were "complaining" about the 10 minutes, or so each mission, to set up the flag???


In any case, not only that, but you wanted stars too??! And all these dozens of pages devoted to exactly why it is more difficult to get ALL the exposures right....to encompass the very bright object in the foreground ( Astronaut ) AND still properly expose the very dim stars....and the somewhat brighter Earth?

See....THIS is but one reason the silly "hoax" nonsense persists...do you not see it? You, innocently perhaps, ask a question, as you did....someone else, not well versed in all the gory details, hears it and thinks to himself, "Yeah!!! Those dirty rotten hairless monkey's uncles!!! They MUST have faked it, because we didn't get to see a picture like that!!!"

And, off to the races we go, around for another ten laps of ridiculousness......



edit on 28 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Regarding the image that was composited, to include the Earth in a "beauty shot"....:


BTW, that's not to say NASA did it...


And there, you are correct. Or, more specifically, it was NEVER used a 'reality' shot....even IF a marketing person at NASA decided, after seeing it, to include it somewhere for publicity reasons. Maybe you'll research all the details on that, because I don't recall.

Unless....you mentioned Apollo 8? You know as they orbited from the farside, they were treated to an "Earthrise" by the benefit of their motion on orbit, right? Is that the photo you meant? Because, THAT one is real....



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



See....THIS is but one reason the silly "hoax" nonsense persists...do you not see it? You, innocently perhaps, ask a question, as you did....someone else, not well versed in all the gory details, hears it and thinks to himself, "Yeah!!! Those dirty rotten hairless monkey's uncles!!! They MUST have faked it, because we didn't get to see a picture like that!!!"

And, off to the races we go, around for another ten laps of ridiculousness......


Weed, so am I NOT to suggest a way to get the UNDENIABLE proof to stop this nonsense??
BTW, I said "maybe" stars..

Now I'm no photographer but a perfect and EASY shot would have been for an astronaut on the ground taking a shot of the other astronaut at the top of the LM ladder with the Earth as the backdrop..
What a great pic and ZERO running around looking for high ground as you mention..
It would have been a shot still on many desktops today.



You, innocently perhaps, ask a question, as you did..

Always gotta have that little dig by throwing in the "perhaps"..You'll never change.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Unless....you mentioned Apollo 8? You know as they orbited from the farside, they were treated to an "Earthrise" by the benefit of their motion on orbit, right? Is that the photo you meant? Because, THAT one is real....


Yes, someone cut out the Earth in THAT Earth rise shot and pasted it into a scene of the atronauts on the moon..
Like I said, not sure if it was NASA or even if NASA are useing it for publicity..
I'll go look later..



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Yes, someone cut out the Earth in THAT Earth rise shot and pasted it into a scene of the atronauts on the moon..
Like I said, not sure if it was NASA or even if NASA are useing it for publicity..
I'll go look later..


Actually, you do get a lot of this sort of thing:


Americanpicturelinks.com

There was also a humorous publicity picture of Alan Shephard golfing on the Moon that caused quite a stir in the Moon Hoax community. They didn't realize it was intended as a joke.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The point about the earth being close to zenith is important. That means it is pretty much straight up, all the time. So to include an astronaut in such a shot, you need the camera low down , and perhaps show their helmet/torso leaning over the top, being careful to not then obscure the earth.

Then, you need to realise that using the available depth of field, either the earth or most of the astronaut would be out of focus. Now you could deal with some of that by using your idea below.. but read on..

Plus we aren't going to see a single star. This isn't looking good...



Originally posted by backinblack
Weed, so am I NOT to suggest a way to get the UNDENIABLE proof to stop this nonsense??

You are most welcome to surmise. But:
a - there was no issue that NASA were addressing. Hoax believers were an irrelevance back then. They only seem slightly relevant now because the Interweb has given every idiot and his dog (myself included) a soapbox. Some idiots know more than others, luckily.

b - do you seriously think such an image would be undeniable to FoosM or ppk or JW or Komodo? Give us a break, mate! "It was photoshopped". "Taken in a studio." Blah blah.

And for the rest of the people who actually understood the science and engineering and photographic issues, the fact that there is no such image, nor any effort to try to get it, is not just unsurprising, it is a non-issue.


BTW, I said "maybe" stars..

Just as well. Stars - equals tripod, 15-30 second exposure. 15-30 second exposure means no astronauts, LM, landscape, or earth in same shot. Also means camera would have to carefully protected from stray light and lens flare.


Now I'm no photographer but a perfect and EASY shot would have been for an astronaut on the ground taking a shot of the other astronaut at the top of the LM ladder with the Earth as the backdrop..


Er, do you mean something like this, only with an astronaut?:

AS11-40-5924, cropped and lightly sharpened


Yes, but it would take at least a few minutes to setup, involve another use of the ladder (for a number of reasons, they didn't want to be using that repeatedly), would rely on the Earth/LM and ladder being suitably positioned - in the image shown, you can see that the earth might not be in the best position from the front of the LM, so it may not have been easy...

And all for an image that no-one, not a single person, thought of or suggested to them over all of the missions...

And all for a 'problem' that didn't even exist back then, and to provide a 'solution' that would be easily and immediately denied. Go on, ask FosM about that one, and see what you get. Is it proof that the LM was on the Moon?


What a great pic and ZERO running around looking for high ground as you mention..

There are already thousands of great images from the Apollo missions, and I can point to many images/movie sequences that contain extremely strong evidence that they were there (and absolutely none that indicate the contrary). As for zero effort, even a small 'wrong' angle on the LM would be enough to put the earth behind part of its structure, so it would not necessarily be zero effort to set up. If all you want is great images, i can suggest lots of other great ideas. But they weren't there to satisfy my, or your aesthetic desires.


It would have been a shot still on many desktops today.

Another one was needed?


I know you are just playing a bit of devil's advocate, but don't be too surprised if your advocacy is questioned in great detail...



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Er, do you mean something like this, only with an astronaut?:

AS11-40-5924, cropped and lightly sharpened


Yeah, except when you enlarge the earth on that one it seems like it's pasted in..
There's a nice box around it..

I think, like with what Nat posted, there's probably a lot of made up publicity shots out there..



edit on 28-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Here are some real shots from Apollo 17.

AS17-134-20473:


AS17-134-20384:


Apollo 17 was the farthest lunar landing from the moon's equator, so the earth would have appeared the closest to the horizon of all the missions.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Er, do you mean something like this, only with an astronaut?:

AS11-40-5924, cropped and lightly sharpened


Yeah, except when you enlarge the earth on that one it seems like it's pasted in..
There's a nice box around it..


Woah, nellie. Hold it right there.

1. Do you understand JPEG artefacts and the 'block boundary' and posterisation issues?

2. Have you examined the highest resolution original scan of that image?

That's why my little reduced & cropped image SAYS it was processed, so it is clear to those that know imaging, it may contain added artefacts. Now I'm quite happy to go get the original, and also post a full discussion, right down to coordinates, of jpeg compression artefacts and how they apply to that reduced and resaved image.

I would PREFER that you saved me that time and simply acknowledged that you didn't realise that little bright patches in jpegs are often surrounded by 'boxes'. You have clearly implied that the image was faked - is that your claim? If not, withdraw the comment please, before I have to go through it all in painful detail.


I think, like with what Nat posted, there's probably a lot of made up publicity shots out there..

Of course there are, and most of them are not done by NASA - and when NASA does do any manipulation, it is always acknowledged - eg the most famous pic of all of Buzz Aldrin - everyone knows what was done to that image because it was slightly misframed (yep, no vewfinder..! that's Neil's excuse, anyways).

I trust you are aware that the ENTIRE Apollo photographic record is publicly available, including details of how the images were scanned, etc..? They'll even rescan them for you, if you can give a good reason (like if the scan shows up a little hair on the film shaped like a C..
).



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


SO what is a hires picture to you, please give an example of what you think will see what you post and from were!


HI RES, in other words, better than 1.0m resolution per pixel. !! See sub-meter pictures here at news.satimagingcorp.com...

Compare to 5m (ISRO, Chandrayaan-1), 10m & 20m (JAXA, Selene).

Here is LRO showing Apollo 11 - Wow, look at the astronaut footprints!
www.nasa.gov...

Here is LRO showing Lunokhod 1 - apparently it travelled several miles on the moon but didn't leave any tracks behind it!
www.nasa.gov...

Why does Buzz get footprints, but Lunokhod not get tire tracks???



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
FTR... here is the area that BiB thinks might be a paste, taken from a higher resolution, low contrast scan direct from NASA. I have done nothing but cropped the image.


You'll note that there is no trace of any paste, despite the film grain effects even becoming visible at that magnification.

WHENEVER an image is resaved as a jpeg at high compression and low resolution, it adds artefacts, blocking and posterisation effects. In the case of the image I posted earlier, it was resaved at least 3 times, and each time makes the artefacting worse.

There is a higher res scan available, but I think the point is clear...



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


No comment on what I said??
I was siding with you mate


It's a very simple idea to both of us I think. As of 2011 NASA, JAXA and ISRO are technologically incapable of taking high resolution photographs of 40 year old Apollo landing zones on the Moon.... I'm not familiar with any lunar space efforts by ESA or RSA. I don't know enough about those areas.

t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y i n c a p a b l e

NASA is also t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y i n c a p a b l e of sending manned missions to the moon right now. They say they don't have the technology. This means that NASA is

t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y i n c a p a b l e.
edit on 1/29/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: edit to add



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Well if you go here it's even better..
I stand corrected..
It was just the lousy copy you posted..

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

The original is amazing..
Focus is near perfect on the "very close" LM and the Earth...
Even land mass is clearly visible....



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Here is LRO showing Apollo 11 - Wow, look at the astronaut footprints!
www.nasa.gov...

You can see individual footprints on this:

..can you, SJ? Guess I need new glasses - could you help me out and put in an arrow to one? I can only see worn paths where they have clearly gone back and forth...


Here is LRO showing Lunokhod 1 - apparently it travelled several miles on the moon but didn't leave any tracks behind it!
www.nasa.gov...

Now how wide were the wheels on Lunokhod, and most importantly what pattern did they make and how visible would that be at that resolution? BE SPECIFIC.

And do you think lighting and other issues might have a bearing on this? You're quite the image analyst...


Oh, and i hate to rain completely on your parade, but you might want to go over this page:
www.nasa.gov...

Happy? Post some more lols for us...


jra

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Here is LRO showing Lunokhod 1 - apparently it travelled several miles on the moon but didn't leave any tracks behind it!
www.nasa.gov...

Why does Buzz get footprints, but Lunokhod not get tire tracks???


The Lunokod rover wheels aren't that big nor did they displace that much of the rigolith compared to the astronauts feet. Even the Apollo LRV tire tracks are hard to spot at times.

But with that said, here are two links to the Lunokod rover LRO images and the tracks can be seen.

Soviet Union Lunar Rovers
Luna 21
edit on 29-1-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
With a GOOD pic of Earth it would be simple to chech what view of Earth would be visible from their position..
We could even check weather patterns for that day...

I have seen no pics that would be suitable..
Anyone know if there is any????


It's really hard to get any amount of detail of Earth from photos taken while on the Moon with a 60mm lens. But would you settle for photos taken while on the way to the Moon? Near the bottom of this page, video stills and photos are compared to precipitation maps of that time.

lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


This pic is perfect..
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

The Earth is very clear for checking atitude useing visible land mass and time useing available weather records..

If the debunkers want to try then that's their chance IMO...



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jra
 


This pic is perfect..
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

The Earth is very clear for checking atitude useing visible land mass and time useing available weather records..

If the debunkers want to try then that's their chance IMO...

Why would we? Do you think any of the hard core believers would be convinced?

I can just see it now -
FoosM - "Oh, alright you win. They went. I apologise for all my errors. Bye."
Jarrah - "Dang. I'll have to delete my entire Youtube castle..'
ppk - "What just happened? Where'd everyone go?"

Anyway, it's been at least partially done - you might want to spend some time here:
www.mem-tek.com...
Scroll down about half way and see what image he takes a look at, and what he does (repeatable with any suitable planetarium software)...You'll learn lots of stuff there - that guy is GOOD, possibly even better than me..


Then there's this, using other images:
lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...

(Added - Sorry, jra, I see you already posted this'un..)

Convinced yet?

edit on 29-1-2011 by CHRLZ because: added apology



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 332  333  334    336  337  338 >>

log in

join