Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

One half of the picture is a still taken from the flim by the Astronauts as they left the Moon

Really?? How did they do that and what is the pic number?

Posted by jra he downloaded the video took a still from it to see if it MATCHED the LRO shot it did.
Now back to YOUR lack of understanding of picture resolution.

The best lro pics will be 50 cm per pixel the link you gave said sat pics at 60cm per pixel the only reason you think the earth pics are better IS because YOU know what you are seeing buildings vehicles etc is that a simple enough explanation for EVEN YOU to understand.

With the sat pics YOU CANT SEE anymore detail than the LRO pics its simple. STILL WAITING for a link to one of these great sat pics your are talking about Foosm SORRY bIb got confused as you are using his tactics when challenged!!!!

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
I then tried to blame the astronauts, saying that they were hampered by their suits, lighting conditions on the moon, dust, etc.
But then all the Apollo defenders came and claimed how easy it was to shoot photos from the hip, how easy it was to manipulate the settings of the cameras to get the correct exposures. They even came up with the example of photographers managing to get great shots right in the middle of a war.

I tell you, considering the statements made the last few pages, I think Apollo defenders should be up in arms wondering where all these photos with stars in them are? I mean, you guys have done a better job explaining why it simply makes no sense that there no stars in any of the photos.
So I think we are all, on both sides in agreement.

No, I don't think we're in agreement. You claimed the cameras were modified in some way to specifically make photographing stars impossible. I pointed out that this wasn't true. However, that doesn't mean they had the necessary equipment to take photos of stars. The camera is but one piece of the equation. Even at the camera's most sensitive configuration (f/5.6 with ASA 6000 film), it would still take an exposure time of at least 30 seconds to get a good image of stars.

Why is f/5.6 the most sensitive configuration?

It is simply impossible to hand-hold a camera for that long and get a sharp image. Heck, even with my fancy vibration reduction lenses, I don't shoot with my camera at a shutter speed longer than 1/30th of a second hand-held because of the drop in sharpness. They would absolutely need a tripod of some sort, which they did not have.

Originally posted by FoosM
Lets move on to how those astronauts managed to close the door of the LM while they were conducting their EVA. And, when did those astronauts go into LM to check it, after it was first docked to the CMS.

Why don't you do some research on that and get back to us.

Whats the matter, are you stumped?

reply to post by FoosM


The lens on the camera was a f5.6/60 mm so guess why f5.6 was the most sensitive setting YOU do know how apertues on a lens work by now I hope as we have had many links posted to help you out with your lack of knowledge re photography.

Originally posted by FoosM

Why is f/5.6 the most sensitive configuration?

Because that's the largest aperture the lens was capable of, which means that's the aperture that would let the most light in to the film.

Originally posted by FoosM

Whats the matter, are you stumped?

The information is all out there. I think there's value you can get out of doing the actual research yourself.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Lets see we land on the Moon the positons are recorded and if a photograph is taken an object is there. Do you see how that differs from your alien object artifact claim!!!

No, the records and the pics are from the same source..
Don't you see the bias in that statement???

Well well the standard reply when you have painted yourself into a corner NASA never tells the truth, but you seem to believe any internet snake oil salesmen like JW. Cant believe you were taken by that fake missle thread well actually I can

Got any good car pics for me yet! Not even one link to prove yourself right, YOU do know what conclusion everyone makes from that!

reply to post by FoosM


Foos,

Why are you still fumbling about asking idiotic photography questions? Do you even own a camera? This is basic, basic info. I can only assume that you are simply trolling for trolling sake?

en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't believe posters on here then go onto the Hasselblad forum and ask questions.

www.hasselbladinfo.com...

www.hasselbladinfo.com...

There are other forums for Nikon and Canon in order for you to understand photography. Of course it won't make any difference to you? In future you will simply trot out all the same banal question over and over again on all different forums. As others have pointed out it is simply a game for you. I've seen your posts on YT and other forums - Wash, rinse and repeat wherever you go.

TJ

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

The lens on the camera was a f5.6/60 mm so guess why f5.6 was the most sensitive setting YOU do know how apertues on a lens work by now I hope as we have had many links posted to help you out with your lack of knowledge re photography.

Was it the only lens available to them?
On all missions?

Originally posted by nataylor

The information is all out there. I think there's value you can get out of doing the actual research yourself.

No, I think you already looked and your stumped.
Or the information that is out there is not what you want to hear.

By the way, do you (all) agree to the fact they had a tripod?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

The lens on the camera was a f5.6/60 mm so guess why f5.6 was the most sensitive setting YOU do know how apertues on a lens work by now I hope as we have had many links posted to help you out with your lack of knowledge re photography.

Was it the only lens available to them?
On all missions?

No it wasn't but lenes are chosen for a reason so lets look at this choice standard lens on a Hasselblad is usually 80mm focal length NASA used the 60mm because wider angle & better depth of field , and it was a good choice as it made it easier to shoot without using the viewfinder and getting what you wanted in shot without having to worry about focus and object position.

Other cameras and lenes have been used on Apollo,Skylab and other missions.

On a 35mm Camera the standard lens tends to be 50/55mm wide angle would be 28/35mm.

JW is a total DH he has not got a clue about photography and to be honest ALL the other subjects he tries to debunk the landings with.

reply to post by FoosM


Oh......, Foos, Foos, Foos......FoosMasoos, just what are we ever going to "doos" with "yoos"???

By the way, do you (all) agree to the fact they had a tripod?

Let's have a looky-look, shall we??

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ed9fb6d9726.jpg[/atsimg]

Source.

The above? Obviously, a training session, using pieces that are exactly like the actual hardware that went to the Moon.

More info on the TV camera,with some nice photo montage views:

www.newseum.org...

CHALLENGE: Provide an optimum means for astronauts to hold and operate the portable camera, and test optimum size, shape and mounting position of the handle.

SOLUTION: Astronaut preference and relative simplicity determined the single tubular unit on the bottom of the camera.

LOOKY, LOOKY at photo 1 of 5, and 2 of 5.....see it? SEE how it mounted to its stand? (Called a "tripod" in one refernce, but.....anyone who REALLY knows a real tripod will chuckle at that description....).

SEE how that camera was unique, in the way it was mounted to its holder, on the stand??

NOW....please, please show how the Hasselblad still camera could mount on the TV camera stand, using only that same method.....well, don't bother, because you can't. The mounting brackets and methods were not compatible.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Pure poetry weed well the first part he will claim the astronauts could have made a bracket to suit on the way, I mean they would have had nothing to do for a couple of days.

reply to post by wmd_2008

With the sat pics YOU CANT SEE anymore detail than the LRO pics its simple. STILL WAITING for a link to one of these great sat pics your are talking about Foosm SORRY bIb got confused as you are using his tactics when challenged!!!!

What a waste of time..It doesn't affect the debate one iotta what can or can't be seen on Earth..
We have what we have with the LRO...
But just to shut you up, how's this?

All of the KH satellites, of which more than 150 have been launched, consist of film cameras or electro-optical cameras that view the ground through telescopes. KH-7 and KH-9, the Gambit series, had resolutions of about 7 and 2.5 centimeters respectively.

rst.gsfc.nasa.gov...
...2.5cm resolution..Think we could tell the make of that car..??
BTW, most believe the secret sats take even better pics...

reply to post by DJW001

Why have you raised the burden of proof so high for something that happened decades ago, yet were willing to swallow KCBS's hoax hook line and sinker?

If that is too deep of a psychological question for you to answer, just a simple list of acceptable evidence would suffice.

DJW, the california issue was never resolved and I certainly didn't confirm it was a chinese missile though I still have my doubts it was a contrail and no official has confirmed either way..

Funny thing with this thread is the way you "believers" attack for no good reason..
It was only in my last few posts that I said that photo of the moon with the Earth in the background was great and challenged the hoax guys to prove it was fake..

Next I'm back to being attacked for truthfully stating the LRO images are too low resolution to prove much..

Do as you wish but I will reply in kind...

reply to post by DJW001

With the sat pics YOU CANT SEE anymore detail than the LRO pics its simple. STILL WAITING for a link to one of these great sat pics your are talking about Foosm SORRY bIb got confused as you are using his tactics when challenged!!!!

You, Nat, Weedwhacker and everyone else with half a brain know WMD_2008's above statement is wrong..

Why don't you tell them???????

That's right, never argue with mates, even when they make ridiculous comments..
This whole debate is crap, just a lot of backslapping and ignoring lies so long as they help the cause...

reply to post by backinblack


So you found some old coldwar tech thats NO longer used that had a better resolution the link you gave FOR CURRENT sat views said 60cm/pixel ON which you claimed you could identify a car THATS what YOU SAID.

LRO max res is 50 cm/pixel just as good as your link to current sat images so a car would look very similar to the lander on the Moon and would only cover a few pixels.

If you look at your links it said the U2 spy plane produced 60cm resolution images but that flys above the earth at a far lower altitude than the LRO over the Moon.

Still no car pic link I see!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack

 

So you found some old coldwar tech thats NO longer used that had a better resolution the link you gave FOR CURRENT sat views said 60cm/pixel ON which you claimed you could identify a car THATS what YOU SAID.

LRO max res is 50 cm/pixel just as good as your link to current sat images so a car would look very similar to the lander on the Moon and would only cover a few pixels.

If you look at your links it said the U2 spy plane produced 60cm resolution images but that flys above the earth at a far lower altitude than the LRO over the Moon.

Still no car pic link I see!

Grow up and admit you were WRONG..
Earth based sattelites are far bigger and better than the LRO, FACT.......
It's boring argueing stupid points that have no bearing on the debate at hand...

Edit: So you admit they had better spy sats during the cold war era but are telling us they dumped these high res sats in favour of lesser resolution ones??
I'm baffled by your logic, or lack there of..

this thread was really enlightening i have always been a strong backer of the moon landing, i mean its not like they sent up an empty space ship had it float around for a while and then let it land back on earth with the same passengers, but the fact that the flag was moving and a crater missing this is highly controversial i have to do a little more research to come to a complete agreement on how i feel about this subject

reply to post by GamesKillFreedom


???

....but the fact that the flag was moving and a crater missing ....

The "flag moving" baloney has been thoroughly discussed...as you may know?

Firstly, the less-intelligent sorts on YouTube (for example) yelled "fake!" because the flags moved as the Astronauts were holding the poles, moving the flags around, etc. Well, duh! Finally, after that nonsense was put to bed, we were left with one and ONLY one so-called "smoking gun" from them....a clip from video shot during an Apollo 15 EVA. There is a gent on YouTube who did a very in-depth study of that, and solved it. He also SAYS it like it is, and is pulling no punches in his language:




But, the "missing crater"??? >shrug< I think you might have some wires cross, on that one...??

reply to post by backinblack


Huh?? This has been discussed, too.....at length already, I thought. (Perhaps it was another thread??)

RE: Satellite pictures of Earth (ones available to the public, at least)....look it up. The highest (best) resolution is on the order of 0.5 meters/pixel...something like that. I think (iirc) it is the GEOS satellite. Google gets its stuff from them, I believe.

And, LRO is comparable to that. BUT....(and I am very surprised this still is coming up?? I thought everyone knew, by now...)....for Google Maps, specifically....the "zoom" in to closer, better detail and resolution is from.....drumroll....photographs taken by aircraft!!!. Go research it...go to Wiki. It's all there.

Aircraft at about 1,500 feet above the ground, on average. Folks, do I have to remind everyone that there are NO "aircraft" flying over the surface of the Moon, to take pictures and enhance the LRO images that way....a'la Google Maps?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

Huh?? This has been discussed, too.....at length already, I thought. (Perhaps it was another thread??)

RE: Satellite pictures of Earth (ones available to the public, at least)....look it up. The highest (best) resolution is on the order of 0.5 meters/pixel...something like that. I think (iirc) it is the GEOS satellite. Google gets its stuff from them, I believe.

And, LRO is comparable to that. BUT....(and I am very surprised this still is coming up?? I thought everyone knew, by now...)....for Google Maps, specifically....the "zoom" in to closer, better detail and resolution is from.....drumroll....photographs taken by aircraft!!!. Go research it...go to Wiki. It's all there.

Aircraft at about 1,500 feet above the ground, on average. Folks, do I have to remind everyone that there are NO "aircraft" flying over the surface of the Moon, to take pictures and enhance the LRO images that way....a'la Google Maps?

Weedy, I know all the crap about google..

Are you saying our best satelittes only take pics at 50cm resolution???
Forget what's available to the public..
Overall what is our best spy satellite and it's resolution???

You know, I can't believe I am even debating this with you..
YOU that acts like you know all this stuff..

Or is it merely like I said above?
Defend your mates at all cost????