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: 342
377
<< 339  340  341    343  344  345 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Not while you are going down the ladder.
Why would they wait until they were on the ladder? They'd do it from the porch.


Here is Aldrin on the "porch"
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Do you see him reaching for the door to close it?
I dont. I wouldnt even know how he could because he is actually
not 100% out of the doorway.

Conveniently Armstrong takes photos of some other things he finds interesting:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Notice, both photos are well exposed and focused.
Dont know why he would risk loosing the shot of Aldrin coming out
Armstrong doesnt miss a beat and manages to focus on
Adrin:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

now on the ladder has the door pulled in.
This makes no sense.
If you look closely in the photo you will see that he has closed the door
with the LEC stuck in the door.




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Oh for crying out loud!!!! What's next, in this parade of inanity???


So I look for inconsistencies.


I doubt you'd recognize a real "inconsistency" if it came up and bit you on the ankle.....because it's apparent you fail, at every turn, to comprehend even one wit of anything that is technical in nature. Like, you come up with this gem, and rather than trying to actually think on it, using logic and research, you just (again) throw it up, and toss it at the window, to see if it will "stick":


One that I noticed is the LM door being closed for no apparent reason at all.


Utterly daft.

Here, homework for you. TRY to read through all of this, and realize just how consistent (AND complicated) it is. Know why?? BECAUSE IT'S REAL LIFE!!!

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Look at the real life of real people about to egress for the EVA ....first Lunar surface EVA in history. This isn't a movie, not imaginary, not "made up", it is exactly how procedures are designed, step-by-step, methodical. Because, you don't want to make mistakes, nor act rashly, in that kind of environment. You take our time, and are careful and thorough.

AFTER you read that, then you may jump to the part that is the history of the actual egress out of the LM, and down the ladder to the surface.....

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BTW, here's the discussion from Apollo 11, regarding the LM hatch:


109:41:28 Aldrin: Okay. Now I want to back up and partially close the hatch. (Long Pause) Making sure not to lock it on my way out.

109:41:53 Armstrong: (Laughs) A particularly good thought.

[The hatch can be opened from the outside, if necessary. The reason for almost closing the hatch is, I believe, to prevent radiative cooling of the cabin. Neither Neil or Buzz remembered any specific reason.]
[Armstrong (straight-faced) - "To avoid having somebody say 'Were you born in a barn?'"]

[Aldrin - "Now that you bring it up, what would have happened if the valve had gotten screwed up or something and it started re-pressurizing?"]

[Armstrong - "You'd never get back in."]

[Aldrin - "Did we really ever investigate that problem? (Chuckling) It probably would have been a good idea to use a brick or a camera to keep it from closing. Somebody must have thought about that."]

[I recalled that the dump valve could be opened from the outside.]


www.hq.nasa.gov...


edit on 31 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001




Why on Earth are you spamming this thread with that photo?
You expect me to answer a question about a photo that without any additional information
attached to it. Im sorry, but thats just baiting and not debating.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

No you have provided no proof that their Hasselblads could not take those types of photos.
All you have discussed are settings.
Do you claim that the Hasselblads could not do long exposures?

You claim the lens was limited but then you admit they brought other lenses.
So what it comes down to is, could the astronauts set their Hasselblads to long exposures to take photos of the heavens if they wanted to?

If you answer no, base it on facts.



LETS see once again for the HARD OF LEARNING!

Max shutter speed on Hasselblad was 1 sec it has a bulb setting which means you can hold the shutter open for as long as you want>

The film speed was 160 asa iirc NOW if you have a look round the net you can see pictures of stars taken by astrophotographers.

Lets seee this link gives some basics

www.digital-photography-tips.net...

From that site

In order to avoid the star trail effect a photographer will need to use the following chart of times for evenings illuminated by the light of a full moon. With the camera set at f/2.8 and an ISO film of 400: * 20mm lens at 30 seconds * 35mm lens at 18 seconds * 50mm lens at 12 seconds



IF you want the best quality a night without the FULL MOON!

NOW since YOU know nothing about photography as you asked you f5.6 question a few posts back


Lets compare 400asa film above is more that twice as fast as 160 asa and f2.8 lets in twice as much light as f5.6.

So min exposure above so no star trails show is 12 secs. Thats on a tripod on a 35mm SLR not a HASSELBLAD medium format camera.

So as the above example has twice the film speed and twice the light reaching the film the Astronauts would have need 40+ seconds to expose correctly so no foreground could have been shown and no astronauts (ppk55 bib etc)

As for the other lenes the only ones mentioned were a 250mm on iirc Apollo 14 or 15 but the aperture was not as fast. Also the Nikon which was used and we have seen examples of star pics with that showing trails!

It is really that simple and thats why you wont answer DJ question because to get that exposure for the Moon and hillside it wasn't long enough for STARS TO SHOW.

FACTS as requested in simple terms that even you might get your head round.

OH and re lens aperture an example 50mm at f2.8 size of opening is 50/2.8 which = 17.9mm approx
50mm at f5.6 size of opening is 50/5.6 which = 8.9mm approx
bigger the f number the smaller the opening!

Want anymore facts just let us know WE know JW and YOU cant give them


Oh another tip when checking up look at this Reciprocity failure of film because obviously you will know nothing about that either

edit on 31-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: spelling



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Do you see him reaching for the door to close it?
I dont. I wouldnt even know how he could because he is actually
not 100% out of the doorway.
Why would he try to close the door while he was still in the doorway?


Originally posted by FoosM
Armstrong doesnt miss a beat and manages to focus on
Adrin:
Well, it's not like they were rushing things. The whole egress for Aldrin, from starting to back out the hatch to feet on the first step of the ladder was around 3 minutes.



Originally posted by FoosM
now on the ladder has the door pulled in.
This makes no sense.
If you look closely in the photo you will see that he has closed the door
with the LEC stuck in the door.
Why doesn't it make sense? It doesn't take a lot of effort to grab a handle and pull it. And why does the LEC matter?
edit on 31-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001




Why on Earth are you spamming this thread with that photo?
You expect me to answer a question about a photo that without any additional information
attached to it. Im sorry, but thats just baiting and not debating.






Its to prove YOU HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE anyone who knows about photography does not NEED ANYMORE INFO



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001



Why on Earth are you spamming this thread with that photo?
You expect me to answer a question about a photo that without any additional information
attached to it. Im sorry, but thats just baiting and not debating.

Its to prove YOU HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE anyone who knows about photography does not NEED ANYMORE INFO


Amazing how big the moon looks in that pic...
Then we see pics of the Earth taken from the moon and the Earth looks smaller than that..
Odd considering the Earth is around 4 x bigger than the Moon...



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Amazing how big the moon looks in that pic...
Then we see pics of the Earth taken from the moon and the Earth looks smaller than that..
Odd considering the Earth is around 4 x bigger than the Moon...


It depends on the field of view of the lens being used. The moon viewed from earth is about a half degree wide. If you have a 400mm lens on a 35mm camera, the horizontal field of view is a little over 5 degrees. That means you could fit about 10 full moons across the width of the picture.

The field of view of the 60mm lens used on the moon is about 60 degrees. Since the earth is 4 times the diameter of the moon, it would be about 2 degrees across. So it would take around 30 earths to cover the width of a photo taken with the 60mm lens.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
Amazing how big the moon looks in that pic...
Then we see pics of the Earth taken from the moon and the Earth looks smaller than that..
Odd considering the Earth is around 4 x bigger than the Moon...


It depends on the field of view of the lens being used. The moon viewed from earth is about a half degree wide. If you have a 400mm lens on a 35mm camera, the horizontal field of view is a little over 5 degrees. That means you could fit about 10 full moons across the width of the picture.

The field of view of the 60mm lens used on the moon is about 60 degrees. Since the earth is 4 times the diameter of the moon, it would be about 2 degrees across. So it would take around 30 earths to cover the width of a photo taken with the 60mm lens.


Shame, would of looked good from the moon..
Being there I mean....A huge Earth up in the sky..



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Here, homework for you. TRY to read through all of this, and realize just how consistent (AND complicated) it is. Know why?? BECAUSE IT'S REAL LIFE!!!

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Look at the real life of real people about to egress for the EVA ....first Lunar surface EVA in history. This isn't a movie, not imaginary, not "made up", it is exactly how procedures are designed, step-by-step, methodical. Because, you don't want to make mistakes, nor act rashly, in that kind of environment. You take our time, and are careful and thorough.

AFTER you read that, then you may jump to the part that is the history of the actual egress out of the LM, and down the ladder to the surface.....

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BTW, here's the discussion from Apollo 11, regarding the LM hatch:


109:41:28 Aldrin: Okay. Now I want to back up and partially close the hatch. (Long Pause) Making sure not to lock it on my way out.

109:41:53 Armstrong: (Laughs) A particularly good thought.

[The hatch can be opened from the outside, if necessary. The reason for almost closing the hatch is, I believe, to prevent radiative cooling of the cabin. Neither Neil or Buzz remembered any specific reason.]
[Armstrong (straight-faced) - "To avoid having somebody say 'Were you born in a barn?'"]

[Aldrin - "Now that you bring it up, what would have happened if the valve had gotten screwed up or something and it started re-pressurizing?"]

[Armstrong - "You'd never get back in."]

[Aldrin - "Did we really ever investigate that problem? (Chuckling) It probably would have been a good idea to use a brick or a camera to keep it from closing. Somebody must have thought about that."]

[I recalled that the dump valve could be opened from the outside.]


www.hq.nasa.gov...


Gee thanks Weed.
I love it when defenders and debunkers work together to look deeply into a glaring issue.


[To prepare for his own exit, Buzz has probably closed the hatch partially so that he can move over to the other side of the spacecraft and then open the hatch fully to get it out of the way.

(LOL, I guess they didnt study the photos)

Now if the hatch is completely open, out of the way, how is supposed to close it on the way out?
You see how the whole thing reads? Oops, we made a blunder in the photo, now we have to come up with an answer. The answer we use will conflict with another problem, how did Aldrin have enough space to even exit? This is how NASA contradicts itself.

Lets watch Collier's documentary,
you can start at 3:50
Colliers describes the difficulty of leaving the LM in puffed up suits.


3:48
Colliers discovers that there was no manual/instructions/procedures on how to exit (and lets add enter) the LM.
That each team had to figure it out themselves.


No wonder we never see the astronauts clearly leaving and entering the LM!



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



No wonder we never see the astronauts clearly leaving and entering the LM!


They couldn't have cameras everywhere Foosm...
No manual on how to get out a door??
My car manual didn't mention that either but I figured it out..

edit on 31-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Gee thanks Weed.
I love it when defenders and debunkers work together to look deeply into a glaring issue.


[To prepare for his own exit, Buzz has probably closed the hatch partially so that he can move over to the other side of the spacecraft and then open the hatch fully to get it out of the way.

(LOL, I guess they didnt study the photos)

Now if the hatch is completely open, out of the way, how is supposed to close it on the way out?
You see how the whole thing reads? Oops, we made a blunder in the photo, now we have to come up with an answer. The answer we use will conflict with another problem, how did Aldrin have enough space to even exit? This is how NASA contradicts itself.
Huh? Aldrin is standing in the LMP position. The hatch, which is between the LMP and CDR position, swings open to the LMP side. Armstrong has exited, so Aldrin has to partially close the hatch, move over the CDR position, and reopen the hatch. Then he gets down on his knees and backs out. After he's backed out, he reaches back in and grabs the hatch handle and pulls the hatch mostly closed. Doesn't seem like a big deal.


Originally posted by FoosM
Colliers discovers that there was no manual/instructions/procedures on how to exit (and lets add enter) the LM.
That each team had to figure it out themselves.
So what if there was no formal procedure? It's not like the first time they tried it was on the moon.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM
 



No wonder we never see the astronauts clearly leaving and entering the LM!


They couldn't have cameras everywhere Foosm...
No manual on how to get out a door??
My car manual didn't mention that either but I figured it out..


LOL.
True, but s car is a ubiquitous device.
The LM is not, its a specially designed craft for a specific purpose.
Everything about the mission to even how to set up bunk was described.

It would be like having instructions on how to scuba dive into water,
or jump out of a plane. Its not something you do everyday.

Lets not forget the following:
The first door design was rejected.
Why was that?

And when I mean they dont show the astronauts leaving the LM,
Im including the training as well. Its one thing not to have it shown
during the "actual" missions, but you would want to study the movement
of the astronauts during a very important maneuver.
Everything they did would be life threatening.

We are talking about a possible rupture of the suit if it caught on something
Falling down.
Tipping over the LM (depending how the landed)
etc.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Everything they did would be life threatening.

We are talking about a possible rupture of the suit if it caught on something
Falling down.
Tipping over the LM (depending how the landed)
etc.

Fair points..
I've not looked into the training involved..
Maybe I should..


But in saying that, I have trained in scuba diving and flying a plane..
There are some things in both that are not written in manuals..
Usually it's down to common sense...



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


TWO MORE absolutely stupid YouTube videos, proving once again, that rather than trying to actually THINK for yourself, the preference is to sit and dully watch a moron make an fool of himself, in yet another "hoax believer" mockumentary attempt??

How can someone be so gullible, to watch what a guy who obviously has no clue what he is talking about, and then take it as some sort of "gospel truth"??

Each one....each one of these poor slobs (and this includes "JW") just makes themselves look ever more ridiculous, with each attempt. Because, contrary to their futile hand-waving and distractions and distortions, it IS possible to actually fact-check their baloney....and the truth of their deception (or utter ignorance) is then revealed.

But, as usual....this is seen in many cases where there are very complicated and technical issues at play. It is little different, to me, even when watching some fairly good documentaries about aviation-related matters, such as crash investigations and such. A recent re-play of a "National Geographic" program (no amateurs, there usually...) about a passenger airplane crash had me wanting to throw things at the TV! Simple mistakes, but "sloppy", to my view...speaking about one type of airplane (the one involved in the crash) whilst showing stock footage of a different type....re-creating the actions in the cockpit, with all the wrong tones and inflection of voice, and wrong "alarms" and other noises, that don't even exist....WAY too "Hollywooded" up.

"Hollywooded" isn't a word....but, was meant to imply "Given the Hollywood Treatment". Is that nitpicking, on the overall documentary?? Yes, to those in the room with me, who don't know what I know. I happen to prefer accuracy, to the extent possible....otherwise, you can see what happens when people get so many wrong notions in their heads.

And this ridiculous "Apollo Hoax" BS is a prime example of many, many "wrong notions"....being perpetuated by the likes of Bill Kaysing, long ago....with that torch passing on to, lately, this "Jarrah White" ignoramus....and (now, here) desperately exaggerated even further, by a handful of characters....



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


TWO MORE absolutely stupid YouTube videos, proving once again, that rather than trying to actually THINK for yourself, the preference is to sit and dully watch a moron make an fool of himself, in yet another "hoax believer" mockumentary attempt??

How can someone be so gullible, to watch what a guy who obviously has no clue what he is talking about, and then take it as some sort of "gospel truth"??

Each one....each one of these poor slobs (and this includes "JW") just makes themselves look ever more ridiculous, with each attempt. Because, contrary to their futile hand-waving and distractions and distortions, it IS possible to actually fact-check their baloney....and the truth of their deception (or utter ignorance) is then revealed.

But, as usual....this is seen in many cases where there are very complicated and technical issues at play. It is little different, to me, even when watching some fairly good documentaries about aviation-related matters, such as crash investigations and such. A recent re-play of a "National Geographic" program (no amateurs, there usually...) about a passenger airplane crash had me wanting to throw things at the TV! Simple mistakes, but "sloppy", to my view...speaking about one type of airplane (the one involved in the crash) whilst showing stock footage of a different type....re-creating the actions in the cockpit, with all the wrong tones and inflection of voice, and wrong "alarms" and other noises, that don't even exist....WAY too "Hollywooded" up.

"Hollywooded" isn't a word....but, was meant to imply "Given the Hollywood Treatment". Is that nitpicking, on the overall documentary?? Yes, to those in the room with me, who don't know what I know. I happen to prefer accuracy, to the extent possible....otherwise, you can see what happens when people get so many wrong notions in their heads.

And this ridiculous "Apollo Hoax" BS is a prime example of many, many "wrong notions"....being perpetuated by the likes of Bill Kaysing, long ago....with that torch passing on to, lately, this "Jarrah White" ignoramus....and (now, here) desperately exaggerated even further, by a handful of characters....





I'll probably get a mod warning and lose another 20 points for over quoting, but did that post actually have a point??
If it did it was lost in the ramble...



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

edit on 31-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Another dumb quote re photography is the photo cropped or what was the focal length of the lens used do you KNOW ,NO YOU DONT

See its ALL LOGICAL if you KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT AND LOOKING AT


I'll apologise to the Mods in advance...

You're an annoying little wimp..Piss off.....



Oh struck a nerve have I ,anything but a wimp mate thats for sure!!!

See you jump in with assumption JW did the same we are all here to learn well except possibly Foosm and ppk55 you have shown some sense now and again so dont let the others drag you down!
edit on 31-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
Huh? Aldrin is standing in the LMP position. The hatch, which is between the LMP and CDR position, swings open to the LMP side. Armstrong has exited, so Aldrin has to partially close the hatch, move over the CDR position, and reopen the hatch. Then he gets down on his knees and backs out. After he's backed out, he reaches back in and grabs the hatch handle and pulls the hatch mostly closed. Doesn't seem like a big deal.


Of course you dont cause you mind is filling the blanks.
But consider this, how well could those astronauts raise their hands above their helmets?
They could barely raise it high enough to salute.

Aldrin could not reach back in to get the hatch.
What part of the hatch is he trying to grab?
The handle would be too far for him to get.

Open up your door, get on your hands and see how far you need to reach to close it.
Very hard in plain clothes, impossible if you are wearing a space suit.
The only way would be if you have to reenter the room hold on to the edge, and try
to walk your way back out while holding the door.
Not happening.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 339  340  341    343  344  345 >>

log in

join