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: 344
377
<< 341  342  343    345  346  347 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Its about how the sky looks from various locations on the moon. In other words, reference points. The same way we have navigated by the stars, can be very useful for future missions.
When you visit a new location like a planet, it's sky is as important to study as it's ground.


The position of the stars will look exactly the same on the Moon as they do on the Earth, so there is nothing new to learn about the Lunar sky and thus no point in studying it. However, the Apollo astronauts did use the stars as a way to verify there location on the Lunar surface. It's called the Alignment Optical Telescope (AOT).

history.nasa.gov...




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angrybadger
hate to interupt an argument but I always wondered if the moon rover was ever photographed after wards? by nasa or by russia or china? i assume even the most powerful telescope couldnt pick it up but satelites?

also the did they use the rover to travel long distances? was it actually important and crucial to the mission,cause thats an awful lotta weight to be carrying on a risky mission and the only thing that comes to my mind when I think about the rover is a short clip of it being driven like a toy,just for fun. just as a spectacle.

any one know enough about it to enlighten me?


Did you know they were planning on using a motorcycle on the moon too?
How important would that be, right?

Check out these videos:




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
 


A little link for you

www.photoanswers.co.uk...

From this link!


Do telephotos really compress perspective? It’s a common mistake to think that telephoto lenses compress perspective. The confusion is due to the face that most telephoto shots depict subjects a long way from the camera, and the change in perspective is due to the greater distance between you and the subject. So if you want to alter perspective, alter your viewpoint and choose a lens that fits the subject matter.


OK!


Interesting read..
But the subject in those pics is small, a person..
The other pic has no such small subject..It's a big hill...
BTW, I don't in anyway not believe the moon can look that big..
i've seen very big views of the moon from near the equator..



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Now Nat.
Be honest with us all here.
Is that door from Apollo 11?

Yup, you're right. That's from Apollo 14. Apollo 11 and 12 didn't have that hold there, I see now.

Now you show where it's impossible for them to raise their hands over their .s. They obviously could get their hands high enough to flip their sun visors up and down.

And what would have stopped them from using the edge of the door as a hold?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Hats off to you bib nice polite considered reply stuck up here in the northern hemisphere I would like to get South of the equator some interesting things to look at in the Southern sky!
edit on 31-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Hey Foosm LOOK HERE

www.abovetopsecret.com...

NO STARS!!!!!



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Interesting read..
But the subject in those pics is small, a person..
The other pic has no such small subject..It's a big hill...
BTW, I don't in anyway not believe the moon can look that big..
i've seen very big views of the moon from near the equator..
Like I posted before, it's all about angles. The moon is a half degree across. A 100 meter hill is half a degree high from about 11 km. A 10 meter tree is half a degree high from 1.100 km away. A 1.7 meter tall person is half a degree tall from about 200 meters away.

All those subjects photographed from the corresponding distance will appear about the same height as the moon, regardless of the focal length of the lens used.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Why on Earth are you spamming this thread with that photo?


Because you've spent 25 pages doing everything you can to avoid having to explain this 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.


Very well, if you think it will help:


Crescent moon with earthshine setting behind Survey Point, near Mt Baker in northwest Washington State. Canon Digital Rebel, 300mm lens, ISO 100.

This link was provided with the original post.

Incidentally, this is neither spamming nor baiting. When you correctly answer why no stars are visible in the picture, the "why are there no stars in the lunar sky photos" will be settled.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Wonder what he has thought of this link posted above

www.abovetopsecret.com...

which has this photo not taken by NASA


files.abovetopsecret.com...

No STARS

edit on 31-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Now Nat.
Be honest with us all here.
Is that door from Apollo 11?

Yup, you're right. That's from Apollo 14. Apollo 11 and 12 didn't have that hold there, I see now.


thanks for clearing that up for the readers.
Now this brings up the question, why did Apollo 14 and further have that particular modification to the door?
And why was it placed where it was placed?




Now you show where it's impossible for them to raise their hands over their .s. They obviously could get their hands high enough to flip their sun visors up and down.


Well I did say salute.
If they could salute, they could raise their arms high enough to reach their visors.

But watch this video:


See how he throws?




And what would have stopped them from using the edge of the door as a hold?



When crawling through the hatch, an astronaut would draw his arms in under his body, thus decreasing his width and allowing him to pass through the opening.


If his arms are under him, how could he hold the door?

Try it yourself.

www.braeunig.us...



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


What no comment on the post above NO STARS
How strange Foosm or are you hoping to avoid it altogether lets see what excuse YOU come up with!



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Angrybadger
 


Good questions....and (PLEASE ignore the reply that FoosM made to you, on page 344. It linked two crappy, idiotic YouTube videos -- excerpts from an equally crappy "mock"umentary).


,,,, I always wondered if the moon rover was ever photographed after wards? by nasa or by russia or china? i assume even the most powerful telescope couldnt pick it up but satelites?


Yes, buried (somewhere) in this thread, and others are some photos, and videos of photos, etc.

Not China nor Russia....but the Japanese JAXA spacecraft detected (unfortunately, not to the resolution that NASA's LROCamera had) indications of the surface displacement, at all six Apollo landing sites.

Yes, Earth-based telescopes lack the resolution, at that distance, for objects that "small" (relatively).

As mentioned, the NASA LRO camera (participated in by other countries, too) was capable of about 50 cm/pixel resolution. The first images released were obvious, to all but the most stubborn who still wallow in the ignorance of the "Hoax" mindset. Others have been able to computer-enhance them. Like, this of the Apollo site, painstakingly aligned to have all relative sizes and angles match up, for a better viewing experience, and to make it quite clear the reality of the landing site, and equipment left behind:



Earlier contribution, same YT user:






....also the did they use the rover to travel long distances?


Yes....especially on Apollo 16 and 17, the last two missions. Apollo 15 was first 'J' mission to carry the extra payload of the LRV. IIRC, they didn't stray too far, first time with the vehicle, as a proof of concept, and not to jeopardize safety.



...was it actually important and crucial to the mission,cause thats an awful lotta weight to be carrying on a risky mission...


Well, again, the engineers at Grumman (contractors for the LM) refined the designs on subsequent spacecraft...and as noted, it had been planned, all along, to ever-increase payload ability. AND, the LRVs weren't all that heavy....at launch on Earth? Well, the Saturn V was one powerful machine....but, for the Moon, now the LRVs weigh only 1/6th as much...AND, only along for the ride to the surface. Didn't have to be carried back up. You can research that history many places, no need to repeat it all here.



.... and the only thing that comes to my mind when I think about the rover is a short clip of it being driven like a toy,just for fun. just as a spectacle.


Well, that is from Apollo 15, as I mentioned above, first actual LRV to go. Now, think about it: Although the thing (well, its twins and prototypes, on Earth) had been designed, engineered and tested and tested....BUT, first time "in the field", so to speak? Wanna put it through the ringer, just in case .... See what it could take, in real conditions. IF it broke? Well, would have curtailed some of the planned exploration, is all. They never drove it farther than they could make it back, on foot, in worst case scenario....IF it broke down. Mission rules were very clear....range of the PLSS on the EVA suits, in terms of hours consumables, with safety margins.

There are many more details....at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal site:

history.nasa.gov...

history.nasa.gov...

www.workingonthemoon.com...


I will see if those crap videos from FoosM warrant a play-by-play clarification and de-crapping.....




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



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



Like I posted before, it's all about angles. The moon is a half degree across. A 100 meter hill is half a degree high from about 11 km. A 10 meter tree is half a degree high from 1.100 km away. A 1.7 meter tall person is half a degree tall from about 200 meters away.

All those subjects photographed from the corresponding distance will appear about the same height as the moon, regardless of the focal length of the lens used.


Thanks, I get all that..
It was a nice big moon..



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Also did you note picture was taken using 300mm telephoto lens 6x magnification on the standard lens also as its a digital camera and the if the sensor size is not the same as a frame of 35mm film another magnification factor applies.

You can check this magnification factor on the Canon site


Just checked image magnified a further 1.6x
edit on 1-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: info added.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
 


Also did you note picture was taken using 300mm telephoto lens 6x magnification on the standard lens also as its a digital camera and the if the sensor size is not the same as a frame of 35mm film another magnification factor applies.

You can check this magnification factor on the Canon site


Yeah but in that pic would it really make a difference in perspective?
The hill appears a long way from the camera unlike that link you posted..
Therefore I'd expect the scale to be correct between the hill and the moon.
ie: as the naked eye would see it...
That I get easy..



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


This link shows how the sensor sizes effects image size.

www.the-digital-picture.com...

Makes a hell of a difference if you have a very large telephoto attached!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Nice videos weed I wonder how Mr F will react to those no doubt busy looking for a reason to say its fake as I type this.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Hey blackinblack

What do you think of this image from another thread.

files.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008


Hey blackinblack

What do you think of this image from another thread.

files.abovetopsecret.com...


Get the name right.....

That's from the Build a hubble for $500,,??
Yes cool pics..
BTW, i'm not questioning the "no stars"..
I know why, just wish they had bothered taking more pics of Earth....



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Why on Earth are you spamming this thread with that photo?


Because you've spent 25 pages doing everything you can to avoid having to explain this 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.


Very well, if you think it will help:


Crescent moon with earthshine setting behind Survey Point, near Mt Baker in northwest Washington State. Canon Digital Rebel, 300mm lens, ISO 100.

This link was provided with the original post.

Incidentally, this is neither spamming nor baiting. When you correctly answer why no stars are visible in the picture, the "why are there no stars in the lunar sky photos" will be settled.



DJ, Did you really expected for FoosM to scoop up your troll bait jpeg picture (a jpeg which only you are privy to the specific location, time, equipment and photographic settings) so that you could crush him with your strawman argument?

If, for examply, I posted a picture of Richard Nixon could I ask you "Do you see any stars in this photograph"??
I am confident that you would swiftly object to the exact nature of the question. Hrumph.

Here is that picture of Nixon btw and to show you blokes how it must be done, every time you post a picture: Here is the source link of this jpeg Source richardnixonfacts.com...


WHY ARE THERE NO STARS IN THIS PICTURE?



Someone else a few pages back in the thread helpfully mentioned the fact that internet jpegs lose data every time they are re-saved... you know, data loss due to compression artifacts. These jpegs are very likely to be data crunched and useless for analysis. It is becoming a very serious problem in the digital age of electronic signatures, digital pictures, lack of a material chain of evidence, i.e., film negatives, chemical process cameras, all we really get from the moon satellites today are zero's and one's, etc...

I just did some light Googling on the subject and it seems that researchers and corporations are very interested in finding a solution to the problem of "digitally authentic" photographs and the temptations of Photoshop. The temptation of Photoshop is to say "I can make you 20 pounds lighter with a perfect complexion" or "I can put on you on Mars with a hot wife and a great job."


That is what digital devilry offers us. The power (iin our own hands) to create a version of reality so utterly convincing... that we will readily to believe aliens from another planet landed on the Whitehouse lawn this morning at exactly 10:01AM EST.


So, DJ, you said that your are not spamming nor baiting... but that is EXACTLY your what your performance record shows here in this thread. We have multiple witnesses to that effect.

edit on 2/1/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: fix tag




top topics



 
377
<< 341  342  343    345  346  347 >>

log in

join