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: 345
377
<< 342  343  344    346  347  348 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate! Page 345.

I like Jarrah White. And to be honest I like Phil Plait, too. They seem both honest & passionate people. So...


Check out this video posted by youtube user WhiteJarrah | January 05, 2011 titled "Phil Plait - Bring it On". The description of the video reads "Phil Plait had some interesting words at the TAM 8 meeting."

In the video Jarrah is openly engaging Phil in a bit of dialogue. Jarrah's video illustrated that Phil was not willing to entertain any questions from Jarrah at that time. Phil Plait exhorted in front of a large audience "..if anyone wants to argue my strength and my passion BRING IT! OK? I'm ready for you."

Jarrah White's video titled "Phil Plait - Bring it On" illustrates very conclusively that Jarrah was in fact "BRINGING IT" to Phil Plait and that Phil didn't want any part of it (at that time)!

I can't post the video here because it has already been marked as "seriously off-topic" by the mods. Please take a look for yourself, do you own research into the matter of the Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!
edit on 2/1/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: add lols, underline, etc

edit on 2/1/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: spello




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Sorry re name typo! Well it was awkward for them to do but you have seen some on here I wonder what JW would think?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


You may like JW but his logic is flawed on his videos I mean have you looked at his footprint video after watching that CAN YOU really think he has any idea of what he is talking about.

www.youtube.com...

Lets see if you spot his mistakes!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
[Ponitification and indirect spamming removed..]

I'm getting quite concerned, Sayonara, you seem to be having a problem posting YOUR OWN points. Do you actually have an opinion of your own?

If you have some favorite issues that are germane to the topic, and you feel sufficiently educated to actually debate those issues, do feel free. Being a mouthpiece is, frankly, a copout.

Being a mouthpiece for a lying, ill-informed charlatan who posts drivel peppered with adhominem and who is too afraid to go to a moderated forum (even one as supportive of the 'weird' as this is) and put his own points, is something quite a bit worse.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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>


Thank you,
end of discussion.



Mission Frame: 27
Lunar Surface Exposure: 8
Target: Cygnus Nebula


so they had to be able to see the stars



Date of Exposure: April 21, 1972
Time (GMT): 18:11:53
Duration of Exposure: 10 minutes


So they could have taken long(er) exposures if they needed to.
For goodness sake, they only needed 30 seconds to get the brightest stars!
As a matter of fact, what would happen on Earth if you exposed your stars for 10 minutes?



Fact is WMD your arguing in circles.
You have provided no proof that astrophotography could not have
been conducted on the moon.

Why dont we reverse the discussion.
Because all you guys do is complain it wasn't possible to take photos of stars.
We want to know what was possible.
Lets say future astronauts on the moon want to take photos of the stars.
But they can only take equipment available to Apollo.

What would the astronauts need, to have brought with them, and need to have done,
to take photos of the stars from the moon?

Lets also include settings and equipment for the horizon to be included as well.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter



I see some stars in the picture on the flag in the background DJ question was ok because if you really KNOW anything about photography and how it works YOU would KNOW the reason you dont need any info at all the moon is reflecting sunlight so if you expose for the Moon NO STARS SHOW its not rocket science


The Moon only needs a fraction of a second to show on film stars need many seconds ! its simple.

Look at any astrophotography site on the net its all explained in terms even Foosm would understand BUT IGNORES.

The real reason he didn't answer was because it shoots his little theories down in flames!
edit on 1-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.


edit on 1/2/11 by argentus because: removed large quote



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Correction to your post mate what it should say re your STAR image what you see with a 10min tracked exposure as it was not tracking the stars would produce tails.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM
 


Correction to your post mate what it should say re your STAR image what you see with a 10min tracked exposure as it was not tracking the stars would produce tails.


A 10 minute exposure
would produce tails on Earth??



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM
 


Correction to your post mate what it should say re your STAR image what you see with a 10min tracked exposure as it was not tracking the stars would produce tails.


Don't they have tracking camera stands??
I know a friend had a telescope that tracked the moon automatically..



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM
 


Correction to your post mate what it should say re your STAR image what you see with a 10min tracked exposure as it was not tracking the stars would produce tails.


Don't they have tracking camera stands??
I know a friend had a telescope that tracked the moon automatically..


The photo I presented was supposedly from the surface of the moon.
I dont see any tails or trails from the stars.

A 10 minute exposure on Earth would produce tails if you dont track.
So the question I have, does the movement of the moon allow for more exposure time and less tracking?
Or
Did the astronauts bring along a tracking mount?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   

edit on 1-2-2011 by FoosM because: dbl post



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So the question I have, does the movement of the moon allow for more exposure time and less tracking?


I'd go with that but I'm no expert..
But I know Earth rotates once every 24 hours so obviously effects the position of stars..
The moon rotates once every 28 days or so (if you believe it really rotates) so a 10 minute exposure would not show much change in star position..
Obviously they are both orbiting the sun but thats slow..

edit on 1-2-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Fact is WMD your arguing in circles.
You have provided no proof that astrophotography could not have
been conducted on the moon.

Why dont we reverse the discussion.
Because all you guys do is complain it wasn't possible to take photos of stars.
We want to know what was possible.
Lets say future astronauts on the moon want to take photos of the stars.
But they can only take equipment available to Apollo.

What would the astronauts need, to have brought with them, and need to have done,
to take photos of the stars from the moon?

Lets also include settings and equipment for the horizon to be included as well.



Lets see Foosm YOU accuse me of going in circles


WE have proved that they could NOT do what you wanted because they did not have what was needed.

What part of this can you not UNDERSTAND due to the Moons surface being lit by the SUN! exposure times are a fraction of a second ie as has been shown many times around 1/125 to 1/250th of a second,

Stars take MANY seconds as shown MANY times before!!!! 30-40+ seconds using the film speed they had!

SO THEY COULDN'T get a PROPERLY EXPOSED FOREGROUND AND STARS IN SAME PICTURE.

Thats WHY DJ asked you about that Moon picture(you refused to answer the question about) he posted that because anyone with an UNDESTANDING of photography needed NO other info to answer his question!!!!

Each step in shutter speed doubles the amount of light .

From 1/250th the steps are1/125 1/60 1/30 /15 1/8 1/4 1/2 then 1 sec 2 ,4 8, 15, 30 maximun will vary depending on camera, Hasselblad was 1 sec then bulb.

They would need use bulb setting on a tripod with some kind of tracking to take pictures of Stars without trails or pictures of the surface handheld as they did,

When using the bulb setting usally a cable of some kind is used to keep trigger open so you dont shake camera.

See we are OPEN and can explain from BOTH points of view unlike yourself.

So as you can see it was IMPOSSIBLE for them they didn't have was need for what you want BUT they had what they needed for their MISSION.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



They would need use bulb setting on a tripod with some kind of tracking to take pictures of Stars without trails or pictures of the surface handheld as they did,


As I just pointed out, would they really need a tracking device?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
SHOUTing post removed, as again it had nothing ontopic


And you are still having the problem....? I'm sure no-one has noticed that you are unwilling to engage in debate yourself, instead focusing on anything but your own opinions.

Of the things you think JW isn't, name your favorite, and I'll show you in excruciating detail WHY he is a ill-informed lying charlatan. Which adjective would you like?


Or you could just read the thread...

Or you could have the cojones to tell us YOUR favorite 'proof' of an Apollo hoax, instead of standing on the shoulders of ... a gnat.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


His comments are directed at JW not YOU so he has a point ! Have you looked at this thread from page 1 all the way through!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Will look into it but they would have still required a camera tripod and shutter release cable which they didn't have will be back on later.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Just trying to lighten things up a bit mate
This thread ended up being "ATS Apollo Chat". All of our posts should be streaming on the front page of ATS


edit to add. Let me respecify. This thread is like the "4Chan of Apollo Chat".
edit on 2/1/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: edit to add.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
FoosM, stop beating a dead horse. In your own words, please, why are there no stars visible in this photo? I will post it every page from now until this thread is ended if you don't answer.




new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 342  343  344    346  347  348 >>

log in

join