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: 346
377
<< 343  344  345    347  348  349 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Did the astronauts bring along a tracking mount?


You tell me.





posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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.




Is it me or did you not answer the question?
This is what I mean about going around in circles.



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


You just said:



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,


And that is all you said.
What film type, what shutter speed, what f stop?

Tails or no tails, doesnt really matter use both.

I mean sorry but if the astronauts came back with pictures like this:



Front page all over the news for sure.
Nobody said the stars had to be pinpoints.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Did the astronauts bring along a tracking mount?


You tell me.



You tell me.
I asked the question.
Showing a photo without any description is of no use.
You can post the inside of a submarine and ask me X & Y all you want,
just answer the question if you know.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.



Well the continued posting of that pic will bore the crap out of me..
We get it, he isn't going to answer so spare the rest of us...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
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?



While I'm not sure how it is ontopic..
, may i congratulate you, BiB for thinking about it and asking a very reasonable and good question.

Yes, the Earth and the Moon are by no means the same in this respect. But I'm not going to give an immediate straight answer - just going to tease a little (not aimed at you, but at FoosM).

So I'll just give a huge hint on how to find out what the star motion would be on the lunar surface. It's the word - sidereal. See if you can come up with the correct answer. It answers more than one question that has been recently raised...

Teach someone to fish.. and all that....

I have to say that for someone supposedly interested in conditions on the Moon, I'm rather surprised that FoosM (or indeed anyone in the fervent hoax belief camp), doesn't know the answer...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You tell me.
I asked the question.
Showing a photo without any description is of no use.


I just posted a photograph of the telescope they used to take the UV photos. Anyone with any experience of astronomy can tell at a glance what type of mounting that is and whether it can track the stars. I assume you are admitting your ignorance of astronomy, so I will explain it to you: it is an azimuthal mounting, which means it probably can't track the stars. Why would it need to? Your turn.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Well thank you..
But you know what??
It just proved the NO star debate..
I posted something that BOTH sides of the debate are now considering,

and yet I got NO STARS..



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Well the continued posting of that pic will bore the crap out of me..
We get it, he isn't going to answer so spare the rest of us...


Yes, but the question is: is he unable or unwilling to answer the question? He is trying to pass himself off as some sort of expert and failing miserably. If he does know the answer, he knows it destroys his entire argument, yet he persists in making a fool of himself. Ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



Well the continued posting of that pic will bore the crap out of me..
We get it, he isn't going to answer so spare the rest of us...


Yes, but the question is: is he unable or unwilling to answer the question? He is trying to pass himself off as some sort of expert and failing miserably. If he does know the answer, he knows it destroys his entire argument, yet he persists in making a fool of himself. Ridiculous.


Then let him make a fool of himself..
No one is in doubt that you have posted that image and asked that question..
Just saying..



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



You tell me.
I asked the question.
Showing a photo without any description is of no use.


I just posted a photograph of the telescope they used to take the UV photos. Anyone with any experience of astronomy can tell at a glance what type of mounting that is and whether it can track the stars. I assume you are admitting your ignorance of astronomy, so I will explain it to you: it is an azimuthal mounting, which means it probably can't track the stars. Why would it need to? Your turn.


Oh... so are you saying because the moon does not turn as fast as the Earth... they wouldnt need to track the stars to reduce the tails?
So, actually taking photos of the stars would be much easier on the moon!
You could take long exposures without getting a tail!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Oh... so are you saying because the moon does not turn as fast as the Earth... they wouldnt need to track the stars to reduce the tails?
So, actually taking photos of the stars would be much easier on the moon!
You could take long exposures without getting a tail!

Omigoodness - there's a small glimmer of hope in there (the yellow bit)! OK, he didn't quite get to the part about how MUCH slower, but each small step..

But now, FoosM, be very careful... does that fact mean they could use the Hasselblad and 'easily' get a good star image? Are you forgetting some very important things? There is a difference between tracking, and keeping steady... And do you remember the questions I asked ppk, and understand why the moon/hill pic was posted? Think very hard before answering, because you're only about a quarter of the way there at this point... Don't blow it now!
edit on 1-2-2011 by CHRLZ because: grammar



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



Tails or no tails, doesnt really matter use both.

I mean sorry but if the astronauts came back with pictures like this:



Front page all over the news for sure.
Nobody said the stars had to be pinpoints.



Again you show you lack of thinking in the picture above at what time of the DAY was it taken.

I will save you the bother NIGHT ie in the DARK NO SUN LIGHT.

How could they take a picture like that.

For that picture a long exposure to show the trails and fire your flashgun to expose the nearby landscape BUT the landscape would need to be in the DARK!!!!! or have very very low level light hitting it NOT the blazing sun as would happen on the Moon.

See Foosm you have to understand the SUBJECT!!!!!
edit on 1-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: comment added



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh... so are you saying because the moon does not turn as fast as the Earth... they wouldnt need to track the stars to reduce the tails?
So, actually taking photos of the stars would be much easier on the moon!
You could take long exposures without getting a tail!


Partial credit, but I gave you a star anyway. Star trails would be about 1/28 of what they would be on Earth, so depending on what they are trying to photograph, the images would be clearer without being tracked. As far as "easier" goes... let's see... you have to build a gigantic rocket, land on the surface, wear space suits, bring along a suitable camera and mounting... not exactly easier than taking the pictures from Earth. That's why stellar observations were such a low priority on the Apollo missions; there was almost nothing that could be observed from the Moon that could not be more easily seen from the Earth, save one thing.

edit on 1-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM



Tails or no tails, doesnt really matter use both.

I mean sorry but if the astronauts came back with pictures like this:



Front page all over the news for sure.
Nobody said the stars had to be pinpoints.



Again you show you lack of thinking in the picture above at what time of the DAY was it taken.



Who cares, what does that have to with showing us the equipment and settings needed to take astrophotography on the moon? I was making the point that star streaks are just as impressive to look at as pin-points.
So we defer to your photographic knowledge to give us the answers.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
And do you remember the questions I asked ppk, and understand why the moon/hill pic was posted? Think very hard before answering, because you're only about a quarter of the way there at this point... Don't blow it now!
edit on 1-2-2011 by CHRLZ because: grammar


What did you ask PPK?
Thread is moving fast.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The Skeptic


Michael Shermer is the founder of the Skeptic Magazine
He debunks the theories of the creationists, and on this I would follow him.
But he also debunks the moon hoax, and that's where I stop following him.
He has published an article, which has been qualified as "brilliant", in which he claims to debunk all the arguments of the moon hoaxers.




Now this video brings up some points regarding topics we have covered recently.
But there is one topic he brought up that made me go

I didnt notice that before!

What is up with the up and down zig-zag?
at :30


You think somebody was pulling a prank?




By the way, whether you believe in it or not, I found this website to be quite cool in its presentation of the Apollo mission: spacelog.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Seriously???


What is up with the up and down zig-zag?
at :30



Think on that. (Nobody help him, please!)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

I mean sorry but if the astronauts came back with pictures like this:




Who cares, what does that have to with showing us the equipment and settings needed to take astrophotography on the moon? I was making the point that star streaks are just as impressive to look at as pin-points.
So we defer to your photographic knowledge to give us the answers.


DID YOU actually read my post told you at least 30-40 sec at the film speed they used and we already KNOW the maximum aperture of the LENS as you asked that question before as you dont have a clue how photography works!

Mentioned a tripod/tracking system and probably a cable release to use the bulb setting.

You said it would have been good if the Astronauts brought a picture back like the one you linked to SO I pointed out the was not possible !!!! As you mentioned having foreground and stars in a picture!!!

Re the video of the lander wobble I will use your tactics PROVE IT WASN'T CAMERA MOVEMENT



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


Seriously???


What is up with the up and down zig-zag?
at :30



Think on that. (Nobody help him, please!)



yes explain if you know
why dramatize it?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You asked.....as you tend to do, in a way that leads many of us to believe you already have the answer, but just like to pull people along.....I think it's time to stop the dance.

Use your gray matter, that resides in your cranium. The tools to discovery are freely available on the Webz (assuming, for the moment, you actually didn't pose the question as a ploy).

First, to aid in your research....recall that the video is question is the liftoff of the Apollo 17 ascent module. That will help narrow it down, in case you'd forgotten (?)

Now...utilize your deft Internet skills, and post your results soon.

Remember the adage, "Give a man a fish, and he eats for one day.....but, Teach him to fish, and he eats for a lfetime....."


As "Auntie Mame" famously bellowed, (regarding learning and experiencing)....

"Yes! Live! Life's a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death!"




top topics



 
377
<< 343  344  345    347  348  349 >>

log in

join