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: 347
377
<< 344  345  346    348  349  350 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



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)....


No, it was actually CHRLZ a few posts ago...


You need some original thoughts weed..




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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.


Be clear now, you are saying that to get pictures of the stars they need:
f/5.6
30 second exposure
Tripod & cable release.
100-160 iso

is that your assessment?




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 !!!!


No.
If you were paying attention, and obviously you were not, I was merely making the point that having trails would not negate the beauty of the photography.
Are you now claiming that having trails is not possible on the moon?




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



What?! So you are saying that the LM made those erratic movements?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


I have no idea why its moving like that.
It makes no sense to me.
Your turn.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


OBVIOUSLY YOU seem to forget what you ask


Originally posted by FoosM
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.


In bold what YOU asked.

Lets look at your example picture posted below, I dont know what OTHERS will think but it seems to have a foreground.


Originally posted by FoosM

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.


I then explained to YOU how it was impossible for the Astronauts to produce a picture like that.
Just because YOU after MANY MANY pages of explaining seem to have a problem UNDERSTANDING exactly how the photographic process works thats not our fault.

Many of us have also provided links to explain how it works including EV values, depth of field,astrophotography sites and pictures as well which you must IGNORE.


I will leave you with this nice little IMAGE





Can YOU work out why no stars appear on this. YOU DONT REQUIRE ANY INFO.

Will you answer I think not!

Its not a NASA image so you cant use your usual excuses that its faked.

edit on 2-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM
 


OBVIOUSLY YOU seem to forget what you ask




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.



In bold what YOU asked.

I then explained to YOU how it was impossible for the Astronauts to produce a picture like that.
Just because YOU dont seem yet after MANY MANY pages of UNDERSTANDING exactly how the photographic process works.

Many of us have also provided links to explain how it works including EV values, depth of field,astrophotography sites and pictures as well which you must IGNORE.


WMD your credibility has been shot.
You are dodging, bobbing and weaving from the challenge.
And hiding behind Apollo as your shield.
But Apollo is a myth.
So you are out in the cold.
Pow.
RIght between the eyes.
Down goes your credibility.

Answering a question with another question is not an answer.
But what you have answered with strange circular reasoning is that astrophotography is impossible from the moon. Like I said before, its noted for the record.

Im moving on, a lot more material to cover,
you can spout your pablum all you want about this subject to other debunkers.
But I doubt they will be as patient as I have been.
LTMS.





edit on 2-2-2011 by FoosM because: formatting



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
@backinblack
About flamin' time I was recognised as the font of all wisdom..



@anyonewhosenamestartswithFanddoesn'thaveaphotographyclue
The settings that wmd suggests are pretty much dead on. Indisputable. Ask any person who takes images of stars (ooh, pick me, pick me!!)

You will start to get some traces of the brightest stars at say 10-15 seconds, but you really want 30 to be serious.

(Umm, this was told to you some hundreds of pages ago..)

And as stated, the fact the Moon is rotating much slower - in a sidereal sense - is pretty much irrelevant - as soon as you go longer than about 1/60 second, you NEED a tripod and a way to trigger the shutter gently.

You ALSO need absolutely NO stray light to get anywhere near the lens, which is almost impossible when you have a bright sun in the sky, and a brightly lit horizon all around, all added to a camera that was more prone to lens flare than some.. Why do you think the UV camera was firmly planted in shadow, and had that huge long lens barrel? It was DESIGNED to image stars in that difficult environment.

Otherwise why the heck wouldn't they just take a hasselblad cartridge of UV film?

I find it astonishing that someone with such non-existent understanding of incredibly basic principles (to a photographer) dares to post their ignorance here. Like I have said before, I'm ignorant of neurosurgery, so I don't post on neurosurgery forums...


edit on 2-2-2011 by CHRLZ because: spelin erur



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
@backinblack
About flamin' time I was recognised as the font of all wisdom..



@anyonewhosenamestartswithFanddoesn'thaveaphotographyclueThe settings that wmd suggests are pretty much dead on. Indisputable. Ask any person who takes images of stars (ooh, pick me, pick me!!)



CHRLZ,
Strawman tactics wont get you anywhere.
Still waiting for your white whale on Radiation though.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I find it astonishing that someone with such non-existent understanding of incredibly basic principles (to a photographer) dares to post their ignorance here.


Don't worry. There's a lot more people than just FoosM reading this thread.

I myself have learnt a great deal about photography (and other points brought up by the hoax believers) in this thread. Keep up the good work.


edit on 2/2/11 by ConspiracyNut23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by CHRLZ
@backinblack
About flamin' time I was recognised as the font of all wisdom..



@anyonewhosenamestartswithFanddoesn'thaveaphotographyclueThe settings that wmd suggests are pretty much dead on. Indisputable. Ask any person who takes images of stars (ooh, pick me, pick me!!)



CHRLZ,
Strawman tactics wont get you anywhere.
Still waiting for your white whale on Radiation though.



What makes Foos think I was talking to him, I wonder?

Clearly my response was aimed at people who can understand the topic and debate, rather than run away like he just did, trying to cover it up with a 'strawman' accusation.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I find it astonishing that someone with such non-existent understanding of incredibly basic principles (to a photographer) dares to post their ignorance here.


Don't worry. There's a lot more people than just FoosM reading this thread.

I myself have learnt a great deal about photography (and other points brought up by the hoax believers) in this thread. Keep up the good work.



Thanks, CN, I truly, deeply appreciate those sort of comments.

And may I repeat my usual offer, if anyone disputes the information I post (in a nice way), I am always delighted to post examples and proof, and even ways for people to prove stuff for themselves.

I also ALWAYS answer sensible questions - I trust folks like you are noting how Foosm avoids anything he doesn't want to touch... I'll leave it to the discerning reader to figure out why that is, but it ain't rocket science...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Im moving on, a lot more material to cover,
you can spout your pablum all you want about this subject to other debunkers.
But I doubt they will be as patient as I have been.


Your patience has been noted. One further question: Why are there no stars visible in this picture?




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
And it's probably time I posted a photo of MINE, just so that no-one can say I don't walk the walk.

So here goes:


Now, may i ask any Foo-supporters to tell me why there aren't any stars in that one either?

Note - A small word of warning to any budding detective who grabs the exif and thinks - aha!... Trust me, i know exactly what the exif says... (So, ok, I admit it - there are a couple of very nasty traps for the ill-informed (are you listening ppk?)
...
I also have the original, of course (what you see there is a reduced crop of an 8Mp (3264x2448) image), and I will be happy (nay delighted) to post a link to that original, or a full-res crop of any area you would like. I can even prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a very clear night (up until a little later when the fireworks began - then it got a bit smoky...).

Combined with DJW's image, the two show a couple of VERY important points. Be back later to elaborate, after Foo has some much needed think music...

PS - dam, i just remembered that ATS strips exif. Oh well, I'll post it later, and a link to the original so it can be proven. For the moment, may i just say the exposure is 15 seconds at f5.6, and of course it was tripod mounted (and i have a big heavy tripod..).



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Im moving on, a lot more material to cover,
you can spout your pablum all you want about this subject to other debunkers.
But I doubt they will be as patient as I have been.


Your patience has been noted. One further question: Why are there no stars visible in this picture?



Now that's just plain fikin annoying...

And I'll post A similar reply every time you post it...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Continuing the series of informative images... here's another one of mine, this taken (deliberately, I'll tell you why later) on a pretty cheap consumer camera.


That was taken at 30 seconds, and f2.8. (At f5.6 they would be signficantly dimmer).. And yes, I can post links to the original. Later.

Anyway, at last we see stars! At bottom left you will see the distinctive kite shape of the Southern Cross (Crux) (tilted to the right) and the Pointers (Alpha and Beta Centauri) are the two bright stars above it.

Now I'm sure some folks can join all the dots... and after a reasonable time has elapsed, I'll return and join them all up and explain, if no-one else has.. But maybe Foo can do that before I do? That would be something to see....



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Around 1960 the Discoverer satellites were launched. (to be known as the 'Corona' spy satellites)

Everyone working on them was told they were for peaceful purposes. This was not the case.
At the last moment the cargo of mice and various peaceful experiments were replaced with high resolution imaging equipment. ie. Basically It became a spy satellite.

This was not known to the thousands and thousands of workers that put them together. When the public were told the canisters returning to earth contained mice, they in fact contained the film of the spy cameras.






Originally posted by wmd_2008
I would think anyone on the project would have known what it was for.


Well actually just about everyone involved at the time didn't know the true purpose of the mission. And if the workers didn't know what it was for, then how could the public?

So when people ask how could Apollo pull the same stunt, easy.

Bill Obenauf who worked for Lockheed at Vandenberg Air Force Base said this ...


Cameras take poor pictures through clouds. One of my jobs was to receive a call on launch day morning, sometimes a little after midnight, for a "GO", or a "HOLD" because of clouds over the places in Russia that were to be photographed.

If it was a HOLD I called the other Lockheed people, who knew nothing about the camera, and told them we had a payload problem and wouldn't be ready to launch today. They would be very unhappy with us but we accepted the guff while spending the day playing ping pong and drinking coffee.

I had to lie to them because I couldn't mention a camera or clouds over Russia. There were weather satellites reporting on the Russian clouds. The fake payload problem probably affected a thousand people more or less when you consider Douglas who maintained the Thor booster, and all the tracking stations around the world.


As this shows, only a select number of people needed to be 'in the know' of what the true purpose of the mission was. Not everyone needed to know all the details.

So that little 26 year old controller sitting in mission control really had no idea whatsoever of where that data appearing on his screen was originating from. Nor did he need to know where it was coming from.

Now multiply this by hundreds of thousands, and you have your answer why they didn't need to keep a secret, because as far as just about all the workers were concerned, there wasn't one.


source: livefromsiliconvalley.com...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


????

If you are so deluded that you cannot see the differences....AND cannot understand how seriously flawed your analogy is.....then no one can help you, but yourself.

Still.....is your desperation so acute? Grasping (as has been seen by every "hoax" believer in this thread) at the most outlandish and futiley out-of-reach straws?? Then you are well on your way to becoming lost.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Still on about the Apollo 17 LM ascent module video, of the launch from the Lunar surface?


I have no idea why its moving like that.


Honest?

When you say "its" . . . were you referring to the ascent module itself, or to the camera??

(hint...hint....)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


You seem to miss the WHOLE POINT of a SPY MISSION dont you lets see we need some way of spying on China/Russia ,I know we will build a missile with a reflecting telescope in it that should do.

*&^% sake we have lost it !

I know lets put a story in the paper we have lost our film from our spy satellite if you find it PLEASE dont look at it and return to........THE CIA TA VERY MUCH IN ADVANCE.

Is that the way they should have done it.


What has that to do with say Apollo 11 which was tracked to the Moon and even the decent on to the Moon by Jodrell Bank radio telescope in the UK which also intercepted the first pictures from the Moon surface which P---ED off the Russians as they appeared in the UK PRESS FIRST.

Lots of documented evidence to prove Apollo there was a program on the BBC I watched on the BBC iplayer about the Moon they interviewed many Russian scientist working on their space program ,when asked about the Americans getting MEN there first did they say no they didn't NO WHAT they said was it was a blow after getting so many firsts on the Americans to then loose the race to the Moon.

What annoyed them most was the fact they brought lots of Moon rock back and the Russians had to make do with a 4 oz (100g) sample from Luna 16.

PS Are you still a cinematographer

edit on 2-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: added word



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


Still on about the Apollo 17 LM ascent module video, of the launch from the Lunar surface?


I have no idea why its moving like that.


Honest?

When you say "its" . . . were you referring to the ascent module itself, or to the camera??

(hint...hint....)


When it is the camera....it really made some strange moves.....



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by webstra
 


Not "strange" at all. And, well.....Foos was supposed to learn from this, but I suppose that was a hopeless thought, from the beginning.....


history.nasa.gov...

After launch, Fendell successfully tracks the LM for 26 seconds. He finds it again, very briefly, at 45 seconds and, a minute later, points the TV back at the Descent Stage.


That refers to Ed Fendell, back in Houston at MCC. His claim to fame was the remote operator for the TV camera.


From a blog, and user "JayUtah":


The problem Fendell had with the Apollo 17 ascent is that the camera's remote control features (pan, tilt, zoom) provided a fixed rotation rate: 3° per second. The ascending LM, as seen from the LRV, followed a trajectory that was difficult to track with that constant adjustment rate.


www.bautforum.com...


AND:


I had worked with Ed Fendell for the Apollo 17 liftoff to get it exactly right for a long tracking shot. At liftoff, the action was perfect, but soon the image of the ascending capsule drifted out at the top of the frame. Ed was furious that, after all the calculations, we missed the mark. It was discovered later that the crew had parked the Rover buggy closer to the Lunar Module than was prescribed by mission plan, and the vertical tilting of the camera was too slow.


www.russelland.com...


Of course, I only considered it a 4.8% chance that Foos would actually do the research...or, should say, actually POST what he/she learned, since it doesn't fit into the category of "throwing whatever inane thing I can find at the wall to see what will stick" pattern as seen.....repeatedly.




top topics



 
377
<< 344  345  346    348  349  350 >>

log in

join