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: 348
377
<< 345  346  347    349  350  351 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


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.



Weed, none of those quotes explain what we see in regards to the zig zagging.
It takes like 4 dips in 5 seconds.

What you are ostensibly saying is that the camera is trying to keep up with the ascent or movement of the
LM. But tell me, how long was the delay between earth and the moon?




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



WMD your credibility has been shot.


What little you may have had disappeared when it became obvious you don't know a thing about photography, and are unwilling or unbable to learn.


You are dodging, bobbing and weaving from the challenge.


You're the only one doing any dodging or weaving here, Foosm. Shall I post the picture again?


And hiding behind Apollo as your shield.
But Apollo is a myth.


It was Pallas Athena who had a shield; Apollo had a lyre. Let's just add mythology to the growing list of subjects you are unclear on.


So you are out in the cold.
Pow.
RIght between the eyes.
Down goes your credibility


Your violent imagery borders on a T&C violation..


Answering a question with another question is not an answer.


Your questions have been answered in varying degrees of detail many, many times over the last few pages, whereas:


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.

This is how you answer my question. I promptly provided with you with more information than you actually need, and yet you're still bobbing and weaving.



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.


For the record, no-one here but you has ever claimed that astrophotography was impossible on the Moon:



NASA had conveniently GIMPED the Hassies so they could not effectively
take snapshots of the stars
.
Here.

I defy you or, more importantly, anyone who starred your contra-factual post, to find just one instance where anyone but FoosM claimed that "astrophotography was impossible on the Moon." On the contrary, I actually provided you with examples of UV astrophotography. We have all been patiently trying to help you understand why stars would not be visible in photographs set for the day-lit lunar surface.



Im moving on, a lot more material to cover,


You mean you're running away. If you don't like having your "evidence" torn to shreds you shouldn't have brought it up... again.


you can spout your pablum all you want about this subject to other debunkers.


Very, very telling Freudian slip there. You mean the ones who don't swallow Jarrah's pathetic BS are the genuine skeptics?


But I doubt they will be as patient as I have been.
LTMS.


I think you said it best here:


Sore lose much?
You should apologize and retract your statement.


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



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Hi Foosm

This is directed at the missguided people who gave you stars for your comment.

This picture you posted.



My reply was this JUST educating you on HOW the Astronauts could NOT take a shot like that I never said at any point they could not do Astrophotography I listed what was required , they did not have all the required items.



Originally posted by wmd_2008


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!!!!!


That shot taken on earth was of course at NIGHT as the stars are out, if the astronauts had tried to do that the foreground would be so over exposed that most likely the rest of the picture would be as well.
REMEMBER MOON IS LIT BY THE SUN!!! ITS NOT NIGHT!!!!

If in shadow on a proper camera tripod pointed only at the stars for at least 30sec using f5.6 with the film speed they had and a shutter release cable they may have got some stars.

Now to all the people WHO gave Foosm a star WHY do you think he NEVER ANSWERS any of the questions over the last few pages re pictures posted by DJW001 CHRLZ AND MYSELF

For example this one WHY NO STARS Foosm. SO Foosms posse do you think he has the guts to answer




edit on 2-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: COMMENT ADDED



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Now to all the people WHO gave Foosm a star WHY do you think he NEVER ANSWERS any of the questions over the last few pages re pictures posted by DJW001 CHRLZ AND MYSELF


I wouldn't worry about who gets stars..
I see many unworthy posts from both sides of the debate get stared..
Then GOOD posts get none...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


True but he goes out of his way to avoid questions that if he answers with the truth show what an IDIOT JW really is.

Have you seen JW's footprint video



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Question...
Can someone tell me what position the moon was in relevant to the Earth and Sun at the time of the landings?
Did all missions occur during the same phases?

Here's a pic..


Positions are numbered 1-8..
Does anyone know or have a link to where I can see??
Please.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
 


True but he goes out of his way to avoid questions that if he answers with the truth show what an IDIOT JW really is.

Have you seen JW's footprint video


No, I've only watched a couple of his vids to be honest..
I'll go look at it now..I decided I needed a day off today.....


I do think the "no crater" stuff is interesting but not proof...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Question...
Can someone tell me what position the moon was in relevant to the Earth and Sun at the time of the landings?
Did all missions occur during the same phases?

Here's a pic..


Positions are numbered 1-8..
Does anyone know or have a link to where I can see??
Please.



Look for a Moon phase calander on the net and put in the dates. I think this info was posted a hundred or so pages back but it could have been another thread so do a search.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
 


True but he goes out of his way to avoid questions that if he answers with the truth show what an IDIOT JW really is.

Have you seen JW's footprint video


No, I've only watched a couple of his vids to be honest..
I'll go look at it now..I decided I needed a day off today.....




I do think the "no crater" stuff is interesting but not proof...


I take it you mean the no crater under the lander that has been explained on this thread as well iirc.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


To enhance pilot visibility, all of the landings took place on the terminator, or "lunar dawn." Call it "early morning."



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



I wouldn't worry about who gets stars..
I see many unworthy posts from both sides of the debate get stared..
Then GOOD posts get none...


Agreed. Have a star.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Look for a Moon phase calander on the net and put in the dates. I think this info was posted a hundred or so pages back but it could have been another thread so do a search.


Thanks, but they just show me the phases of the moon..
I want to know where the moon, earth and sun were....



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Lest I be accused of answering a question with a question:
Lunar feedback loop:
Outward journey: 1.28 seconds
Personal equation: 0.75 seconds
Inbound journey: 1.28 seconds
Tracking motors: 3 degrees/ second, 0 degrees of freedom

There. Everything you need.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 


To enhance pilot visibility, all of the landings took place on the terminator, or "lunar dawn." Call it "early morning."


haha, ya know I just knew I'd get stars for that post..
Yet when I posted that the moons rotation is 1/28 of earths I got none..

But anyways, thanks for the above but do you know from this image what phase the landing were in?
ie: 1-8




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



how did they actually take a picture of the sun w/o a filter ?? !!!!
If there is a fliter, what kinda is it, cuz' NASA couldn't do it.. and it fried their film..



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



how did they actually take a picture of the sun w/o a filter ?? !!!!
If there is a fliter, what kinda is it, cuz' NASA couldn't do it.. and it fried their film..




Well I know little about photography but I'd assume they took the correct filters..
I do know they are not that big or heavy..
They would have FRIED film by pointing a camera "minus" the filter accidently at the sun I'd say..



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



how did they actually take a picture of the sun w/o a filter ?? !!!!
If there is a fliter, what kinda is it, cuz' NASA couldn't do it.. and it fried their film..




Well I know little about photography but I'd assume they took the correct filters..
I do know they are not that big or heavy..
They would have FRIED film by pointing a camera "minus" the filter accidently at the sun I'd say..


right.. so is there a filter on THIS pic? if so, what kind of filter that can point directly at the Sun w/o seeing any discoloration in the processed picture?? All the pictures that I've seen that are filtered either blacked out everything BUT the sun and turn it a dfferent shade or filter out just enough to try capture both objects in the same picture, (whatever the object might be).

So, no matter what, it's impossible to take a picture of the Sun directly without a filter and in this picture, I see no filter that is used..and if that is the case.. then ..their film and their retina both get fried...


However, observing the Sun can be dangerous if you do not take the proper precautions. The solar radiation that reaches the surface of Earth ranges from ultraviolet (UV) radiation at wavelengths longer than 290 nm to radio waves in the meter range. The tissues in the eye transmit a substantial part of the radiation between 380 and 1400 nm to the light-sensitive retina at the back of the eye. While environmental exposure to UV radiation is known to contribute to the accelerated aging of the outer layers of the eye and the development of cataracts, the concern over improper viewing of the Sun during an eclipse is for the development of "eclipse blindness" or retinal burns.

Exposure of the retina to intense visible light causes damage to its light-sensitive rod and cone cells. The light triggers a series of complex chemical reactions within the cells which damages their ability to respond to a visual stimulus, and in extreme cases, can destroy them. The result is a loss of visual function which may be either temporary or permanent, depending on the severity of the damage. When a person looks repeatedly or for a long time at the Sun without proper protection for the eyes, this photochemical retinal damage may be accompanied by a thermal injury - the high level of visible and near-infrared radiation causes heating that literally cooks the exposed tissue. This thermal injury or photocoagulation destroys the rods and cones, creating a small blind area. The danger to vision is significant because photic retinal injuries occur without any feeling of pain (there are no pain receptors in the retina), and the visual effects do not occur for at least several hours after the damage is done.
NASA source



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
I think you said it best here:


Sore lose much?
You should apologize and retract your statement.


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


Thats right, you should apologize and retract your statement if you haven't already.
Have you?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Foosm, forget everything so far and just tell me what is your one BIG piece of evidence to prove the moon landings are a hoax??
There should be atleast ONE undeniable bit of proof..



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



how did they actually take a picture of the sun w/o a filter ?? !!!!
If there is a fliter, what kinda is it, cuz' NASA couldn't do it.. and it fried their film..




Well I know little about photography but I'd assume they took the correct filters..
I do know they are not that big or heavy..
They would have FRIED film by pointing a camera "minus" the filter accidently at the sun I'd say..


Well think about it for a second.
There is no atmosphere on the moon.
That means nothing is blocking the various radiation emanating from the sun.
And the lens itself concentrates it.

So...


To improve the quality of television pictures from the Moon, a color camera was carried on Apollo 12 (unlike the monochrome camera that was used on Apollo 11). Unfortunately, when Bean carried the camera to the place near the lunar module where it was to be set up, he inadvertently pointed it directly into the Sun, destroying the SEC tube. Television coverage of this mission was thus terminated almost immediately.

en.wikipedia.org...

You know whats funny...



As Steven-Boniecki recounts, there was opposition within NASA, including within the astronaut corps, to including TV cameras on their missions. They saw the cameras as distractions not essential to completing their missions, while taking up precious mass in the cramped spacecraft. The debate lasted well into the Apollo program. Frank Borman, commander of Apollo 8, was one initial critic of including TV cameras on the mission, believing that it served no purpose in carrying out the mission. “I didn’t want to take the damn television camera with me,” he recalls in the book. He was overruled by mission planners, though, and later realized his original views were “short sighted”. “It turned out to be so important because we could share what we saw with the world.”

Remarkably, even after Apollo 8 there was still a perception by some at NASA that television was not essential to the mission. In the final months of planning for the historic Apollo 11 mission there was debate as to whether include a TV camera on the lunar lander: scientists, for example, has no objection to including it, but had no requirement for it as well. It took the intervention of key people in the program, including Chris Kraft and public affairs director Julian Scheer, to get the camera included in order to show the American public what their tax dollars had financed. Even then, a NASA report on the mission prepared less than a month before launch and quoted in the book bent over backwards to provide a more technical rationale for the camera’s inclusion, including as “a supplemental real time data source to assure or enhance the scientific and operational data return.”

www.thespacereview.com...

Oh and proof NASA doctors videos


One peculiarity with the Goldstone TV was that the pictures always had a small white spot on them, located just above the centre of the broadcast image. In the videotapes of the doctored NASA versions of the EVA, this white spot suddenly appears black when the negative image segment is made positive. This confirms that the correction on these tapes was indeed made later by NASA.


www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...

Getting back to the subject
Here is sun damaged photo from Apollo




new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 345  346  347    349  350  351 >>

log in

join