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: 379
377
<< 376  377  378    380  381  382 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by webstra
Great find Foosm.

So 15 more to come ?

I can't hardly wait.

Thanks also for this great thread :-)


Thanks


15 more? LOL, I have no idea... I might have to take a vacation from this Apollo debate sooner than later. Its called Sweet 16 cause the photos are from Apollo 16; but maybe you already knew that.

But, part two is about ready to be posted.
Definitely before CHRLZ and his tome on why Space Radiation is no more deadly than taking a stroll on a summer day.

I'll probably call it, The Case of the Lost Count.

And it just might be a doozy
or a big blunder on my part
. We will see what answers Apollo defenders can come up with. I hope it will make for an lively "discussion" to say the least.




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Facefirst
 


You posted that 20 minutes after my post which is right above yours..


didn't see that. sorry.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
SWEET 16
Episode 2: The Case of the Lost Count.

And we are back....



AS16-116-18649



167:45:03 Similar to 18647 and 48. Best of the three. Charlie is pointing to a sample location on the face of Outhouse Rock. Note that he has a pack of sample bags hooked to his finger. Note that the shadow of the sample bags is orange. This is normal for sunlit transmitted thru the translucent Teflon film from which the bags are made. The photo is sharp enough that we can confirm that Charlie has magazine K ("Kilo") on his Hasselblad and that his checklist is open to pages LMP-30 and LMP-31.


Another thing interesting to observe is that if we look closely we can also see on the magazine, or cartridge, the remaining photos or exposures.



We see
"170 EXPS remaining"

This must be something new for these missions cause I never noticed this display in Apollo 11 pictures. Though I wondered, how useful was it to have this information displayed on the side? Wouldn't the top be better ? In view of the astronaut?

Anyway...


The type 200 film magazine is for thin-base film and its capacity is 200 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 inch frames. Each film magazine contains gross-film indicators for frame count.


So in this case we have 170 photos remaining from a magazine that can potentially make 200 images. That means 30 photos were previously made by Charlie, right? 200 - 170 = 30.

Lets take a look at magazine "K"

We will be using two sources
LPI: www.lpi.usra.edu...
and
ALSJ: www.hq.nasa.gov...

First thing you will notice is that ALSJ starts with AS16-106-17237
but LPI starts with AS16-106-17238

We know that AS16-116-18649 was taken at around 167:45:03
So by using the ALSJ we can determine what the last photo, the 30th, that was taken right before 167:45:03

When we go down the list we see that around 167:44:33 photo AS16-106-17345 was taken

Charlie's close-up of the shatter cone in House Rock


And at 167:51:29, AS16-106-17347 was taken. In between those two photos there is AS16-106-17346 which is a Close-up of House Rock.

So we either have AS16-106-17345 or AS16-106-17346 as being the last photos taken before AS16-116-18649.
Is either the 30th photo?

If we take the photos: AS16-106-17345 & AS16-106-17346 and subtract them by the first photo AS16-106-17237
we get the following:

17345 - 17237 = 108
17346 - 17237 = 109

Neither are the 30th photo!
Far from it actually.
Hmmmm....

To double check, lets just do a quick count in the LPI database which claims that 181 photos were taken. There are five columns and about 21 rows before we get to AS16-106-17345 & AS16-106-17346. So if we multiply 5 x 21 we get 105.

There is no way only 30 photos were taken, or even 170 with 30 exposures left!


What happened here?
Are we even at the right location?
Well Outhouse Rock and House Rock are right next to each other:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

167:54:20 Base of House Rock
Charlie's second portrait of the base of House Rock, consisting of frames AS16-106-17349 to 17354, has been assembled by Dave Byrne. John may be examining Outhouse Rock at the left.


So thats not the problem.

Lets confirm with the transcript:


167:44:36 England: Yeah, make a good picture of that one for Muehlberger.

167:44:39 Young: Well, that settles that, huh?.

[Charlie's close-up of the shatter cone is AS16-106 17345. See, also, Figure 17 in the North Ray chapter of the Professional Paper.]
[Fendell moves his aim to the right to get a full-frame view of House Rock at maximum zoom. After several seconds, he moves the TV a short distance to the left and then moves it back to the direction where we last saw the crew.]

167:44:41 Duke: Okay, move it (meaning the tongs) down a little bit.
[Charlie takes a second picture of the shatter cone, Text Orange.]
RealVideo Clip (3 min 15 sec)
167:44:42 Young: That settles that, doesn't it, Houston?

167:44:45 Duke: Okay, got it. (Pause) (To Houston) Okay, here's a chunk of it. The black rock looks...Some of it's glass-coated, Tony, and man, that is a shatter cone.

167:45:00 Young: Charlie, let's get a piece of it.

167:45:01 Duke: Okay, here you go. I got a piece.

167:45:02 Young: Okay.

167:45:03 Duke: Give me a bag. (Pause) Okay, on the next one, how about stepping back and as I point to it, I'll pull off another piece; and we'll put a couple of pieces in here.

167:45:18 Young: Okay.

167:45:20 Duke: Okay. That's going in bag 389.

167:45:22 Young: Wait a minute. Let me...Hold it up.

167:45:23 Duke: Okay, let's just...

167:45:26 Young: Okay, I'll take a picture.

167:45:27 Duke: Take a picture of that so they'll know where it came from.

[John takes seven pictures, AS16-116- 18647, 18648, 18649, 18650, 18651, 18652, and 18653 during this Outhouse Rock sampling operation. Note that Charlie has a pack of sample bags hooked to his little finger.]
167:45:29 England: Okay. We copy. 389.


So this transcript confirms that the those photos indeed occur very close to each other in the timeline.

Houston, we got a problem here. And we want answers!

In conclusion
We have photo where the magazine states that 30 photos were taken,
but the actual photographic record shows that over 100 were taken.


Whistle-blowing?


Now unless I have misinterpreted what "170 EXPS remaining" means or
if the counter of the magazine wasn't working, I have to claim NASA, you are BUSTED!

roll credits & play outro music


edit on 7-3-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



But, part two is about ready to be posted.


Not so fast, FoosM! We still haven't finished with "Sweet 16" yet. The "anomalous" photo that appears to be airbrushed is from: spaceflight.nasa.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">this site, which specifically states:


IMAGES
NASA Public Affairs image collection


In other words, these are photos intended to be used by the press. They have been selected and edited for PR purposes. On the other hand, the photo with all the schmutz is from The Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal, and is intended to be accurate historical documentation. That's why it says:


Unless otherwise noted, all images processed by Kipp Teague from raw scans provided by NASA Johnson. Images labeled "OF300" are from the original film and are presented at the equivalent of 300 DPI on an 7.5 inch by 7.5 inch reproduction.


So, the obvious explanation is that the LSJ is presenting the original image, warts and all, but the Public Affairs office has airbrushed the photo for publication. Now: what's your theory? Seriously. It should go something like this: "NASA spent billions of dollars secretly staging the fake moon landings in area 51, so when they took this picture they...." Go ahead, finish the sentence. If you think this is evidence of "fakery," explain why.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The type 200 film magazine is for thin-base film and its capacity is 200 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 inch frames. Each film magazine contains gross-film indicators for frame count.


What does "gross film indicators" mean?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


He got it from this site:

history.nasa.gov...

The is the full entry, copy/pasted from the article online:


70 mm Film Magazines. Two types of film magazines are used, one for standard-base film, the other for thin-base film. Either film magazine attaches to rear of camera and is locked in place by a lever-actuated clamp. The type 100 film magazine is for standard-base film and its capacity is 100 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 inch frames. The type 200 film magazine is for thin-base film and its capacity is 200 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 inch frames. Each film magazine contains gross-film indicators for frame count.



Also, THIS ARTICLE may be of some use in shooting (pun) down FoosM's fantastical "beliefs" and incorrect interpretations...in his ever-disturbing zeal to "prove" something that doesn't exist....like an Apollo "hoax"......

www.hasselbladhistorical.eu...
edit on 7 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


The 170 is referring to the total number of exposures in that magazine. You can see it's just a sticker, which has no way of changing as they take pictures. And, as your source indicates, they had "gross-film indicators." Gross means total.

The "remaining" part is referring to the frame counter, as indicated by the arrow here:



We can't make out exactly what frame he is on.

Here's a better picture of a film magazine showing the frame counter:




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



He got it from this site:

history.nasa.gov..


Yes, I know; the question for FoosM is: what does that mean? Does it count every frame, as FoosM assumes? Or does it count every 5 frames? Every 20? Every 30? Every 60? Before he starts doing his calculations, he needs to understand what he is calculating with. The cassette looks awfully small to have a wheel marked off with 200 slots labelled "X Exposures Remaining."
edit on 7-3-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Brilliant, as always!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


I was just about to post same. This had to be the most epic fail of the thread. Goes to show how much 'research' goes into this 'theory'. Actually it would've been even more funny if JW had a video with this stuff



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
And just to add to my post, the indicator above the frame counter gave the position in magazine kind of like a fuel gage. It advanced so you could tell about where you were in the magazine. It advanced clockwise, starting at the red dash in the ~11 o'clock position.



As we can see, he's a little over 5/8ths through the magazine. 5/8ths of 170 is 106.25, so we can see that being on frame 109 makes sense.


edit on 7-3-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Yeah, I was getting to that.....as nataylor noted.... and kudos deserved there....(when I saw FoosM's photo, I could tell right away it was just a placard...a label....to denote the film explosure TOTAL count available in the magazine, not an active numbering display...but, had no proof. Nat did it....
).



edit on 7 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Sweet 16
Episode 3: the case of the Rock, Paper, Scissors *Repeat* Rock, Paper, Scissors

Previously in Episode 1: The case of the CROSS hair
We discovered that AS16-116-18649 from spaceflight.nasa.gov was a photo where a portion of a 'Cross Hair' was missing. spaceflight.nasa.gov...


Apollo defenders such as JRA & DJW001 pointed to the fact that indeed the photo was tampered with for press purposes.



Have you ever used photoshop? The "Rubber stamp" tool is likely what was used. You select a nearby area of the image and click on it and then click on the area you want to clean up, and it duplicates and blends it together. It's pretty easy to do and doing that could easily end up covering one or more of the crosshairs if one's not being that careful.


Ding ding ding right answer, JRA
Check this out, Im surprised nobody picked up on it!



OK, obvious tampering with photos going on here.
Worse part of it is, they didnt even do a good job cleaning up the smudge,
if that was the reason for the tampering!



Question: why doesn't NASA label their tampered photos as being tampered with?
Why present them as being the real deal? And why even tamper with them in the first place?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM
 


The 170 is referring to the total number of exposures in that magazine. You can see it's just a sticker, which has no way of changing as they take pictures. And, as your source indicates, they had "gross-film indicators." Gross means total.

The "remaining" part is referring to the frame counter, as indicated by the arrow here:



We can't make out exactly what frame he is on.

Here's a better picture of a film magazine showing the frame counter:




LOL, I knew this was going to be lively discussion.
Ok, lets get to this.

Fact: 182 photos were taken in Magazine "K" as a matter of fact 184 for Magazine "M"
Fact: Two types of film magazines are used.
Type 100 film magazine whose capacity was *100* 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 inch frames.
And
Type 200 film magazine whose capacity was *200* 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 inch frames.
Fact: Other missions also had Magazines where more than 170 images were made.

Now how in the world do you get that there were 170 exposures in the magazine?
Either its potentially 100 or 200. Right? Did NASA snuck in a 170 exposure magazine and didn't tell us about it?
The Astronauts sure werent aware of it because they went over the amount by 12 photos. LOL.

So lets assume you are correct and that Magazine was labelled as having only 170 photos.
Why did they put "170" on that magazine? What was that number based on?

You know what else is strange. Why put the words "remaining" on the magazine?
In the same box as the 170 EXPS so that it would read, "170 EXPS Remaining"?
Why not simply put it next to the counter that it belonged to?

And, who is the information for? The Astronauts cannot see it! What did they have to do, keep taking off the camera to check how many shots they pulled off? LOL.
And even if they took a look at it, why put it there if it wasn't there in other missions?
Did the astronauts complain they didnt know what the numbers referred to?

Either way you want to slice it or spin it, it comes out all wrong.

But nice try as always Nat



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


???


Question: why doesn't NASA label their tampered photos as being tampered with?
Why present them as being the real deal? And why even tamper with them in the first place?


Already answered, Foos...

You should tread more carefully, here.

YOU have been asked specific questions, which you have dodged now, with this latest Don Quixote rambling, and utterly pointless display....so, you are in a "question deficit". Not authorized to ask, until you satisfy that debt.....



edit on 7 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Fact: Other missions also had Magazines where more than 170 images were made.
Have you ever worked with real film cameras? A roll of 36-exposure 35 millimeter film often has room for 2 or 3 extra exposures on it. It all depends on how much film the camera pre-rolls when loading the film, and how much the camera advances the film between pictures. The 170 probably meant the film was rated for at least 170 exposures. The Apollo 14 Photo Index lists the thin-base B&W film as having 190 frames.



Originally posted by FoosM
You know what else is strange. Why put the words "remaining" on the magazine?
In the same box as the 170 EXPS so that it would read, "170 EXPS Remaining"?

Probably because some of the magazines didn't have a "remaining" indicator, they had a counter. This is clear from the picture of the black magazine I posted (Magazine N from Apollo 11). As you can see, it's a little past 140. Magazine N had 142 photos taken. So clearly, that would not be a "exposures remaining" indicator.


Originally posted by FoosM
And even if they took a look at it, why put it there if it wasn't there in other missions?
If by "it," you mean some kind of frame indicator, it's been there on other missions, as we can see on the Apollo 11 magazine image.
edit on 7-3-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Fact: Other missions also had Magazines where more than 170 images were made.
Have you ever worked with real film cameras? A roll of 36-exposure 35 millimeter film often has room for 2 or 3 extra exposures on it. It all depends on how much film the camera pre-rolls when loading the film, and how much the camera advances the film between pictures. The 170 probably meant the film was rated for at least 170 exposures.


Im surprised you brought up 35mm.
Of course you could get a frame or two extra from 36 or 24 exposures every now and again.
But those were commercial products.

Apollo's camera equipment non commercial scientific instruments.
I would expect their count to be more precise.
If they say you can take 200 photos, I would expect that you would get 200 photos.
Maybe 201 or 202, but not 230.

Its still not an explanation for the 170 on the camera and the took over 180.




The Apollo 14 Photo Index lists the thin-base B&W film as having 190 frames.


190? Great for Apollo 14, what does it say for Apollo 16? Cause so far I've found 200 frames.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Its still not an explanation for the 170 on the camera and the took over 180.
How is it not an explanation? There was enough film in the magazine to get at least 170 exposures. They got 182. Seems reasonable to be conservative and have the actual number of possible exposures be higher than the rated number.



Originally posted by FoosM
Cause so far I've found 200 frames.
200 on one magazine of 3401 B&W from Apollo 16?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Question: why doesn't NASA label their tampered photos as being tampered with?
Why present them as being the real deal? And why even tamper with them in the first place?


Because they're not "tampered with!" Have you ever noticed that whenever you see Steve Jobs on the cover of "Forbes" he never has any zits or shaving nicks? Is he really that perfect, or has he been "tampered with?" And if he has been "tampered with" does that mean he's a hoax?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


[color=gold]Ahem....


Cause so far I've found 200 frames.



...The film used on Apollo-11 was the same type carried on the other flights - a Kodak special thin-based and thin emulsion double-perforated 70 mm film - which permitted 160 pictures in color or 200 on black/white in each loading.


____________________________________________________________________________________

I have located someone who can assist in the stamping out of ignorance that is spread by the likes of "Jarrah White":





edit on 7 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 376  377  378    380  381  382 >>

log in

join