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: 380
377
<< 377  378  379    381  382  383 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.



So whats
the problem?




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

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?


You just said Apollo 14 B&W magazines were rated at 190 photos.
Why would they go backwards to 170 two missions later?
It doesn't make sense.
Did Kodak have a problem manufacturing the magazines?
Did every magazine have a different count?

From what I have gathered Astronauts usually, if not always, stayed under their limit when taking photos. Which would make sense because you dont want to be in a situation to take an important photo and you have to change your magazine quick fast.

A few examples from Apollo 14:
Magazine LL [156 black & white images]
Magazine P [164 black & white images]
Magazine Q [184 black & white images]

Assuming these mags had 190 frames, you can see that they didnt go over or even hit that limit. Unless you are telling me the mag limits were all different.

It would be stupid to continue to take photos over your limit
That would mean that the Astronauts were NOT aware what the limit of the magazines were.
They were not paying attention to the counters.
So again, if it wasn't a counter and only a label, what was the point of putting "170 EXPS Remaining" on that particular magazine?

Unless...

Unless...

it was a REMINDER for the crew in the film studio and they forgot to take it off.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



it was a REMINDER for the crew in the film studio and they forgot to take it off.


OK Foosm, you know I'll debate both sides but WTF was that??

IF the entire Apollo program was a TOTAL HOAX, why the hell would they put a sticker on a camera saying "170 remaining.??"

If you can give me even the slightest explanation then I will continue to listen to you...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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...


This ongoing display of photographic ignorance is stunning in its all-encompassing range...

For heaven's sake Foo, look up 'bulk film loading'. Just once, foo, why don't you do your research BEFORE displaying this complete lack of knowledge and experience on public forums, and wasting hundreds of pages on ignorant handwaving. In this case, you could have googled "bulk film load" or maybe spent some time here:
Wiki on MF

As I know you won't bother, let me give you a hint - they DON'T precisely measure every frame and make sure the cartridge has exactly the 'correct' number of exposures - they simply loaded x feet of film, worked out as a safe capacity for the cartridge - that number largely depends on the thickness of the film base, hence the difference in b&w and color.

**************
Indeed, they couldn't precisely measure the film to give an exact number of frames - as cameras like the Hass have a film wind mechanism that can (and does) slip if the film encounters extra resistance - so you will not, especially when you are using a high capacity cartridge, get the same number of frames from the same length of film.
***************

Just a quick question, foo, does the film used in these cameras have ...sprocket holes? I'll take a wild guess that foo will have to quickly look that up, and also that he won't immediately know why it is important... If he DID know why that is relevant, he wouldn't be embarrassing himself with his questions about the number of frames varying..


Perhaps more importantly - what on earth or moon does foo's lack of knowledge about how a large capacity bulk-loaded film cartridge works, have to do with Apollo denial or Jarrah White's ridiculous videos? I think it's about time he was challenged on relevance with every post.


Too bad the moderators seem disinterested in that... could have been a useful thread and probably less than a ton of pages, if they had.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Its still not an explanation for the 170 on the camera and the took over 180.


Originally posted by nataylor 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.

I have to agree with Foos here, the thing with conducting one of sciences greatest alleged endeavours is you don't just 'hope' that you have enough exposures left on the film. You know. You err on the side of caution. This is done with the most basic of risk adverse endeavours.

If you're told there are 170 exposures available, you should only take 160 then change magazines.
You're not a backyard photographer that can risk missing certain shots are you?

Now in this strange case, It's indicated that there are supposedly 170 exposures available.
Yet, they take a remarkable 182.

Why would they risk taking extra exposures that are beyond specs ?
This is not astronaut training. Why would they do this?
Why risk taking a blank slide of 12 potentially ground breaking photos?

It doesn't add up in the slightest. Foos is right here, there is a problem here with the photo count.

edit: Also, this is exciting ... an 8 hour documentary from Jarrah White examining the bizarre 'moon rocks'. Can't wait for it.




edit on 8-3-2011 by ppk55 because: added: If you're told there are 170 exposures available, you should only take 160 then change magazines. + 'alleged' + jw video link



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You just said Apollo 14 B&W magazines were rated at 190 photos.
Why would they go backwards to 170 two missions later?
It doesn't make sense.
Could it be because Apollo 14 used type 3400 film and Apollo 16 used type 3401?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Your post "praising" FoosM, and his abject ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding even basic photography facts, and the reality of how the film used was loaded, in the cameras of that era, indicates that YOU TOO are as woefully ignorant of these things. I would think twice before hoppng on the FoosM bandwagon ride.....

Hope that is clear to you, by now, after the great explanations by nataylor and CHRLZ....so, on to the REAL topic, finally!!


Yet another juicy opportunity to tear Jarrah White a new orifice!!! His "moon rocks" nonsense!!!

Wait! What? 8 hours?

Oh, Noes!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


How will you miss a potentially ground braking shot in the moon? It's not like the subject is on the move

Also so it is about money for JW after all. Figures



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM
 



it was a REMINDER for the crew in the film studio and they forgot to take it off.


OK Foosm, you know I'll debate both sides but WTF was that??




that made me think of this






IF the entire Apollo program was a TOTAL HOAX, why the hell would they put a sticker on a camera saying "170 remaining.??"

If you can give me even the slightest explanation then I will continue to listen to you...


Hey man, I can't know why NASA does it what it does, or did what they did. I can only guess why. Maybe you have a better explanation for why they put "170 EXPS Remaining" on a film magazine that supposedly held 200 photos.

Since I look it at the whole Apollo program like a movie set, Im looking for explanations in the film world. Others, who believe in Apollo look for explanations in the 'they were on the moon' world.

Now I have just proven that NASA blatantly doctors their Apollo photos:


Something NASA defenders and the general public does not believe or expect them to do. But as you can see they do. So if the mysterious counter, or label, stating "170 EXPS Remaining" is not an issue for you, there are many more issues that have been brought up in this thread.

BTW, congratulatins with all the Stars

edit on 8-3-2011 by FoosM because: added last line



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Now I have just proven that NASA blatantly doctors their Apollo photos:
Something NASA defenders and the general public does not believe or expect them to do. But as you can see they do. So if the mysterious counter, or label, stating "170 EXPS Remaining" is not an issue for you, there are many more issues that have been brought up in this thread.


No, you have proven nothing of the sort. It is common knowledge that photographs, all photographs, are subject to editorial and aesthetic selection and modification. There have been numerous examples provided on this very thread; the way the famous Buzz Aldrin photo was cropped and rotated being one. The golden age of the Moon Hoax theory was in the late 1970's, when the processes involved in converting a photograph into something that can be printed in a newspaper or magazine created all manner of strange artifacts to be "discovered." The fact that you were able to find a warts and all scan from the original online proves that NASA isn't trying to hide anything. (At least as far as the lunar landings go!
)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

edit: Also, this is exciting ... an 8 hour documentary from Jarrah White examining the bizarre 'moon rocks'. Can't wait for it.



8 frakkin hours...


Wow.

That just dawned on me.
Thats worth a lot of money.
Just in man hours, how much you think JW's video series is worth?
Around 500K?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



8 frakkin hours...

Wow.

That just dawned on me.
Thats worth a lot of money.
Just in man hours, how much you think JW's video series is worth?
Around 500K?


It doesn't matter how much Jarrah's Cuban masters pay him, the videos will be worthless.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



8 frakkin hours...

Wow.

That just dawned on me.
Thats worth a lot of money.
Just in man hours, how much you think JW's video series is worth?
Around 500K?


It doesn't matter how much Jarrah's Cuban masters pay him, the videos will be worthless.


Hmmm...

I wonder what topics he will discuss.

Maybe about the equipment that Apollo 17 brought to find water on the moon and buried ice?

Maybe about the meteorite that almost struck the Apollo 14 landing site?

Traces on gold on the moon?

Moon marbles that make it slippery to walk on the moon?

Lunar "hot foot" from the free radical chemicals in the moon soil?

Explosive soil and rocks?

Will he cover a subject that I had brought, where did they stow all that material?

Very curious...



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I wonder what topics he will discuss.


How about this.??

On the daylit side of the Moon, solar ultraviolet and X-ray radiation is so energetic that it knocks electrons out of atoms and molecules in the lunar soil. Positive charges build up until the tiniest particles of lunar dust (measuring 1 micron and smaller) are repelled from the surface and lofted anywhere from meters to kilometers high, with the smallest particles reaching the highest altitudes, Stubbs explains. Eventually they fall back toward the surface where the process is repeated over and over again.

science.nasa.gov...

Phage actually posted this NASA link when I said I thought there were no dust storms on the moon..
According to him, the reaction follows the terminator and thus effect the majority of the moon every 28 days..
That's around 500 times since Apollo..
You would of thought it may have affected those pristine footprint tracks we see pictured.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I wonder what topics he will discuss.

Given his audience consists of a few highly gullible people on conspiracy forums, and others who wish to laugh at the inevitably awful 'science' he presents.. who cares?

No Apollo conspiracy theorist has ever achieved anything other than his little bit of 'fame' on the web, or the sale of a few crappy books and videos. And as we know, there's always a (small) market for such drivel.

Has there ever been a highly regarded scientist or engineer convinced?
Is there any sign of an 'Erin Brokovich' to take up the case?

Of course not, because NOTHING that the deniers present holds water, on even the most basic level of scrutiny.

So it's left to the gullible, the uninformed, the odd troll, and those who simply MUST believe in something. Or those like foo who have also invested so much of their energy in digging up the endless 'interesting' issues (interesting because they simply don't understand, and can't be bothered researching), that they are now trapped. To admit all their stuff was wrong (and it is) is just too embarrassing. These are people who simply cannot admit error, cannot learn. (cough..dunning-kruger..cough)

As an simple and recent example (and there are literally HUNDREDS scattered across this thread), note how Foo completely ignored the FACTS about bulk-loaded film cartridges - he doesn't want to talk about it now... How many times do we see that?

A genuine researcher will continue learning every day, and immediately fess up to their mistakes or wrong claims - I've done it a couple of times on this thread, and I ENJOY being wrong, as it means I learnt something.

I invite you, dear educated reader, to go back and peruse the claims of ppk, foo and the couple of other hangers on.

How many times wrong?

How many times did they concede it?

Even after the facts were laid out in painful, obvious detail before them. They simply move onto the next idiotic claim.

But this is all good fodder for conspiracy forums. More hits, more 'activity', more revenue.


So, onto the next claim...




PS (and rather tellingly..) - bib, do you understand how big a one-micron particle is? And how many of them we are talking about? And that they are not being windblown, but merely falling straight back down to the surface?

Clearly you do not, but it would probably pay to do so, don't you think?

If you respect Phage's opinion (I do), why not ask him nicely to comment on this issue, rather than just name-drop..?

ADDED....
A little light addition:
xkcd.com...

If *only* jarrah would turn his skills to relativity, quantum physics and cosmology! It would all be over in minutes, and we'd have a unified theorem. After jw demonstrates a small scale Big Bang using diet coke and mentos in his backyard...


edit on 9-3-2011 by CHRLZ because: Added the added bit..



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



PS (and rather tellingly..) - bib, do you understand how big a one-micron particle is? And how many of them we are talking about? And that they are not being windblown, but merely falling straight back down to the surface?


"and rather tellingly???"
I quote an interesting NASA article and you talk like that??

It's a theory based on science and observations of some of the astronauts..
The dust would not fall straight down, the astronauts actually drew them up as arced fountains..
Quite visible so you'd expect quite a lot of displacement..
Also, most moon dust is quite fine anyway so the smaller particles would push the larger ones around...

Seems you think no one is allowed to add to this debate without being insulted by the likes of you..
Shame really..


Edit for a laugh..
Notice on the NASA science site I linked to they use the old balloon static test to prove a point..
And I thought only fools like JW did that.

edit on 9-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
"and rather tellingly???"
I quote an interesting NASA article and you talk like that??

Mmm. Vicious language. You need to get out more, I think.


It's a theory based on science and observations of some of the astronauts..

..and that can be misunderstood and misused, in jw/foo fashion..


The dust would not fall straight down, the astronauts actually drew them up as arced fountains..

And tell, me, bib, at the bottom of those arcs, as the ONE-MICRON particles land, what angle are they landing at - what is their horizontal vector?


Quite visible so you'd expect quite a lot of displacement..

I'm sorry, but.. WHAT???? Rainbows are also quite visible, but they don't displace much stuff... Flyspray is also quite visible, with much larger droplets in earth gravity!!, and yet you don't often see it wiping out footprints.. betcha could spray it like, a hunerd timz and it still woodn't wipe out them footprints...
(Do you like my jarrah-like example? I'm targeting my audience very carefully..)


Also, most moon dust is quite fine anyway so the smaller particles would push the larger ones around...

How many are there? By how much, and what size particles (2, 3, more microns?) would be affected by this gentle downwards landing of particles, accelerated by that ONE-SIXTH gravity?

And what other effects might you see? Would this significantly affect, oh say... those US and USSR laser reflectors? Surely if it could wipe out a path, it would easily obscure a reflector...

Would the effect (that you haven't been able to define at even the most rudimentary level) affect the paths worn by the astronauts at path scale? .. footprint scale? .. tread scale? How big is a MICRON again..?

Can you point us to some images showing these individual footprints that you are referring to, or are you referring to the PATHS that show up on the LRO images?

But wait, doesn't foo claim the LRO images are faked? Do you believe they are real? If not, why would you bring up this claim?


Here's the thing - that is a PERFECT example of how much research, and how much thought you put into your postings.

So do carry on. And I'm betting that all of my questions above are irrelevant, beneath you and not worth even thinking about or addressing...

But for anyone who wants to actually think things through, my posts might be appreciated. Again, I'll leave it to the audience to decide whether this new 'claim' has been thought through and is worthy of further consideration.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



But for anyone who wants to actually think things through, my posts might be appreciated. Again, I'll leave it to the audience to decide whether this new 'claim' has been thought through and is worthy of further consideration.


This is a forum for individuals to debate and discuss..
You on the other hand seem to think it's a stage and you are some great actor..
You continually mention "your audience".
Do you really think many are following this thread other than your mates etc?
I note it's pretty much the only thread you post in..
Maybe you need to widen your interests..
Chasing stars seems to be your only aim..

Ohh BTW, some of them dust particle reach up to a kilometer in the air..
Not exactly a minor jump...



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

But for anyone who wants to actually think things through, my posts might be appreciated. Again, I'll leave it to the audience to decide whether this new 'claim' has been thought through and is worthy of further consideration.

You continually mention "your audience".

Oh, really? Please CITE that claim or withdraw it. I DON'T APPRECIATE being deliberately misquoted - What does that bolded bit say above? It says "THE audience". NOT "MY audience". Just because your brain changes words as you read things, doesn't mean you can then quote your thoughts as my words..


Do you really think many are following this thread other than your mates etc?

Then why respond? Is this not a public forum for free discussion of ideas? How do YOU know who is or isn't reading it?


I note it's pretty much the only thread you post in..

Well spotted Sherlock. I used to post all over the place (didn't research very deeply, did you..) And I've explained why that is SEVERAL TIMES. Here's one... Do try to keep up. It was when i was referring to jarrah white's complete inability to COUNT or admit his errors. Remember?


Maybe you need to widen your interests..

Maybe YOU need to realise that your avoidance of questions is rather obvious, and seems to indicate you wish to simply play foogames and misquote, rather than engage in debate on the topics. You raised the issue of the falling dust, but now you want to avoid discussing the myriad of issues and countering arguments on that topic like the plague.


Ohh BTW, some of them dust particle reach up to a kilometer in the air..
Not exactly a minor jump...

Oooohhhh - spoken like a scientist..
And that's your response to all of the stuff I posted above? A handwave, without even a vague attempt to make it relevant? How MANY of those particles are there, how big are they, how much energy do they have, how would they obliterate, or even affect, a worn path? Or are you still calling it a footprint? If so, please show us the footprint images you are referring to..



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Or are you still calling it a footprint?


Did I Chrlz?
Or is that you merely twisting what I actually said.?

I can't answer questions about the facts of particle size,volume of displacement or effect on the "footprint tracks" because it is merely a theory proposed by NASA scientists due to research and observations..

If you wish to try and state FACTS on the issue then be my guest..

Me? I thought it was interesting and relevant to the thread, that's all...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 377  378  379    381  382  383 >>

log in

join