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: 48
377
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
A quick question, FoosM , is there any subject you DO know well? Maybe you should pick it, at some point...


Originally posted by FoosM
Ok but what settings?
The [sic] only had a few to choose from.

They had a few simple RECOMMENDED settings, so that they wouldn't have to think much and waste time. The camera was NOT restricted to those settings. It was up to the astronauts to do their thing - most followed the recommendations (when they remembered!), but some were more adept at photography and used their judgement. Seriously -you didn't know that? .

Here's a non-NASA link for your edification...
sterileeye.com...
..but as you seem incapable of research and probably won't go there, here's a quote:

The guidelines were printed for the astronauts on the top of the Hasselblad film magazines (shown below). The shutter speed was set to 1/250, and the f-stop recommendations were ƒ/5.6 for objects in shadow and ƒ/11 for objects in the sun. For some of the more important photographs, the astronauts utilized exposure bracketing

Yes, there's even a *picture* of what was printed on the Hasselblads, if you visit that link.

Now, do you understand the big words in that quote, FoosM? You know, words like RECOMMENDATION, and EXPOSURE BRACKETING?



What type of solar radiation in particular are you concerned about? Glass is pretty good at stopping a lot of it.

Pretty good? A lot? How much would you need to fog film?

IF YOU DON'T KNOW, why are you embarrassing yourself with these ignorant 'claims'?



The crosshair has a shadow for the same reason there is a halo around the sun. Internal camera reflections. The light from the Sun enters the camera. Most of it exposes the film. Some, however, is reflected by the russeu plate (on which the crosshairs are etched), to the lens from where it is reflected back to the film, along with the shadow of the crosshair. You will see that effect whenever the Sun appears in the image because of the intensity of the light. You will also see that the presence and location of the second shadow is dependent on the position of the Sun in the frame.

As you know this is a theory of yours, and not fact. Therefore its not a debunk.

No, FoosM, you don't get away with that. If you dispute any of that, THEN SAY WHAT IS INCORRECT. Apart from his misspelling of 'reseau', that was all right on the money.

Do you know what a reseau plate is? Where does it go? What effects does it have and why?

If you can't answer any of that, then ... just more embarrassment. You post BUNK, and it gets deBUNKed.


Furthermore, what you say is not true, there are pictures of the sun, on the same magazine where this doesn't occur.

That statement is completely and utterly ignorant. Any photographer (that's NOT you, FoosM) knows that even the slightest change of angle when shooting into the light, can and will dramatically affect the flare effects. You can even test this out on a lousy mobile phone, but FoosM? Nope - incapable.


It also occurs in pictures where the sun is not frame.

OF COURSE IT FLAMING WELL DOES. Again, try it on any camera - when a bright object (eg sun) is just out of frame, its light can still fall on the front lens element and from there, reflect and refract into flares that reach the film (or sensor). This stuff is so basic, and so well known to anyone with a functioning IQ who has used a camera outside of their basement.....
well, draw your own conclusions, dear reader...


By the way, if FoosM does any research on that reseau plate, he will discover that it *adds* significantly to flare effects... While the Hasselblads were great cameras and a good choice, the reseau plates probably caused more problems than they were worth, imnsho.


The shadows are also not consistent. They go in different directions and at different degrees.

For heaven's sake, look up "perspective" and "wide angle". You are a timewaster.


So I dont buy the internal camera reflections.

Does anyone else (with an education) care what you don't buy?

Now let's just reinforce your photographic ignorance and incompetence with your own links:


Why are there ghost images of the solar collector and that flag?
www.lpi.usra.edu...

As ANY PHOTOGRAPHER would know (along with anyone who has looked through a thick glass window at an angle), they are caused by a REFRACTION/REFLECTION through a flat piece of glass in the optical path. The Hasselblads had a RESEAU plate, remember, dear?. That's a piece of flat glass in the optical path. They also possibly had a polariser. Wow, another piece of flat glass in the optical path.

That's why we photographers avoid using filters or shooting through glass at night, or into strong light. Maybe you should take a photography class?


And explain the blue astronaut?
www.lpi.usra.edu...

That's another flare effect, sometimes (not entirely correctly) called 'bloom'. Another one you will have to look up. I'd take a wild guess that might be the camera that got dropped - in any case, it has got dust inside the lens/film chamber or a smear on either the reseau plate, lens or polariser. Again, you can duplicate this effect with any lens, if you are willing to smear grease or throw some fine dust on it.


Shadow side of the LM, yet we see clear reflections on the ladder and the button on the astronaut, and silver and gold foil, and other areas, where does the light source come from?
www.lpi.usra.edu...

There's this stuff called the 'ground'. When you go outside at night when there's a full moon, how bright does it look? I mean, even in DAYLIGHT, the lit moon is BRIGHTER than the blue sky. Now let me think, where on moon could all that light be coming from? And if you were right up high, and looked down, would you see light coming up from that lit ground? As DJW pointed out, no shadows - can't be spotlighting.


FoosM, you aren't embarrassed as you constantly repost ignorant claims?



[edit on 13-5-2010 by CHRLZ]




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
By the way, on the topic of dusty cameras... As the astronauts worked, they gradually picked up a LOT of fine lunar dust - static cling was a big problem.

Static on the Moon turns out to be quite different to Earth - no air. So it was only what they actually touched that clung, but of course as soon as it was on their hands, cuffs, forearms it just clung to everything else they used.

Here's a quote from the Apollo 12 debriefing:

Alan Bean:
"I would like to say something about the camera. We got a lot of dust on ourselves and also on the outside of the camera. We kept looking at the lens to see if there was any dust on it and to see if it was going to degrade the pictures. Neither Pete nor I could see it on each other's camera (lens), although the other parts of our cameras were covered with dust. We'll have to take a look at the pictures that we returned (which look okay). If it does turn out to be a problem, we're going to have to come up with some sort of brush we can use to dust off the lens, because I don't see any other way (to clean them). We were trying our best to keep the equipment clean; but just moving around, trenching, leaning over, and all the other things tend to get dust on the equipment.



Here's a link to a thumbnail gallery of the magazine in question:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
- the dusty central smearing effect is evident in many shots, as are the flare effects. I don't think he got quite enough training about keeping the Sun out of shot! But they are very.. er.. artistic..



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Shadow side of the LM, yet we see clear reflections on the ladder and the button on the astronaut, and silver and gold foil, and other areas, where does the light source come from?


The back-scatter from the lunar surface. Note the absence of shadows: this suggests ambient light rather than a discreet source, eg, studio lights.


1. Backscatter from what, when your in a long shadow? Also, if that was the case why are the ground shadows so black? You cant have both, pitch a black ground shadow but light shadow on the object creating it.



TO AN ASTRONAUT, THE MOON'S SURFACE WOULD APPEAR VERY DARK because it is composed exclusively of igneous rock, rock which is generally dark in color.

Thats why the moon has an albedo of concrete.

2. The answer you give is not complete because just by looking at the LM and the Suit, you can see light coming from several directions including not coming from the ground!

3. You think photographers only use direct studio lights to light people?
Have you ever heard of reflectors? Or softboxes?



A Soft box is a type of photographic lighting device, one of a number of photographic soft light devices. All the various soft light types create soft diffused light by directing light through some diffusing material, or by "bouncing" light off a second surface to diffuse the light.


4. "Note the absence of shadows:" Yes exactly, how can it be that in videos and other photos the astronaut on the shadow side of the LM is pitch black? You cant have it both, in one picture there is ambient light, and in an other there is not, unless the light was being artificially manipulated.


jra

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
1. Backscatter from what, when your in a long shadow?


The LMs shadow doesn't cover the entire lunar surface. There is still a lot of light being reflected back on the shaded side of the LM. Here's the reverse angle. AS12-46-6718. You can clearly see that there is a lot of illuminated terrain right behind the astronaut as he goes down the ladder.


Also, if that was the case why are the ground shadows so black? You cant have both, pitch a black ground shadow but light shadow on the object creating it.


Sure you can. There isn't much around that could reflect enough light into the shadows on the ground to be picked up by the camera. Were there some studio reflectors or softboxes around, they'd be reflecting light into the shadows on the ground as well.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
AND AGAIN.....

www.universetoday.com...

It's 100% clear, Apollo 15 was on the moon

on the left: selene/jaxa Hight Data - right: Nasa Photo


accept or deny....proof.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


So when you take pictures on the moon, the crosshairs can't possibly have "shadows", but in a studio they do? What law of physics is causing this phenomena?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Incredible - it just gets worse.

Originally posted by FoosM
1. Backscatter from what, when your in a long shadow? Also, if that was the case why are the ground shadows so black? You cant have both, pitch a black ground shadow but light shadow on the object creating it.

It's not the shadowed bit of ground that is reflecting the light up, it's the lit bit all around it.

Does FoosM honestly think all shadows are the same darkness?

Can he not grasp that the astronaut looks down and sees a small shadowed patch surrounded by a huge arena of brightly lit ground, throwing bucketloads of light up at him?

But that the shadowed bit of ground looks up and sees..? A freaking huge hemisphere of pitch black sky.

So, here's the really tricky question - which is going to be more 'lit'?
The ground in the LM shadow?
Or the astronaut?
Gosh, these questions are just sooo hard... well, they are for just one person here.


Thats why the moon has an albedo of concrete.

And concrete in sunlight is...


2. The answer you give is not complete because just by looking at the LM and the Suit, you can see light coming from several directions including not coming from the ground!

Please provide an annotated image showing exactly what you mean.. There is brightly lit ground all around, so yes, there's light coming from all directions. Please point out the bit where it is NOT coming from the ground.


3. You think photographers only use direct studio lights to light people?
Have you ever heard of reflectors? Or softboxes?

Would you care to review the video footage that was being taken at the same time as many similar images, and show us exactly where the huge softboxes were? You do know how you can tell they must be huge? (No, you probably don't.)


4. "Note the absence of shadows:" Yes exactly, how can it be that in videos and other photos the astronaut on the shadow side of the LM is pitch black? You cant have it both, in one picture there is ambient light, and in an other there is not, unless the light was being artificially manipulated.

DIFFERENT EXPOSURE SETTINGS, AND/OR FILM SCAN SETTINGS. And you are comparing videos to photos???????? Honestly, do you know ANYTHING about sensitivity curves, dynamic range, black and white points, EV...?

Perhaps if we try another approach... Try adjusting the brightness and contrast controls on your monitor. What happens? Now, can you apply that basic principle to ALL the steps involved between them taking the image, and you seeing it? Do you think it makes a lot of sense trying to make an idiotic judgement about how black the shadows should be?


[edit on 13-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
It's amazing how often these "Moon Hoax" threads require explanations of how shadows form, how reflections work, what film is, how light scatters... it's as if Jarra has a legion of three year olds following him. Seriously, it's ridiculous. People think you can only see stars because of air? People think that things fall at different speeds because of their weight? It's frightening, really. No offense intended but some people need to log some everyday real life experience before they start trying to "debunk" things.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



People think you can only see stars because of air?


Seconding your comments...to add, it IS tragic, isn't it?

The same people (and I have read these comments, offered seriously) who think we see stars because of Earth's atmosphere also adhere to the notion that the sky on Earth is blue, because the water in the ocean is reflecting!

I think, in your mention above of three-year-olds and their beliefs, you may have insulted three-year-olds!



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Speaking of delicious karma, we've been subjected to just about every standard hoax argument out there. I honestly think they've run out of youtube vids to post.

Anyway, we were subjected to the usual character assassination of the Apollo astronauts in general, and Neil Armstrong specifically. The HBs crow incessantly how Armstrong, in an effort to hide his embarassment, shuns publicity. Well, almost on cue, Neil found time from cowering in the shadows to do something quite incredible for someone ashamed of what he did. He appeared in front of Congress with Gene Cernan to testify on the folly of cancelling the new moon program.

Astronauts Attack Obama's NASA Plan

He couldn't have timed it better, well done sir.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
It's amazing how often these "Moon Hoax" threads require explanations of how shadows form, how reflections work, what film is, how light scatters... it's as if Jarra has a legion of three year olds following him. Seriously, it's ridiculous. People think you can only see stars because of air? People think that things fall at different speeds because of their weight? It's frightening, really. No offense intended but some people need to log some everyday real life experience before they start trying to "debunk" things.


I think everyone who endeavors to refute Hoax Proponents and their followers has their personal pet peeve. Mine is that there are people who can ignore a thousand facts that would prove them wrong and depend on a few twisted/misunderstood/misrepresented 'observations' to buoy them up in their defense of such a ridiculous notion. More sadly still, they fail to see that they're falling victim to exactly the sort of deception and manipulation that they claim they're so tirelessly combating.

I don't think the vendors of this nonsense will ever admit they're wrong -- they believe money can be made from their books and DVDs; I don't think their true believers can be retrieved -- they're too far gone and too publicly committed to 'the cause'; but, I do believe that those who are undecided can be encouraged to take an honest look at the real evidence, which will enable them to form a sensible opinion.

As for myself, I'm glad to follow such debates. Until recently, I was unaware that 'Failure Is Not an Option' was produced as a series. Now that I know, it'll make a great companion in my library, right next to Gene Kranz's book



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by torch2k
 


Good one!


I was unaware that 'Failure Is Not an Option' was produced as a series. Now that I know, it'll make a great companion in my library, right next to Gene Kranz's book.


I haven't purchased Mr. Kranz's book, but just finished reading a library copy.

Noted down a few salient points, to bring to the discussions here...IF and WHEN they should recur...

Meantime, I truly wish EVERY person who's either "on the fence", or well over it into the pit of deniability, take time to read it, along with many other recollections that are available. THOSE are the people who were there! Their insights are far, far more interesting than just "googling" web sites, and reading specifications and dull statistics. THOSE are worthy, too, in the main --- but it's nice to have the personal perspective as well.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by FoosM
 


So when you take pictures on the moon, the crosshairs can't possibly have "shadows", but in a studio they do? What law of physics is causing this phenomena?


No, more like there was another purpose for those cross hairs. They had dual use.

First of all why the reseau plate?




The lunar surface Hasselblad cameras were fitted with a device called a reseau plate. The reseau plate is a clear glass plate on which is etched small black crosshairs, called "fiducials" by some and "reticles" by others. As each film frame is drawn into place, it is pressed against the reseau plate so that the picture is taken through the plate. This results in an image of the fiducials being superimposed over the image focused through the lens.

A reseau grid is used in the science of photogrammetry to establish a geometrical basis for measuring objects in photographs. It can be used to correct for any misalignment of the film in the camera, or distortions in the image after development or electronic scanning. Since the location of the marks on the reseau plate is known with great precision, correcting for distortion is a simple matter of manipulating the image until the marks are in the correct location.

If you take several photographs of an object from different angles, and locate the features of that object in relation to the fiducials, and you know something about the design of the camera, you can actually reconstruct the three-dimensional geometry of the object. This is what photogrammetry tries to do. Mapmakers use photogrammetry to render aerial photographs into maps. Architects use photogrammetry to measure the features of existing buildings quickly and easily.



My feeling is that they were using them to keep the scale of objects and miniatures in line when manipulating/compositing the photos.

But as you can see here they weren't always successful
:



See how it was done here:
www.doomers.us...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux
AND AGAIN.....

www.universetoday.com...

It's 100% clear, Apollo 15 was on the moon

on the left: selene/jaxa Hight Data - right: Nasa Photo


accept or deny....proof.


Now tell me how that proves anything when the moon was previously mapped prior to Apollo?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


How, in any way, can you actually find and post the very material you need to LEARN about a topic, as in this case you posted the explanation of the fiducials ('crosses') on a reseau plate, and NOT actually READ the material??? Because, when you say this:


My feeling is that they were using them to keep the scale of objects and miniatures in line when manipulating/compositing the photos.


....well, it isn't doing yourself any favours in the eyes of the readers. It DOES manage to further destroy any 'arguments' you care to attempt, though.

:shk: This is circumstantially still a form of 'trolling' behaviour. The description of the 'crosses' purpose is quite clearly spelled out, in the article that YOU posted!

Your "feelings" don't count --- they are woefully incorrect.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

No, more like there was another purpose for those cross hairs. They had dual use.

First of all why the reseau plate?


My feeling is that they were using them to keep the scale of objects and miniatures in line when manipulating/compositing the photos.

But as you can see here they weren't always successful
:


See how it was done here:


So you maintain that in every picture the astronauts, or anything in the field of view, should always be the same size, or at least internally consistent, in relation to the fiducials?

Is that what you are saying???



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


No, Tomblvd....he has NO IDEA what he's saying. Just parroting the same old BS nonsense from reading the myriad of stupid websites that infest the Internet, on this topic.

Take a gander at the one he linked to....the "doomer" one!

It's good for a laugh!



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


No, Tomblvd....he has NO IDEA what he's saying. Just parroting the same old BS nonsense from reading the myriad of stupid websites that infest the Internet, on this topic.

Take a gander at the one he linked to....the "doomer" one!

It's good for a laugh!


I was just going to post the same thing. Foos' photo expert on that thread actually is comparing the size of the sun by measuring lens flare. He really thinks its an accurate picture of the sun!

Definitely a facepalm.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Idiotic.

You know, when things are farther away they look smaller. Things like the flag.
Why do you think the flag is at the base of the ladder? It isn't. In fact its a good distance from the ladder.





[edit on 5/13/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Looks like you need A simple lesson on PERSPECTIVE




new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join