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: 482
377
<< 479  480  481    483  484  485 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Exactly, it was a leading question. He offered the condition to why you couldn't see stars.
He didn't simply ask, "Could you see stars on the lunar surface?"
FoosM, what's the difference between "did you have a hamburger last week?" and "did you have a hamburger last week Tuesday?"

You're assuming a lot about the reporter's motivations. Here's some more context;
history.nasa.gov...
Before you start reflexively doubting, just find me a video of the press conference and tell me where the statement in question is missing.


Reporter: I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. [first question, about moon hardness] And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?
[Aldrin answers 1st question, Neil takes the second one.]
Armstrong: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
Aldrin: I don't remember seeing any.
Note how Neil answers the question more broadly then the reporter had asked, and then he answers the question specifically. If it was a "leading question", he somehow missed the hint.
edit on 2011/6/1 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/6/1 by 000063 because: -




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 
..




Any why do all three returning heroes look so goddam miserable at this conference? I've asked this question three times now to various Apollo OS believers and no-one has offered an opinion.


Something that I found a little odd as well after someone mentioned it in another thread on ATS right after i first became a member; and after watching the film again on you tube, i remembered there was something 'kinda odd' about the PC.

Now one of the reasons from the Official Story Tellers (OST) is, "they're astronaughts, they're used to this stuff; to them it's no big deal but to us, it's amazing~!" Now, to me, all the discoveries made here on earth were discovered with human emotion, even if it was only a little bit.........however..

MOST were elated to find the discovery and after watching more than a few documentaries in my life time, there were NONE that had NO emotion that i remember; even after a few months they STILL had human emotion of excitement because ...

it was so AMAZING~!

Now to someone that has watched the video more than 50x will say, everything looks fine to me .. but when someone watches it for the first time or even 10th time...........it's odd they just sit there with no emotion, (kinda like Bush @ the school on 9/11 for 10mins) speaking on one of the biggest discoveries of our lifetime, next to the earth being round~!

Where there is no emotion there's no stimulus & where there is no stimulus, either object is dead, it never happened OR it's being covered up



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
What dim objects? You are using NASA terminology.
I dont believe that believing that the source light emitting stars are dim in black skies.
Dim object, like stars. Any stars (except the sun, obviously) are very dim.

Take, for instance, Sirius. That's the brightest star in the sky. It has an apparent magnitude of -1.46. The sun has an apparent magnitude of -26.75. So there is a difference in apparent magnitude between the two of 25.28 magnitudes. The total variation in brightness between the two object is equal to 2.512^x where x is the difference in magnitudes. So 2.512^25.28 is 12,956,758,810. So the sun is 12,956,758,810 times brighter than Sirius.

Another way of looking at it:

Let's say the light that falls on a 1 square meter bit of lunar surface from the sun when directly overhead is equal to X. And the light that falls on a 1 square meter bit of lunar surface from Sirius when directly overhead is Y. How much smaller is Y compared to X? The value we're looking at is called illuminance and is measured in lux

One lux is equal to one lumen per square meter. The sun puts out 3.75*10^28 lumens. Our little 1 square meter patch is 149,597,900,000 meters from the sun. So at that distance, the sun's luminosity is spread over a sphere of 4pi*r^2, or 2.8*10^23 square meters. So we divide the total luminosity of 3.75*10^28 by the area of the sphere and we get a total of 133,343 lux falling on our little patch.

Sirius has a luminosity of 25.4 times our sun, or 9.525*10^29 lumens. Sirius is 8.6 light years away, or 8.13*10^16 meters away. So its luminosity is spread over a sphere with an area of 8.3*10^34 square meters. Dividing the luminosity by the area, we get a total of 0.0000115 lux falling on our one square meter surface from Sirius.

That's a difference of 11,595,043,478 times, right in line with the difference in brightness we calculated based on apparent magnitudes.

Keep in mind, a full moon provides around 1 lux. So even the brightest stars are "dim."

And even if you're looking at a surface with low albedo, say one that only reflects 1% of the sun's light, it will still be over 100 million times brighter than Sirius.



Originally posted by FoosM
That is your assumption.
That is not a fact.
Besides Apollo astronauts, whats your proof that this would be a problem?
It's not really an assumption. We had Schmitt saying even in the LM shadow there were too many light sources in the field of view. And apparently the only account we have of an astronaut being able to see stars while out working was when he made a specific effort to do so. I never said this was a "problem." It just means they couldn't see stars because their eyes were adjusted to bright conditions around them.


Originally posted by FoosM
The landscape is the albedo of concrete and it was striated with long black shadows.
Apollo photos, or videos for that matter, did not have issues of over exposure due to the landscape.
So I dont see what are all these bright objects you are referring to.
As I mentioned, the sun, even on a very low albedo surface, is going to far outshine the stars. And yes, the photographs didn't have overexposure problems, because they were set to the bright surface conditions, just as the astronauts eyes were adjusted to the bright surface conditions.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063


Originally posted by FoosM
Because to survive going through the VABs, Interstellar space, landing on the moon you need to be sufficiently shielded. Like with a few feet of lead. 1 to 8cm^3 of aluminum is not shielding for space radiation.

Its like saying, your coat can shield you from cold weather but not the meltdown of Fukushima.
That wasn't the point of my post. The dose he claimed the astronauts would get, by your mixed analogy, wouldn't be that they'd receive wearing a coat, it would be if they were completely naked in the snow. Entirely un-coated, entirely unshielded. Since they had multiple layers of shielding, then the number he quoted was wrong, which means that any conclusions derived from it are suspect.

Jarrah said the astronauts would receive exposure X. The exact source he quoted says they would've received Y. X > Y. Jarrah is wrong.


No, thats where you guys are mixed up.
No shielding does not mean floating in space naked.
It means being in a space-ship with no additional shielding for a particular hazard.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
No, thats where you guys are mixed up.
No shielding does not mean floating in space naked.
It means being in a space-ship with no additional shielding for a particular hazard.


According to the Radiation Safety Office at Harvard, shielding is:

Any material or obstruction that absorbs radiation and thus tends to protect personnel or materials from the effects of ionizing radiation.


We've been over this before. Anything with mass provides some amount of radiation protection. That's why radiation shielding is usually measured in terms of grams per square centimeter.

"No shielding" means there is nothing attenuating the radiation between the source and detector. Anything with mass attenuates the radiations. And different spacecraft will attenuate the radiation in different amounts, depending upon their design, materials, and orientation. So to say "no shielding" means "inside a space-ship" really doesn't make sense. It means exactly what it says, no "material or obstruction that absorbs radiation."



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Dude~!! Stop it ok .. ?? ~!! We're NOT talking about looking for stars FROM the surface on EARTH......we're talking about BEING ON THE SURFACE of the MOON and in the CM with the naked eye and LOOKING FOR stars FROM there ~!!! Without a camera ~!!!

Everyone KNOWS you can't see the stars THROUGH a camera Lens FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH..........as it has been proven ~!

and knowing you KNOW what your doing only proves to me and everyone on this thread that you pulling the crap outta your backside because it's a quicker response than to think of a better answer..

tossing up a picture of seeing the moon from earth while on the subject of seeing starts during space flight is TOTAL misdirection and deflection~!! My definition of a debunker & a skeptic

... a De-bunker is someone who outright REFUSES to accept ANY possibility of a shred of truth to the subject matter; regardless what the subject, even though there's a possibility of data being show as plausible.

However a Skeptic is someone who actually CONSIDERS there's a possibility of truth to the subject matter no matter how slight, thus considers themselves to be 'on the fence' due to the possibility of the truth of the data.

To me, after you tossed up this picture, shows me your a debunker. And no matter what data you present will always be skewed by your unrealistic approach to ANY data other than your own thus

your always knowing but never coming to the knowledge of the truth~!

I'm sorry you have to go to extremes to always have the last word.


edit on 1-6-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Because to survive going through the VABs, Interstellar space, landing on the moon you need to be sufficiently shielded. Like with a few feet of lead. 1 to 8cm^3 of aluminum is not shielding for space radiation.


According to Jarrah's source, 1 g/cm^2 should do it.



That's about 30 mm of aluminum. Although the skin of the crew compartment was only about 0.2 mm thick, they were protected by the large fuel tanks, the descent module and the entire CSM stack. Basically, there was just a very small area that was vulnerable, and they were not in the ERBs for a full day. Where did all those stars come from?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 



Everyone KNOWS you can't see the stars THROUGH a camera Lens FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH..........as it has been proven ~!


Oh? How do you explain this then?


pointshootnedit.com...

The simple fact of the matter is that eyes, like cameras, adjust to different light conditions. As a survival mechanism, the pupil contracts much faster than it dilates. (In other words,if your eyes are used to the bright surface of the landscape, it will take longer for them to adjust to the dark, allowing you to see stars.)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by manmental
 
..
[words]
In other words, you have nothing but baseless speculation about a person's mental state, and are trying to bolt it onto your shuddering, glistening patchwork of questions and "anomalies" that forms your hideous abomination of a conspiracy theory.


Originally posted by FoosM
No, thats where you guys are mixed up.
No shielding does not mean floating in space naked.
It means being in a space-ship with no additional shielding for a particular hazard.
"Unshielded" means having "no shield". No hull. No clothing. Nothing inbetween you and the Great Whatever.

Kavalev's paper, which Jarrah quoted, says that even a small amount of just about anything between space and the astronauts will lower their dosage. They had several times that small amount. Jarrah was wrong. The only thing to do now is watch the nonsense used to defend him. Quite amusing, really.


Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by DJW001
 

... a De-bunker is someone who outright REFUSES to accept ANY possibility of a shred of truth to the subject matter; regardless what the subject, even though there's a possibility of data being show as plausible.

However a Skeptic is someone who actually CONSIDERS there's a possibility of truth to the subject matter no matter how slight, thus considers themselves to be 'on the fence' due to the possibility of the truth of the data.

edit on 1-6-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)
You're not a skeptic. You're not even objective. Your claim of being so is laughable, because there's been plenty of evidence presented here, which you simply refuse to accept. If a skeptic examines the subject matter and finds it to be false, they disbelieve. You're working from the premise of the landings being false, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. And, in fact, you're making a baseless, off-topic personal attack.
edit on 2011/6/1 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063



Originally posted by FoosM
No, thats where you guys are mixed up.
No shielding does not mean floating in space naked.
It means being in a space-ship with no additional shielding for a particular hazard.
"Unshielded" means having "no shield". No hull. No clothing. Nothing inbetween you and the Great Whatever.



No thats not what it means.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by manmental
 


Simplifying it too much. Assuming you could block out extraneous light getting into your eyes, you would be able to see a lot more stars than your standard viewing location here on Earth. As a practical matter, while actually suited and working in the sun, there will be too much light getting into your eyes to allow them to adjust. You'd have to take some specific action, as Cernan did, to block out light.


Nat, if that was true why didnt astronauts have problems driving, walking, looking towards the horizon?



Go on Foosm!
If they were so blinded by the brightness of everything that apparently prevented them from seeing stars in no atmosphere (ie nothing to block their view...) then how the %$£k could they drive that Moon Buggy so confidantly like Mad Max... ???

And they managed to take an incredibly brilliant amount of perfectly composed and EXPOSED photographs despite being apparently being bathed in light so extreme they couldn't see the stars.

It boggles my mind that NASA lovers can't see the inconsistency of NASA 'evidence'.

What was the point of their gold plated visors (i thought they would act like sunglasses) if it wasn't to constrict the ammount of sunlight, therefore, surely, cos I've worn gold plated sunglasses... they should have been able to perhaps see some stars.. given the fact the 'sky' is pitch black with NO atmosphere.

I live in London with masses of pollution and I can see stars, sometimes during the day.

I go to the countryside away from urban enviroments and the stars are so bright its breath-taking (i literally walked into a tree enthralled by the view


So on the moon, with NO atmosphere... I reckon, and this is me using common sense and experience, if I turn my back to the sun and look up I would &%^(ing see some stars.

I just reckon theres a crock of something not quite right about NASA and what they claim about the moon.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



And they managed to take an incredibly brilliant amount of perfectly composed and EXPOSED photographs despite being apparently being bathed in light so extreme they couldn't see the stars.


As an experienced film-maker using the latest cinema technology, what sort of exposure would you use for a sunlit landscape? What sort of exposure would you need in order to record stars? Numbers, please.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental
 



And they managed to take an incredibly brilliant amount of perfectly composed and EXPOSED photographs despite being apparently being bathed in light so extreme they couldn't see the stars.


As an experienced film-maker using the latest cinema technology, what sort of exposure would you use for a sunlit landscape? What sort of exposure would you need in order to record stars? Numbers, please.


I am a director and writer and vfx artist, so i hire a cinematographer who does the camera work.
But I have taken 1000's of photos in my life and think I've a good eye for composition.

Luckily I have always recently been using digital cameras with auto exposure and auto focus so the results aren't too bad... for every 10 photos I usually bag one winner.

From my knowledge I don't believe the Hassleblads (with no radioactive sheilding) cameras had auto-focus or auto-exposure but I may be mistaken.

The consistency of perfectly composed and exposed photos on the raw NASA files implies, IMHO, either the photos were staged on earth or there was heavy manipulating of the photos to achieve the desired result.
edit on 1-6-2011 by manmental because: cannt spell



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 



I'm not the one who thinks toiletry needs are a smoking gun. It's also rather hypocritical of you to ask me for this information, then claim I'm reaching because I answered it.

Here's an idea, since you're claiming they didn't bathe, why don't you provide a link to what the official story says on the matter? I'm sure you'll provide this information with the same completeness and alacrity with which you fulfilled my earlier request for evidence, FoosM.


Though I don't like talking about this topic, a little sickening..
I'd suggest the astronauts were put on a strict diet days,if not weeks prior to each flight..
I know with my dogs that can make a huge difference..
I'm sure NASA did that for hygiene and personal reasons..



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


There would be nothing to soften the light bouncing off the surface, which means their eyes still couldn't adjust if the surface was bouncing ambient light into their view. Which is why Cernan had to block out external light.


The missions were planned to land when the Sun was VERY low,
so would there be really that much light reflecting up, especially on the missions that landed on very flat terrain.??



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



I'm not the one who thinks toiletry needs are a smoking gun. It's also rather hypocritical of you to ask me for this information, then claim I'm reaching because I answered it.

Here's an idea, since you're claiming they didn't bathe, why don't you provide a link to what the official story says on the matter? I'm sure you'll provide this information with the same completeness and alacrity with which you fulfilled my earlier request for evidence, FoosM.


Though I don't like talking about this topic, a little sickening..
I'd suggest the astronauts were put on a strict diet days,if not weeks prior to each flight..
I know with my dogs that can make a huge difference..
I'm sure NASA did that for hygiene and personal reasons..


Well BiB, when I saw this photo I thought they were out of their minds:


Eggs, bacon, sausage and some nerves...




The Apollo 11 crew enjoys the traditional steak and eggs breakfast on launch day. July16, 1969



Thats not the type of food I would be eating if I had a long journey close quarters and being shook like a mixed drink by the Saturn V.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Well. Flat denial.
www.thefreedictionary.com...

unshielded - (used especially of machinery) not protected by a shield
|unprotected - lacking protection or defense


reply to post by backinblack
 


Actually, a flat plain would reflect light better than a hilly or mountainous one. And a low angle of sunlight reflects more, which is why it gets cold in the winter when the sun's angle changes, IIRC. Thanks geography class!


Originally posted by manmental
Go on Foosm!
If they were so blinded by the brightness of everything that apparently prevented them from seeing stars in no atmosphere (ie nothing to block their view...) then how the %$£k could they drive that Moon Buggy so confidantly like Mad Max... ???
Emotive language aside, it is possible to have that much light and not be blinded. Walk outside until you can see stars. Now walk towards the nearest streetlight. Even before you look directly at it, the stars become harder to see. Are you blinded?


And they managed to take an incredibly brilliant amount of perfectly composed and EXPOSED photographs despite being apparently being bathed in light so extreme they couldn't see the stars.
It wasn't "extreme". The pupil contracts when exposed to light. This is sixth-grade science. The cameras couldn't easily see the stars either.


What was the point of their gold plated visors (i thought they would act like sunglasses) if it wasn't to constrict the ammount of sunlight, therefore, surely, cos I've worn gold plated sunglasses... they should have been able to perhaps see some stars.. given the fact the 'sky' is pitch black with NO atmosphere.
Argument from ignorance and incredulity.


So on the moon, with NO atmosphere... I reckon, and this is me using common sense and experience, if I turn my back to the sun and look up I would &%^(ing see some stars.
Experience? You've actually been to the moon?



Originally posted by FoosM
Thats not the type of food I would be eating if I had a long journey close quarters and being shook like a mixed drink by the Saturn V.
I had no idea you were a dietician in addition to your engineering, radiology, and photographic analysis skills.

So, about their bathing?
edit on 2011/6/1 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/6/1 by 000063 because: -



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 



Actually, a flat plain would reflect light better than a hilly or mountainous one. And a low angle of sunlight reflects more, which is why it gets cold in the winter when the sun's angle changes, IIRC.

I thought winters were colder due to the earths tilt..
I better speak to my ex science teacher about that..



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



I am a director and writer and vfx artist, so i hire a cinematographer who does the camera work.
But I have taken 1000's of photos in my life and think I've a good eye for composition.


Ah. I see. In that case, as a director, perhaps you can provide us with a breakdown of the various elements that needed to be co-ordinated for this project? I was an "associate producer" for a small theater company, so I know how tedious this gets... but your reputation is on the line, after all.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
So long as we have circled back to the "No Stars" argument yet again, perhaps manmental could use their extensive knowledge of film-making to explain why no stars are visible in this photo:







Easy... because the Earth has an atmosphere for starters, so atmospherics come into play.

Secondly, the photo looks like its had some subtle manipulation, like a filter was used, for aesthitic purposes.

Thirdly... I would say its a very long exposure... to achieve this level of visibility for all subejects in view.

Fourthly, it could be a composite.

Have you the exif data for this photo? Exposure. f-stop. aperture... you know... the usual stuff one might use to judge a photo.

I don't know about you or others here on ATS but i've never seen a view like that with my own eyes but it looks remarkably similar to photos with any/all of the four factors that I mentioned.
edit on 1-6-2011 by manmental because: silly



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 479  480  481    483  484  485 >>

log in

join