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: 484
377
<< 481  482  483    485  486  487 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
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

...



WOW a quote like your an expert when it shows YOU haven't got a clue Komodo!! I haven't answered my post I made the other day was reading through the posts made but felt I had to answer on this one first!

Underlined above can you please provide a link to that
have you EVER USED AN SLR camera a camera that has interchangeable lens like you see at sports event ,OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVEN'T.

Put a telephoto lens on one its like a small telescope you can look through it you will see stars and if you know what you are doing you can picture them, put a macro lens on it and guess what its like a small microscope and you can take pictures in extreme close up if you know what you are doing.

Making rash statements on a subject which then shows YOU know not a jot about the subject makes YOU look a




Will answer posts to my previous one later.
edit on 2-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: line added




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by DJW001
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.)


wow.. you fell for it hook, line and sinker.. didn't you .. so WHY did you post the Picture of JUST the moon with no stars and what was your point ???? and what was your point using THIS picture LOL..

You see DJW001, it's very simple what your doing, but how can you say that the guys that flew to the moon couldn't see stars with their naked eyes if you are using this as an example to 'prove' to me we can.. LMAO ..

wow.. thx for pointing out that the guys that flew to the moon CAN/SHOULD/COULD have very well seen the stars based UPON these to pics >> ~!!



Its a LOOOOOONNNNNGGGG EXPOSURE something else you haven't got a clue about it seems! correct exposure for the Moon ONLY shows the moon a long exposure to show stars light will end in trails (unless tracked) as shown and an over exposed picture of the Moon if in the field of view!

Your eyes dont work exactly the same as film or digital sensors so go LEARN about the subject before you make anymore silly comments!!!


edit on 2-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Well give links to examples of the light,shadow problems you see in apollo pictures NO doubt it will be the stuff debunked on here a few hundred pages back! and links to video with models you cant actually tell are models!

As for you walk in the country story have you ever drove through a long tunnel or been on a train going through a long tunnel or even been at the cinema during the day when you come back into the day light it can take a few seconds for your eyes to adjust!

Or if you go into a darkend room let you eyes adjust to the darkness and then you can start to make out objects but if someone even lights a match in that room if its in your view your eyes adjust to that and the objects go back into shadow!

Have you not seen on film, crews on a submarine/ships when at night below deck using red light thats so if the have to go above at night it has less effect on dark adaption!

Have you seen or used Google Sky Map for smart phones it has a night mode all the info on screen the stars, their names etc all appear in red guess why!

It seems strange we have had two CLAIMED cinematographers on here that seem to be a bit confused about camera exposure and light levels and how the human eye works in a different way!

ppk55 was the other member you seem to have the same problems as him re photography STRANGE considering your supposed occupations!



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Just to ask..

No stars in the photographs taken from the moon surface; it is because of exposure of the camera...,

Yet an astronaut recall to have seen stars from the surface of the moon; it is because of the ability of his eyes to adjust to the brightness of the moon surface…

Is that the crux of the problem concerning no-stars argument?

Maybe nataylor can give more plausible yet brief answer.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by maya2
Just to ask..
No stars in the photographs taken from the moon surface; it is because of exposure of the camera...,
Yet an astronaut recall to have seen stars from the surface of the moon; it is because of the ability of his eyes to adjust to the brightness of the moon surface…
Is that the crux of the problem concerning no-stars argument?
Maybe nataylor can give more plausible yet brief answer.


Well I'm sure the camera exposure time was adjustable and a few nice pics would have been good..



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by maya2
Just to ask..

No stars in the photographs taken from the moon surface; it is because of exposure of the camera...,

Yet an astronaut recall to have seen stars from the surface of the moon; it is because of the ability of his eyes to adjust to the brightness of the moon surface…

Is that the crux of the problem concerning no-stars argument?

Maybe nataylor can give more plausible yet brief answer.





The moon is lit by the sun so exposure time is like a daylight picture on the earth for the same film/digital sensor speed.

So you can get a nice shot of the moon at between 1/400th to about 1/125th of a second, a star at the same film speed settings and aperture settings may be 25-30 seconds plus that's why you get the star trail effect.

Simple really!!!!



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



You appear to be dodging a lot of questions asked of you in the last few pages..

Isn't that something you complain about others doing?
Are you going to answer them?


Sorry, please repeat the questions and I assure you I will answer them.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



Old enough to make miniature buildings for Tim Burtons BATMAN movie (1989)

Back before CGI young man.


I'll be sure to quote you on this the next time you say an Apollo film is "obviously CGI."



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



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


I let this one slide at the time. You see stars in the sky by day in London? Really? How many stars?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Well I'm sure the camera exposure time was adjustable and a few nice pics would have been good..


You know perfectly well we have been all through this before:






Apollo Gegenschein Photography

Albert Einstein said that repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of madness.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well I'm sure the camera exposure time was adjustable and a few nice pics would have been good..

You know perfectly well we have been all through this before:



Apollo Gegenschein Photography
Albert Einstein said that repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of madness.


Not sure what your pics showing star trails are...
If they were taken from the moon then they must be VERY long exposures because as you know, the moon rotates roughly 28 times slower that the earth..

So please explain wht those pics are meant to show...



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



So please explain wht those pics are meant to show...


They were relatively long exposures (1 or 2 seconds, but don't quote me on that) taken from the command module in lunar orbit. They were attempting to photograph the gegenschein, or zodiacal light, which is caused by dust in the plane of the ecliptic. My point was that we have discussed the "no stars" issue at least three times on this thread already, and that the astronauts did photograph stars and, to head off the next distraction, did bring a little telescope with them.

Edit to add: More like 20 seconds:www.apolloexplorer.co.uk...
Edit to add: The top photo is the Earth and assorted stars photographed by the Apollo UV telescope: www.lpi.usra.edu...

edit on 2-6-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.

edit on 2-6-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental
 



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


I let this one slide at the time. You see stars in the sky by day in London? Really? How many stars?


Maybe he means tv stars it certainly wouldn't be mid afternoon thats for sure.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Well I'm sure the camera exposure time was adjustable and a few nice pics would have been good..
We've been over this before. To get a good exposure of stars, with the film they used on the lunar surface, it would require a long exposure. Too long to hand-hold and get a decent result.

A good rule of thumb for photographing stars is called "4-4-4-4" A camera set with an aperture of f/4, with ISO 400 film, with an exposure of 4 seconds will capture stars down to magnitude 4. An increase of one stop in aperture means half the light gets to the film. So to get the same exposure, you'd have to double the exposure time. And a doubling of the ISO film speed means a doubling in light sensitivity. So if you use ISO 800 film instead of ISO 400, you'd have to cut the exposure time in half.

So how long would a "4-4-4-4" exposure take using, say, the ASA 80 speed film they had? Well, ASA 80 film is only 20% as sensitive as ISO 400 film, so we have to increase the exposure time by 5 times, to 20 seconds. And the 60mm lens had a maximum aperture of f/5.6, one full stop slower than f/4, so we have to double the exposure time. That leaves us with a setting of f/5.6, with ASA 80 film, and an exposure time of 40 seconds to capture magnitude 4 stars. Try hand-holding an exposure for 40 seconds some time. No matter how steady you think your hands are, it's going to come out all shaky.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



Try hand-holding an exposure for 40 seconds some time. No matter how steady you think your hands are, it's going to come out all shaky


They didn't have a tripod?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Sorry, please repeat the questions and I assure you I will answer them.


It's only two pages...
Have a look..



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



They were relatively long exposures (1 or 2 seconds, but don't quote me on that) taken from the command module in lunar orbit.


But the entire thread revolves around man landing on the moon...
Why show pics that conceivably may have been taken by a remote camera in orbit?
We know unmanned missions were capable..



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001
 



They were relatively long exposures (1 or 2 seconds, but don't quote me on that) taken from the command module in lunar orbit.


But the entire thread revolves around man landing on the moon...
Why show pics that conceivably may have been taken by a remote camera in orbit?
We know unmanned missions were capable..


Who do you think took the pictures and that answer is the reason DJW001 posted them, also iirc the longest shutter speed was 1 second on the camera unless you used the bulb setting.
edit on 2-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


All absolutely irrelevant when the discussion was focused on pictures of stars taken from the Moon's surface..
Unless of course if you can explain why pics from a moving CM in orbit in any way compares.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Again, we've been over this before. No, they did not have a tripod. A tripod would only be useful for taking pictures of stars. We can take pictures of stars here from Earth with much larger and better equipment than hand-held cameras taken to the moon. The photography time was much better spent taking photos of things we can't take photographs of from earth.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 481  482  483    485  486  487 >>

log in

join