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: 485
377
<< 482  483  484    486  487  488 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
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.


No tripods or secure positions for cameras??

So can you explain where the video cameras were mounted to show the departure of the LM???
Could a camera not be mounted in that secure position??




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
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.


Now I know your not that dim bb someone asked was it not you why no pictures of stars taken by the astronauts so that's a couple of examples and like nat says why bother when we could get so much better from earth!
edit on 2-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by nataylor
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.


No tripods or secure positions for cameras??

So can you explain where the video cameras were mounted to show the departure of the LM???
Could a camera not be mounted in that secure position??


I will refer you back to the longest shutter speed on the camera 1 sec not 40+



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Yes, the video cameras were on stands or support arms. If so designed, I'm sure they could have come up with a way to secure a still camera in such a way. But why would they want to?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I will refer you back to the longest shutter speed on the camera 1 sec not 40+

Can you link to NASA to prove this??
Not that I don't trust your word but proof always helps.

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



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by backinblack
 


Yes, the video cameras were on stands or support arms. If so designed, I'm sure they could have come up with a way to secure a still camera in such a way. But why would they want to?


Nat, I don't know and don't care..
I was just responding to your post that said the cameras didn't have a tripod to conduct long exposures..

Obviously if they wanted to then it wasn't really an issue..



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


As seen in the Apollo 15 Data Users' Note,
the 60mm f/5.6 lens had shutter speed settings from 1/500 to 1, and Bulb.




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by backinblack
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.

Now I know your not that dim bb someone asked was it not you why no pictures of stars taken by the astronauts so that's a couple of examples and like nat says why bother when we could get so much better from earth!
edit on 2-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


Why bother??
The MAIN reason the US supposedly rushed to the moon was nothing more than bragging rights on the Russians..
It's pretty clear that NASA was nowhere near ready and truly years away when JFK made his famous speech..

Given that the main reason was bragging rights I find it odd that NASA really did nothing extra that would prove they actually went there..
Pictures and video quality would have done much to confirm their status as the victors..

Instead their pics were bland scenery and their video was lost or confined to second hand videos taken of ancient TV screen..

Not really top of the food chain type material..



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


OK, well, they didn't have a tripod, and there's no good reason why they'd want one. As you say, if they wanted one, it wouldn't really be an issue. So it's pretty clear they didn't want one.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by backinblack
 


OK, well, they didn't have a tripod, and there's no good reason why they'd want one. As you say, if they wanted one, it wouldn't really be an issue. So it's pretty clear they didn't want one.


Read my above post...
They couldn't take a tripod that's pretty damn light but look at the other things they took, hammers and golf clubs..
How scientific..



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

Do you expect them to land in an area full of boulders and uneven ground? The risks were high enough. But I would argue that the Apollo 17 LZ was anything but bland.

There is movie film. The only "lost" tapes are from Apollo 11. The subsequent mission transmissions are not lost and are of much higher quality than the SSTV tapes.

The Hasselblad cameras were (and still are) among the finest cameras ever made.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You're dinging them for not bringing something that, from your own argument, was of no use to them? I just don't get where you're coming from some times.

The "golf club" was a golf club head, among the small amount of personal items the astronauts were allowed to bring. The hammer was one the geology tools, used for chipping rocks.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



The Hasselblad cameras were (and still are) among the finest cameras ever made.

What was their exposure setting range??



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



You're dinging them for not bringing something that, from your own argument, was of no use to them? I just don't get where you're coming from some times.


Again, did you read my post?
The moon landings were years, if not decades ahead of any NASA plans..
This was due to JFK's speech and the fact America wanted bragging rights..
Yet the things such as Earth photos etc were largely ignored and very low quality in regards to setup etc..

It's just my opinion but I find it very odd..
Why rush for that reason and yet make no concerted attempt to truly prove they did it?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


What does any of that have to do with taking pictures of stars?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I will refer you back to the longest shutter speed on the camera 1 sec not 40+

Can you link to NASA to prove this??
Not that I don't trust your word but proof always helps.

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


Why would I lie about something which can be easily proved!



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



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


A typically helpful answer. I'll just go back to page 479 and answer every question posed of me, including the rhetorical ones:


With the way you and others respond to anyone that questions your God NASA, who can blame him??

Witness how Jarrah debates:


Mr. Windley, I call you Mister because I doubt you are even qualified to be a garbage truck driver,

tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com...


Why would he come here and get insulted just for questioning??


If he came and asked sincere questions in a civilized fashion, he would receive polite answers, but that is not his way. He swaggers, boasts and bullies, then makes outrageous claims:


My IQ is above 150 and I eat Swiss cheese minded propagandists like you Mr Windley for breakfast. You know what I find most ironic about that disgraceful documentary? "If we look very closely, we can see the LEM did in fact disturb a fair bit of dust, just not enough to cover the landing pads"
BWAAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!!!!


Can you see why people dislike poor young Jarrah? The simple fact of the matter is he now refuses to debate anyone in an open forum because his arguments are so easily shredded.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Go on, tell us...

...What did Jarrah say when you wrote him and asked why he isn't posting here?


Given his immature behavior, there is no way I will send him an e-mail for fear of his inundating my inbox with angry and insulting replies. The above example demonstrates why. Perhaps you or backinblack would care to invite him, and if he refuses, you provide his explanation why not.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


No doubt I missed the answer... but can someone tell me why Neil Armstrong says this to Patrick moore when asked if he could see stars...


Yes, you missed it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Complete opposites. Why could that be?


Because you are taking the statements out of context.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


And it only took them 40 years of research??


I'm not sure if this one was specifically directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. No, it did not take them forty years of research. In the intervening years, new instruments and techniques were developed:


The paper's co-author Erik Hauri of the Carnegie's department of terrestrial magnetism developed new techniques that can detect extremely minute quantities of water in glasses and minerals by the technology called secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS). These technical advances were made in collaboration with engineers from Cameca Instruments (France), who manufactured the NanoSIMS instrument used to make these challenging measurements.

blog.case.edu...

This shows that the samples collected by the Apollo astronauts are subjects of on-going research, and that they continue to provide new knowledge about the Moon. No scientist has ever said: "Hey wait! I think these are fake!"
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Are you saying Pirates of the Carribean 4 isn't a film because it was shot on video? What was your original point of disputing if young Jarrah is making films or videos?


No, most "films" are shot digitally these days. The word is now an anachronism, but generally refers to a feature that is distributed through cinemas or other public venues. Video is a medium that historically has been of lower image quality and less expensive to produce, hence, "cheap," in several senses of the word. The connotation of the word "film-maker" is similar to that of "auteur." Hitchcock, Truffaut and Fellini were film-makers. Jarrah edits public domain video footage together with his own narration and posts it on YouTube. You don't find it a bit self-aggrandizing of him to style himself a "film-maker?" Comparing himself to Bergmann or Kubrick? I made a Super 8 superhero spoof in High School. Does that make me a "film-maker?"


Do you really want to press the point and look even more stupid?


Not really, but you seem to want to. Are you sure that I'm the one who looks stupid?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Have you heard of documentary films?


Yes, and unlike some people, I can tell the difference between a documentary and a mockumentary.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


They are no longer in a metal box or being bombarded by meteorites (that was a major problem wasn't it?).


Meteorites were a potential hazard, true, but fortunately there were no collisions. (It was initially feared that Apollo 13 was hit by a meteoroid.) Micrometeoroids were certainly a nuisance; if you examine the skins of returned spacecraft they sometimes look like they've been sandblasted.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Erm... so are NASA misleading the kids? Or just simplifying it so much?


I think this one was directed at Nat, but I'll take it just to be on the safe side. Two words: "reading comprehension."

"The sky on the Moon is always black, even during the daytime." FULL STOP. NEW SUBJECT: "From the Moon, you would be able to see many more stars than you could see from Earth. "

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Or why didn't anyone at mission control even ask them, "Hey dudes, can you guys see any stars?


The astronauts actually sighted stars through their "optics" upon landing to confirm their position. I guess people were just too busy monitoring heart rates, fuel pressure, etc, to jump up and shout something ridiculous like that.


Lets not forget though, Neil or Buzz, did take time to take photos of the Earth!
And between Apollo 11 and 17 we still had 4 other missions.
So why didnt any of them try?


Because that would be a little like going to England and spending the whole time on Dover Beach trying to take pictures of France.


Finally, though Neil's EVA was only a couple of hours. How long were they in the LM- 20 hours?


If you say so.


Didnt any of them just want to pass time staring out the windows to see if they could make out constellations, planets, or anything else? I


No, because the LM windows were angled down!


Haven't you guys ever gone on vacation, and took so many photos of the trip because it was a once in lifetime visit?


No, but while in Provence once I took photos of every meal I ate because they were so wonderful. Seriously.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


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... ???


No-one said blinded but you. What part of "dark adaptation" do you not understand?


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


I know it wasn't a question, but I just love it when you spout rubbish like this!

www.abovetopsecret.com...


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.??


If you can see something at all, it's because it's reflecting light.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


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


Posted previously, but here it is again:

Crescent moon with earthshine setting behind Survey Point, near Mt Baker in northwest Washington State. Canon Digital Rebel, 300mm lens, ISO 100.

www.skychasers.net...

As a film-maker, I'm sure you can work out the exposure time from that information.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Really? You do think your statements are very important don't you?


Yes, your reputation is on the line and yes, I usually try to make statements only if I consider them important. I'm not perfect, though, and can't resist a good "one liner."


Why is my 'reputation on the line, after all" ??


Because you claim to be an award winning film-maker and yet are clueless about the nuts and bolts of film-making. How do you communicate with your lighting designer and cinematographer. What do you tell the cinematographer when he asks you what sort of depth of field you want?


Pray tell what are your credentials to mock me so?


I'm an amateur photographer and can tell that you know nothing of photography, let alone actual film-making.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


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..


Fell for what? The first picture is to illustrate how an exposure that shows the Moon properly exposed will be too short to record the fainter stars. The second picture was to refute your ridiculous claim: "Everyone KNOWS you can't see the stars THROUGH a camera Lens FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH..........as it has been proven ~!"

www.abovetopsecret.com...


EXACTLY~!!...........and to which I've seen ZERO evidence to suggest otherwise~!!! But DJ says we CAN see stars under our atmosphere with our naked eyes.. and EVEN with a camera and a telescope but ...

we can't with zero atmosphere on the moon OR in outer space (meaning, on the way to the moon, NOT LEO)


Where do I say that? Link, please.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


and your's ISN"T ~!!! that's laughable ~!!!!!


Nope. (But the Mods will probably get ticked by how long this post is!)

www.abovetopsecret.com...


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?


No I'm not, yes... and done. Did I miss anything?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
 

The Hasselblad cameras were (and still are) among the finest cameras ever made.


That being said I must point out that film and chemistry was the area where most of the advancement in technology has been made.

Also everyone saw those moon pics I posted? Can I take them down anytime soon? I'm quite low on disc space



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental
 



I have also been involved in miniature model making and I know the level of detail one can achieve with models.


Really? How old are you?


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

Back before CGI young man.


Interesting, as you know there are many people who think that
at least the Apollo photography used miniatures. Though how big and small is anybody's guess.
I was wondering what you thought about that, and how you can identity it?

Here are some photos that maybe the use of miniatures can I explain why they are so strange:



explanation:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

or
Here an example of size/scale differences between astronaut and rover


or
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Apollo 11
www.lpi.usra.edu...
1 5862 doorway
2 5863 porch
3 5866 Both feet not on top rung
4 5867 left foot in air
5 5668 left foot in air
6 5869 both feet on the ground

Apollo 12
www.lpi.usra.edu...
1 6724 doorway
2 6735 porch
3 6726 Both feet on top rung
4 6727 left foot in air
5 6728 left foot in air
6 6729 both feet on the ground

But whats even more strange, in both cases the astronaut leads with his left foot.
which is suspended in the air. And in both cases the hatch is pulled in.

Coincidence or something more to it?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

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.=


And what could they do with 16000 speed film?


Each film magazine would typically yield 160 color and 200 black and white pictures on special film. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions. On Apollo 8, three magazines were loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film. ...


And what about that special light sensitive lens that KUBRICK borrowed for BARRY LYNDON?
What did NASA use that for?

www.ehartwell.com...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 482  483  484    486  487  488 >>

log in

join