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.
You were asked for full details of that pic of yours..
The most posted pic in ATS history so I'm sure you know the one..
Do you have the details requested including exif data and did you actually take the pic?
Which, IIRC, would change the angle the sunlight hits the earth at.
Originally posted by backinblack
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..
3. Why aren't you riding ppk to produce the exif data for his photo?
Speech was in 1962, Apollo 1 was in 1967, and 11 in 1969. So they were, in fact, years away from success.
Originally posted by backinblack
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..
Like the tonne of evidence and videos and data they've distributed to the public?
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..
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Was it not 16000 asa you say 1600 above so i wouldn't hold up much hope!
Sorry, but I dont understand what you are trying to say.
Can you re-state your what you mean?
16000 asa not 1600 asa a big difference!
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
sources
Does no-one click on the links I provide?
Where are the links? I didnt see any.
Stop hiding them then.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Was it not 16000 asa you say 1600 above so i wouldn't hold up much hope!
Sorry, but I dont understand what you are trying to say.
Can you re-state your what you mean?
16000 asa not 1600 asa a big difference!
I know that, what I dont understand why you are bringing up 1600 asa.
Nobody mentioned what the asa was.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
Where are the links? I didnt see any.
Stop hiding them then.
When a word appears in a whiter, bolder font like this, it is a hidden link. Roll your cursor over it and you will notice that it suddenly looks underlined. Click on it and-- voila!-- another window pops up.
Edit to add: You mean that for the past year you've thought that I just make things up and never link to my sources?!?!edit on 3-6-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Was it not 16000 asa you say 1600 above so i wouldn't hold up much hope!
Sorry, but I dont understand what you are trying to say.
Can you re-state your what you mean?
16000 asa not 1600 asa a big difference!
I know that, what I dont understand why you are bringing up 1600 asa.
Nobody mentioned what the asa was.
FILM SPEEDS ARE RATED AS 100ASA 200ASA 400ASA 1600ASA ETC ETC
Originally posted by 000063
Speech was in 1962, Apollo 1 was in 1967, and 11 in 1969. So they were, in fact, years away from success.
Originally posted by backinblack
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..
Like the tonne of evidence and videos and data they've distributed to the public?
Originally posted by FoosM
So, they used a special roll of film for stars, but accidentally used for regular photos... I see.
Now assuming it was an accident, then they weren't aware of the film type they were using. Which means they based their camera settings on their regular stock. So, the results of the photos should have been completely blown! So for example you think you are using 100 asa, set your camera on it, but you didnt realize you had 1600 asa in your camera. We are talking major over-exposure and difference in grain. Now lets find out what magazine it is and see how good or bad the photography is!
1 magazine 2485 high-speed black and white (ASA 6,000, push to 16,000)
The LMP did not use the film for the programmed astronomical experiments, but he did use the film for general lunar surface photography; he exposed the film for an ASA (speed) of 80, not 2000 to 6000 as the film is rated by the manufacturer. This is approxinmtely six stops overexposure, or far beyond the normal latitude of the film.
074:41:50 Anders: Roger. Since the qual[ity] isn't so good, let me give you a quick rundown of the status of photo targets. You ready to copy?
074:41:59 Collins: Ready to copy.
074:42:05 Okay. At rev 1, we got photo target 90 and terminator photography south for near-side terminator. Starting on rev 2, we've got target 12 and targets 10, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 23. Unfortunately, we got into a high - I got into the high-speed film there somewhere, and I think those 250-mm targets were on high speed. We did change film, and starting out in Tex - Crater Texas, with target 28, 31, 40, 36, plus several targets of opportunity that were recorded on the DSE, but apparently lost. Have you been able to copy?
Originally posted by nataylor
We've already been over this. Apollo 8, Magazine G. It was ASA 6,000 film, which was to be push processed to 16,000. From the Apollo 8 press kit:
You really need to stop being reflexively contrarian; I was pointing out that part of BIB's statement was correct.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by 000063
Speech was in 1962, Apollo 1 was in 1967, and 11 in 1969. So they were, in fact, years away from success.
7 years.
It took never-a-straight-answer NASA seven years to send a man to the moon.
8 years to land them there.
Please stop with feeding these fantasies.
The same videos where he says the unshielded radiation exposure is the same as the shielded? Those?
Its just tons of videos and data.
Its not evidence. Unless you admit that JW's many videos prove that man didn't go to the moon.
Originally posted by 000063
I don't "have to" admit anything. NASA's data and video and audio and physical evidence have been checked and double-checked and corroborated for longer than I've been alive. It's evidence. Heck, it's proof. Jarrah, on the other hand, uses misquotes, straw men, and ad hominem to make his argument, and has a habit of flying into insults at the slightest provocation in debates. That's not someone who's reasoned and objective.
It wasn't used for only one mission.
Originally posted by FoosM
Again, I will state, why use that film for only one mission?
Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by FoosM
Here's the problem; on multiple occasions in this thread, these organizations have been named. The HB's response has been to automatically claim they're tainted just because they shared data with NASA. (This isn't actually all that uncommon in international science.) In other words, you've got a built in excuse for ignoring said confirmations, since the only groups who could possibly confirm NASA's data are, by definition, the groups who have shared info with them.
Plus, y'know, the decades of science professors and students studying the results, yet largely failing to raise a cry at these "obvious" mistakes that can be spotted by laymen.edit on 2011/6/3 by 000063 because: +