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: 487
377
<< 484  485  486    488  489  490 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Here is a little link for all you non photographic types.

www.fredparker.com...

Look at the Exposure Value Chart and Exposure Factor Relationship Chart happy reading!




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



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?


1. Captain Picard's face palm is undoubtedly the most posted pic in ATS history.
2. If you had actually read my post and made the monumental effort of clicking on the link I provided, you would know that the photo was taken by Wade Clark... as I stated the first time I posted the photo. If you really want the exif data you can e-mail him.
3. Why aren't you riding ppk to produce the exif data for his photo?
4. Whatever happened to ppk?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



sources


Does no-one click on the links I provide?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

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..
Which, IIRC, would change the angle the sunlight hits the earth at.

I'm quoting ten-year old geography classes, mind you, and I wasn't paying attention back then.

edit on 2011/6/3 by 000063 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



3. Why aren't you riding ppk to produce the exif data for his photo?


One request is considered riding you??
You did post that pic an awful lot of times so I just thought a little detail was warranted..



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   

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..
Speech was in 1962, Apollo 1 was in 1967, and 11 in 1969. So they were, in fact, years away from success.


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..
Like the tonne of evidence and videos and data they've distributed to the public?
edit on 2011/6/3 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
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)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   

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



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

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)


Are you telling me in that document it describes what the Carl Zeiss lens was used for?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   

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


So what speed was this magical magazine that was meant for astrophotography?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

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..
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.



Like the tonne of evidence and videos and data they've distributed to the public?


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.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

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!


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:


1 magazine 2485 high-speed black and white (ASA 6,000, push to 16,000)


As the Analysis of Apollo 8 Photography and Visual Observations report states:


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.


Anders messed up and started taking photos of the lunar surface with Magazine G, which was the high-speed 2485 film. This was at about 71 hours MET. The astronomical observations were to be made around 85 hours MET. Anders realized his mistake a few hours after taking the shots:


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?


They developed some special processing techniques to get usable images from the film.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

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:



Again, I will state, why use that film for only one mission?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

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.
You really need to stop being reflexively contrarian; I was pointing out that part of BIB's statement was correct.


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.
The same videos where he says the unshielded radiation exposure is the same as the shielded? Those?

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.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

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.


By who?
What independent organization?
And where are their findings?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
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: +



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Again, I will state, why use that film for only one mission?
It wasn't used for only one mission.

Apollo 14, 70mm Magazine S
Apollo 15, 70mm Magazine R
Apollo 16, 70mm Magazine SS
Apollo 17, 70mm Magazine QQ
Apollo 17,70mm Magazine RR
Apollo 17, 35mm Magazine UU
Apollo 17, 35mm Magazine VV
Apollo 17, 35mm Magazine WW
Apollo 17, 35mm Magazine XX
Apollo 17, 35mm Magazine YY
Apollo 17, 35mm Magazine ZZ

According to the Apollo 14 Preliminary Science Report, it was also used in the DAC:



According to the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report, it was used in both the DAC and 35mm Nikon:



According to the Apollo 16 Photo Index, it was also used on DAC magazines HH and MM:



And according to the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, it was also used in the 35mm Nikon:



According to the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report, it was also used in the DAC:




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

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: +


Well I havent seen any official organizations named that have scrutinized the photos or videos.
I dont know what you are talking about. Provide a link please.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 484  485  486    488  489  490 >>

log in

join