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: 555
377
<< 552  553  554    556  557  558 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
That the 16mm camera has the entire surface & objects in the sun, exposed correctly.


Exposed correctly is an incredibly subjective term which you can't quantify. You say 'exposed correctly', I say look at those really deep black shadows; needs more fill light. I believe this conversation has happened before.


Originally posted by FoosM
CGI ? What are you kidding me? Dude, blue screen was used back prior to the 1940's.
The shots used in Apollo were minimalistic, and the picture quality was horrible.
And plus, guess who first used CGI and would have had access to it prior to it first being used for
movies in the early '70s? The Military and Aerospace industry, in other words NASA.


Color difference matting was patented in the 1950s by Petro Vlahos, and was first used in a major production in Ben Hur in 1959.

It doesn't really matter, but saying it was used in the 1930s is a long shot as far as I know. It was also mostly combining different color records of a piece of film physically to produce an image back then rather than 'CGI'. I'm not sure how this warranted a 'are you kidding me?'

Regarding your statement that you would prefer me to continue simulating light rather than yourself ... I think this image about sums it up:



You're given a method with which you an unequivocally prove something right or wrong, and decide it is far too difficult without even an investigation. There are people on this board that would kill to be able to produce 100% precise information proving NASA lied. At very least it would rule out an avenue of investigation if you were wrong, and people might start to take you seriously.

I don't actually think your goal here has been, or ever will be to provide the truth. I laid down what I was prepared to do quite clearly. I *could* spend sometime in assisting you get what you need ... but it's too much effort for you.

I think you've wasted enough people's time, and I'm not sure why people continue to let you troll them.




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



The way I look at it Mitchell's Camera was intended by NASA (the NASA of the Apollo era) to be left as junk on the moon, never touched again by human hands, never inspected, never tested in a lab, never ever ever.

That was NASA's intent? Wasn't it? After looking at that question we could possibly go on to discuss some of the ramifications of such an artifact existing today, on Earth 40 years later, after the alleged Moon landing of Apollo 14.

Mitchell's Camera, if it were examined today by an independent expert, in a neutral setting, is it still operational? How long, roughly or exactly, has Mitchell been in personal possession of it? Has he ever lent it out? And why 40 years later does the NASA of our day want this camera back so badly that they would file suit against the same astronaut who was responsible for bringing back what *could be*, ahem, an artifact that could prove or disprove the reality of some of Mitchell's claims.


For the past forty years, Mitchell has probably left that camera on a bookshelf, the way I display my "pre-war" Leica. It is an excellent camera and works fine, but it does not use standard 35mm film. Given how difficult it is to find even 35mm film these days, the camera has probably not been used since its trip to the Moon. What do you expect an independent and neutral investigation would uncover? There is absolutely nothing about the lunar environment that would have altered the camera in any way. On the other hand, NASA is particularly careful about controlling memorabilia, like Major League Baseball. If it allowed anyone to sell something as "flown" without its stamp of approval, the market would soon be flooded with clipboards, "space pens" and flashlights that have been to the Moon. It may not be the most altruistic of motives, but it is clearly not what you are representing it to be.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



but it is clearly not what you are representing it to be.


nor you..

This is NOT some two bit clown selling off fake apollo gear..
He was an apollo astronaut..

I highly doubt his sale would be the cause of multiple moon relics going on sale and I doubt even more if NASA would care..

I don't know why they have their nickers in a knot over a camera they didn't want but it ain't what you say IMO..



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



I highly doubt his sale would be the cause of multiple moon relics going on sale and I doubt even more if NASA would care..


Did you ever read the Sherlock Holmes story where someone steals the Mona Lisa? The thief stole it so that he could sell five copies on the underground market.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


So??
It's a piece of fiction but still doesn't explain why NASA would care in the slightest..

All they do is say if it ain't authenticated by us then you're a chump...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



All they do is say if it ain't authenticated by us then you're a chump...


But if Jarrah White bought a piece of "flown" equipment that turned out to be a fake, would he believe NASA when they said it was counterfeit? Please give the whole thing some thought.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
That the radiation has not fogged any of the film.
Thats impressive if they were on the moon.


Btw, radiation does not "fog" a film. Watch Cshernobyl film for reference if you haven't already. It causes small flashes to appear here and there. In Cshernobyl the radiation was so strong that the pilots died soon after being exposed. At least one camera that I know just died. Yet the film wasn't "fogged" at all.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by FoosM
That the radiation has not fogged any of the film.
Thats impressive if they were on the moon.


Btw, radiation does not "fog" a film. Watch Cshernobyl film for reference if you haven't already. It causes small flashes to appear here and there. In Cshernobyl the radiation was so strong that the pilots died soon after being exposed. At least one camera that I know just died. Yet the film wasn't "fogged" at all.


Radiation does fog a film, always has. The greater the film speed the greater the fogging. Radiation lapel dosimeter tags use film as a sensor. Dentist's Xray machines use a type of film. Natural radiation degrades film in store, which is one reason why it has a finite shelf life. I've had Kodachrome fogged by the xray search at LAX, and because of that bad experience, like many photographers, I purchased a pouch to carry the film through airport search separately. Radiation can even damage CCD sensors and memory chips. I can only postulate that the Chernobyl film you mention was in some way protected or it was Hollywoodski.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Of course it fogs if it's directly bombarded by targeted radiation. X-ray films also are specifically sensitive to that. A film in a video camera doesn't fog like that. It shows flashes here and there as I said. A good documentary that shows both cases is in youtube. One photographer actually basically shoved his still camera out off the window of a helicopter to a high radiation area. The images did come out but in really bad quality. Looked more like high iso film as if the grains had expanded. That camera stopped working due to radiation after 12 shots. More telling is the film in Pripyat streets where the radiation was several thousand times larger than normal background radiaton. That shows the flashing I was referring to.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by FoosM
That the radiation has not fogged any of the film.
Thats impressive if they were on the moon.


Btw, radiation does not "fog" a film.


I mean.... srlsy?
We have posted this numerous times.
You couldnt fact check before posting?


Some of the color film carried into a record high orbit aboard the shuttle Discovery last month was fogged by space radiation but officials say the crew was not in any danger.

www.deseretnews.com...

So, even though the radiation in high orbit wasnt enough to hurt astronauts, it was damaging enough for film.
Now, imagine going past LEO where the radiation is more energetic and deadly for astronauts.
There is just noway they could have filmed 16mm movies on the moon.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM
 


Do you have this one?

[IMG]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/1392/coverstoriesfromsapdoc.jpg[/IMG ]



No! But I do now



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So, even though the radiation in high orbit wasnt enough to hurt astronauts, it was damaging enough for film.
Now, imagine going past LEO where the radiation is more energetic and deadly for astronauts.


Speaking of fact checking, I assume you are going to back this assertion up by determining the rates that film of various ISO ratings will "fog" under different conditions of radioactivity and compare it with the levels actually experienced on a lunar mission. (Don't forget that the camera was made of aluminum and was inside an aluminum vehicle!)


There is just noway they could have filmed 16mm movies on the moon.


Well they'd have looked pretty silly if they took "Super 8!"



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



So, even though the radiation in high orbit wasnt enough to hurt astronauts, it was damaging enough for film.
Now, imagine going past LEO where the radiation is more energetic and deadly for astronauts.


Speaking of fact checking, I assume you are going to back this assertion up by determining the rates that film of various ISO ratings will "fog" under different conditions of radioactivity and compare it with the levels actually experienced on a lunar mission. (Don't forget that the camera was made of aluminum and was inside an aluminum vehicle!)


They changed magazines didnt they?

They used regular old glass lenses didnt they?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I assume the laser range-finding reflectors placed up there have been explained away as well, no doubt?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



So, even though the radiation in high orbit wasnt enough to hurt astronauts, it was damaging enough for film.
Now, imagine going past LEO where the radiation is more energetic and deadly for astronauts.


Speaking of fact checking, I assume you are going to back this assertion up by determining the rates that film of various ISO ratings will "fog" under different conditions of radioactivity and compare it with the levels actually experienced on a lunar mission. (Don't forget that the camera was made of aluminum and was inside an aluminum vehicle!)


They changed magazines didnt they?

They used regular old glass lenses didnt they?



So is that a yes you are going to back it up, or no you aren't??


2nd


jra

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
I ended up finding out that the Hasselblad's on Apollo 14 were all intended to be left on the moon from this NBC commentary... it's at about 5:40 in this particular video... NBC News Coverage of Apollo 14 Part 33. So now the attempt will be to figure out exactly how Mitchell got his Hasselblad back to planet Earth and kept it away from NASA for 40 years.


I don't think it was a Hasselblad that Mitchell was trying to sell. All the news articles I've read on this issue state that the item at the auction house was labeled as "Movie Camera from the Lunar Surface". So I figure it would be either one of the 16mm DAC's or one of the video camera's.

EDIT to add more:

Judging from the photo in this article here. It's a 16mm film, data acquisition camera.
edit on 29-8-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


JRA makes a good point. But let's also review the Reuters story here news.yahoo.com...


The item was labeled "Movie Camera from the Lunar Surface" and billed as one of two cameras from the Apollo 14's lunar module Antares.


So we're dealing with Mitchell's Camera #1 and Mitchell's Camera #2 now? See, I was guilty of skimming but I'm admitting it here now. I wonder if that other camera is still on the auction....?
edit on 8/30/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



edit to add a small quibble about the source reporting of Mitchell's Camera.

FoosM and I both posted a like to the Yahoo News (via Reuters) which maintains the author of that article was (Reporting by Terry Baynes; Editing by Cynthia Johnston). My link did *not* contain any pictures of any cameras.

JRA posted a different link to Newscorners.com but the reportage in that link was *not* sourced to either Yahoo or Reuters but contained (what appears to be) the exact same text. The Newscorners.com link added a photo (.jpg) of a camera. The camera in the photo has a label plate on it labelled "Camera, 16MM Sequence, Model 308A) there is even a serial number on the label plate but I cannot read the serial number.

Which link is better sourced? Can I trust that Newscorners.com has provided a photograph of the actual camera that was removed from the auction? The auction lot was removed by the auction house... so how did Newsorners.com get that picture.

I know it's a small quibble but I think you guys can get where I am coming from... btw, that photo on Newscorners.com shows the camera was very dusty (look at the lens)

Now examine how on the camera shown in the photo there is a sticker label on the right side of the camera reading "24 / 12 / 6 FPS / 1 FPS / TIME and MODE".

Can you see how that sticker label is partially cut off and mutiliated leaving on the camera body the remains of (what looks like) the remains of the adhesive used to attach the label to the camera body?

Is this photo a trustworthy from Newscorners.com trustworthy?
edit on 8/30/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: edit to add

edit on 8/30/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: last edit i promise



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by dpd11
 

It has. The HBs believe they were put there by unmanned space flights. (see Lunokhod 1 and 2)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by dpd11
 

It has. The HBs believe they were put there by unmanned space flights. (see Lunokhod 1 and 2)



Riddle me this:

The recent images released by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the Apollo landing sites are truly remarkable. But there is one instrument on board LRO that must avoid studying some of the the Apollo sites as well as other places where humans have placed spacecraft on the the lunar surface. The Lunar Orbiting Laser Altimeter (LOLA) pulses a single laser beam down to the surface to create a high-resolution global topographic map of the Moon. However, LOLA is turned off when it passes over the Apollo sites because bouncing the laser off any of the retro-reflective mirrors on experiments left by the astronauts might damage the instrument.

Don Mitchell, who owns a software consulting company and is writing a book on the Soviet Exploration of Venus, wrote about this problem on his blog, saying that if LOLA’s beam did strike the retro reflector experiment, “the light bounced back would be 1,000 times the detector damage threshold.”


Any Apollo sites? Only 3 of the six had corner cubes correct?


David E. Smith, LOLA principal investigator confirmed that, indeed, LOLA is switched off over the Apollo and Lunakhod sites, to avoid damaging the instrument. He said the Russians have been very helpful in in providing the LOLA team the best known locations for the two Lunokhod landers. Lunokhod-2 has been located precisely and is routinely probed by lasers from Earth. Lunokhod-1 has never been found by laser, and it is not known for certain if its reflector is deployed. Smith said he and co-PI Maria Zuber have visited Moscow to consult with Russian scientists, who have shared their knowledge of the locations of their landers.

As Mitchell wrote, “While conspiracy nuts debate the reality of the Apollo landings, scientists must deal with some practical consequences of what astronauts put on the Moon.”







Next question is, was it even necessary?


The emplacement of suitable targets upon the Moon's surface is only part of the task to be performed to accomplish LLR. In order to complete the experiment, suitable observing stations have to be present on the surface of the Earth. Such a station needs to have, in addition to a satisfactory optical telescope to both transmit the outgoing beam and gather in the few lunar reflected photons, a powerful laser, an accurate timing system, and a fast computer. These all have to be coordinated into a smoothly functioning unit and be staffed with a team of skilled personnel. Since, at the time of the NASA Apollo program, neither the time nor the money existed for the construction of such a dedicated station from the ground up, it was necessary to assess a number of presently existing optical observatories to see if at least a nucleus of suitable instrumentation could be had at an already existing site. Although such a station was eventually planned for a facility on top of Mount Haleakala on the island of Maui in the Hawaiian chain, very late in the planning stages for the Apollo 11 mission it was learned that logistical changes at the Hawaii site would make it impossible to install the necessary equipment and modifications, as well as bring everything up to operational status, in time for the Apollo 11 landing, planned for the summer of 1969.



It was at this time that Harlan J. Smith, Director of the McDonald Observatory, located in west Texas, near Fort Davis, was approached by the LURE (Lunar Ranging Experiment) team. The new 2.7-meter McDonald reflecting telescope, funded largely by NASA for a major planetary observation program, had just become operational and a commitment to long-term LLR activities was a distinct possibility. In March of 1969, C. O. Alley and D. G. Currie, from the University of Maryland, met with R. G. Tull, of the McDonald Observatory staff, to look at the feasibility of such a project being carried out at McDonald. The present record tells us that the experiment was a magnificent success in that McDonald Observatory had become the premiere LLR station of the 1970's and early 1980's [Silverberg, 1974]. The 2.7-m system, using a Korad ruby laser system, routinely produced LLR normal point data with an accuracy in the range 10-15 cm [Abbot et al., 1973; Shelus et al., 1975; Mulholland et al., 1975].

After almost 16 years of continuous LLR operations at McDonald Observatory, the 2.7-m laser ranging system was de-commissioned and was superseded by a dedicated 0.76-m system [Shelus, 1985]. This new station is capable of ranging to artificial satellites as well as to the Moon.



www.universetoday.com...
www.csr.utexas.edu...



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



However, LOLA is turned off when it passes over the Apollo sites because bouncing the laser off any of the retro-reflective mirrors on experiments left by the astronauts might damage the instrument.

Don Mitchell, who owns a software consulting company and is writing a book on the Soviet Exploration of Venus, wrote about this problem on his blog, saying that if LOLA’s beam did strike the retro reflector experiment, “the light bounced back would be 1,000 times the detector damage threshold.”


Now riddle me this: if there were no retroreflectors on the Moon, why would they need to turn the laser ranging equipment off? Incidentally, they don't turn the visible light cameras off. They have sent back pictures of the landing sites confirming that there is equipment there.
edit on 30-8-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 552  553  554    556  557  558 >>

log in

join