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: 633
377
<< 630  631  632    634  635  636 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM

Whats the difference to planning to spend one day in space vrs 30 during a solar flare event?
Or let me say it this way, is there a real difference planning to spend one day in a pool of hungry sharks, vrs say 30?


I think you will find that there were no "major" solar flare events during the Apollo missions.



Oh I found several.




posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

In fact Kaysing was actually questioning Apollo before 11 even landed on the moon..


Even before July 1969, he had "a hunch, an intuition, ... a true conviction" and decided that he didn't believe that anyone was going to the moon.



To me that weakens Bill Kaysing's case..........if he already has a "true conviction"......before something has taken place.
It means he was looking for "anomalies" to begin with.......even if he didn't have the engineering background to fully examine why the "anomalies" had occurred.

Apollo Astronaut Jim Lovell makes his feelings perfectly clear to Bill Kaysing after Kaysing hands Lovell a copy of his book at a convention in San Jose in June 1996.

Letter to Bill Kaysing June 24 1996:

"I personally made two trips to the moon .... You heard my speech, and I am not accustomed to making up stories for my audience." (.......) "If you sincerely believe the United States faked the lunar landings then you are truly a tragic figure. You, like Don Quixote, are 'tilting windmills,' and have wasted precious hours of your life in a futile quest. Take my advice. Tear up your manuscript and pursue a project that has some meaning. Leave a legacy you can be proud of, not some trash whose readers will doubt your sanity. - Jim Lovell.

edit on 29-10-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM

Whats the difference to planning to spend one day in space vrs 30 during a solar flare event?
Or let me say it this way, is there a real difference planning to spend one day in a pool of hungry sharks, vrs say 30?


I think you will find that there were no "major" solar flare events during the Apollo missions.



Oh I found several.


Of course you would......I expect no less from you Foos.

edit on 29-10-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Ove38
 

Well done..
So yes, Proud Bird was wrong..
In fact Kaysing was actually questioning Apollo before 11 even landed on the moon..


Even before July 1969, he had "a hunch, an intuition, ... a true conviction" and decided that he didn't believe that anyone was going to the moon.


"In 1970 a newspaper chain polled more then 1 700 US residents to find that more than 30 percent were suspicious of the moon flights." Altus Times October 15, 1981

"A few stool-warmers in Chicago bars are on record as suggesting that the Apollo 11 moon walk last July was actually staged by Hollywood on a Nevada desert." The New York Times December 18, 1969
edit on 29-10-2011 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
Apollo Astronaut Jim Lovell makes his feelings perfectly clear to Bill Kaysing after Kaysing hands Lovell a copy of his book at a convention in San Jose in June 1996.

Letter to Bill Kaysing June 24 1996:

"I personally made two trips to the moon .... You heard my speech, and I am not accustomed to making up stories for my audience." (.......) "If you sincerely believe the United States faked the lunar landings then you are truly a tragic figure. You, like Don Quixote, are 'tilting windmills,' and have wasted precious hours of your life in a futile quest. Take my advice. Tear up your manuscript and pursue a project that has some meaning. Leave a legacy you can be proud of, not some trash whose readers will doubt your sanity. - Jim Lovell.


Astronaut Jim Lovell never touched the surface of the moon, right ?
edit on 29-10-2011 by Ove38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

Astronaut Jim Lovell never touched the surface of the moon, right ?
edit on 29-10-2011 by Ove38 because: (no reason given)


And what is the point you are trying to make?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

PAN'S LABYRINTH


Part 3: Carrousel

Final part to:
www.abovetopsecret.com... (background / foreground proportion issues)
www.abovetopsecret.com... (missing photos)

So now I want to match the photos that we do have, with the video, and looking a bit earlier, one will find the video that corresponds with the photos.
thats here:
next.nasa.gov...

In that video, it appears that Scott does take that Pan pretty quick.
It takes him about 25 seconds to make 18 photos.
Thats pretty rapid. As you can see in the video, he is just turning, barely taking any pauses for composing shots. Like he is shooting with a video camera.

He takes one noticeable pause around 1:19 to simulate changing the camera settings from Down or Cross Sun to Up Sun.

Once again, take a look at the photos Scott made:


See how each photo neatly overlaps with the next. See how well exposed they are.
Can you find any motion blur?
Its done so well, you would assume the astronaut had used a tripod and metered the shots.
It does not look like this was taken
1. with a camera attached to a chest of a breathing person.
2. with a person wearing a bulky pressure suit
3. with a camera that lacked a viewfinder.
4. without a light meter.
5. without pauses
6. with a pistol grip release.
7. with 5 psi pressurized gloves.
8. with a manual camera.
9. with a quick pan.
10. on the moon.

Now during this turn, Scott is supposedly able to take three shots with Jim fully to partially in the frame. Remember, it takes the Hasselblad about 1 to 1. 5 seconds to advance the film after a photo is taken. So best case scenario he needed three seconds to take these photos:
next.nasa.gov...
next.nasa.gov...
next.nasa.gov...

Lets not forget, there is not indication when the camera is ready for the next shot.
No auditory cues, not lights, no numbers. So at best the astronaut would probably count to himself while taking the shots.
But that would mean he would naturally stop moving in between each shot. Photos was supposedly one of the few evidences of being on the moon, you wouldn't want to rush through it!

Lets see if we can somehow match the photo to the video:




If you look at 25 and 26 you see the frame is slightly moved.
Meaning, Jim who was near the end of the frame in shot 25, is still there in shot 26, except we just see a little less of him.
In other words, the camera should have only SLIGHTLY have moved to the right!
However, if you look at the posture of the astronaut, who in the video was actually moving and not pausing while taking shots, he has SIGNIFICANTLY rotated away from Jim before taking the shot. And he is playing with his camera around the last shot, supposedly setting it to "Up Sun"

Conclusion, the video and photo evidence does not match up.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



See how each photo neatly overlaps with the next. See how well exposed they are.
Can you find any motion blur?
Its done so well, you would assume the astronaut had used a tripod and metered the shots.
It does not look like this was taken
1. with a camera attached to a chest of a breathing person.
2. with a person wearing a bulky pressure suit
3. with a camera that lacked a viewfinder.
4. without a light meter.
5. without pauses
6. with a pistol grip release.
7. with 5 psi pressurized gloves.
8. with a manual camera.
9. with a quick pan.
10. on the moon.


You think so?



Photo source.
edit on 29-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by arbiture
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Hey, we did share with quite a number of groups around the world, though not all, or at once. As for the rocks "being terrestrial" it would seem they may actually have been at one point. Not long after the early Earth was formed we (it seems) were hit by a Mars size planet, the resulting material was what formed the Earths moon. Apollo helped create that theory of where our moon came from.



Top scientists still disagree amongst themselves regarding the origins of the Moon. Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17, advocates the 'moon capture' theory which is totally different from the 'large-body impact' theory. But again - how credible is he?

Schmitt is a fervent and persistent anti-communist who firmly believes that the the former Soviet Union created the environmental movement!
The origin of our moon is still a scientific mystery. NASA has done nothing in the last 40 years which can advance any of the moon origin theories. That's why there is a New Race to the Moon happening now!



To say the Soviets had anything to do with "creating" the environmental movement is frankly, ridiculous. The logic we should not piss in our own nest is a no brainer. To claim the "flash of insight" that we like to breath was a Soviet plot, please.. Consider Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", in effect that was the first open source book on the danger of neurological toxins and what can happen when they "drip" down and up the food chain. But if I may mention the Soviet attempts to influence American politics through funding , very covertly (usually) common social movements is right on the money. As a matter of fact when the U.S. civil rights movement was in full swing in the 1960's, my government "tried to find USSR connections" with the movement, and spent great effort to see if there was a subversive money trail behind it. Thats the problem when a dictatorship attempts to influence a free thinking people. They don't know who or how to approach the "right" people, and hence , have no clue as to how to act.. We gave "them" so much credit, when often they couldn't even feed their own people (The USSR).

On the other hand, we know now through FOIA documents available several years ago that the USSR approached Vice President Humphrey in 1968 and offered him money to help his campaign in 1968 against Nixon. He said go to hell and reported the attempt to the FBI. So my point? The studies we have done on the moon rocks we got were tantalizing, but also very basic. I mean we had no idea we might discover ICE in deep polar craters on the moon! The moon rocks we got had ZERO evidence of water, hence we thought we would have to take IT ALL WITH US when we went back. Times, and instrument sensitivity changes. Not to mention we (and the unmanned Russian Luna probe's, very impressive RPV's actually) saw no evidence of H2O, but our respected nations landed where we could: Flat plains, far from the poles. (And as far away from any crater as we could).

As for the true origin of the moon? I don't care. But like anything else it's here in the now and I have to deal with it. The place is a god damn gold mine, better then gold, it's got water! (And it seems a lot of titanium. Check out "Space Daily.com" on the net for more details.) As for the new "moon race"? You better believe it baby...



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
See how each photo neatly overlaps with the next. See how well exposed they are.
Can you find any motion blur?
Its done so well, you would assume the astronaut had used a tripod and metered the shots.
It does not look like this was taken
1. with a camera attached to a chest of a breathing person.
2. with a person wearing a bulky pressure suit
3. with a camera that lacked a viewfinder.
4. without a light meter.
5. without pauses
6. with a pistol grip release.
7. with 5 psi pressurized gloves.
8. with a manual camera.
9. with a quick pan.
10. on the moon.


Motion blur with 1/250?


1. Breathing? See part 2. of your own post...
2. So...?
3. What would you do with a viewfinder? Do tell.
4. Also why would you need a light meter? It's not like the lighting is gonna change.
5. Yeah... so again this is pointless.
6. What else? A remote control? Cable release? What's the point.
7. It's already been established numerous times that there is no problems with this.
8. So??? You're just listing pointless stuff.
9. Not so quick.
10. Yeah on the moon... *doh*



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
..........
7. with 5 psi pressurized gloves.


Why would anyone take you (or Jarrah White) seriously when you and he make so many mistakes? Are these intentional lies? Or, just typical examples of the extremely poor research, and the delusional bias that is built in to your mindsets?

The Apollo A7L suits were NOT pressurized to 5.0 psi:


  • Operating Pressure: 3.7 psi (25.5 kPa)


  • US Spacesuits (Google e-book)

    Do even understand the physics of air pressure differential?


    "Pan's Labyrinth" indeed. Pfffft.




    (Jarrah Whites's increasingly desperate attempts to seem clever are failing miserably, each time).


    jra

    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 12:03 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by FoosM
    In that video, it appears that Scott does take that Pan pretty quick.
    It takes him about 25 seconds to make 18 photos.


    It was more like 30 seconds. He starts at about 1:14 and finishes by about 1:44.


    Thats pretty rapid. As you can see in the video, he is just turning, barely taking any pauses for composing shots. Like he is shooting with a video camera.


    What is there to compose? It's a panorama. You point, take the shot, turn, point, take the shot, turn, etc, etc


    See how each photo neatly overlaps with the next. See how well exposed they are.
    Can you find any motion blur?
    Its done so well, you would assume the astronaut had used a tripod and metered the shots.


    If you know the focal length of your lens and know its field of view. You can then figure out approximately how much you need to turn. They practiced a lot with there camera's on Earth, they knew how to use them.

    As for exposure, I know we've covered that several times with the exposure guidelines. Photos taken at 1/250th of a second will contain little motion blur. You'd have to be moving the camera fairly fast to get a decent motion blur out of it and the Astronaut paused for almost every shot as far as I could tell.

    It's funny you chose this video though. Since it's a wonderful example of the astronauts being in a vacuum in a 1/6th G environment. You can see the how easily and effortlessly the regolith flies as the astronaut digs it out. The finer particles would be suspended in the air, if this were filmed on Earth. The regolith even bounces a little when it impacts on to the surface after being tossed away.

    Here's a much better quality version.



    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 12:11 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by FoosM
    In that video, it appears that Scott does take that Pan pretty quick.
    It takes him about 25 seconds to make 18 photos.


    Several dozen pages back, FoosM went to great lengths to try to claim "fake" regarding Apollo photos because he thought that the one-second time needed for the camera to cycle each time was somehow *proof* of that assertion.

    Here, we see the math: The FoosM figure of "25 seconds" (jra rightly noted more like 30 seconds).....but, only 18 photos.

    Seems the math works out just fine.

    A stock "civilian" example (not modified specifically for Apollo) Hasselblad 500 EL:




    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 04:35 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Logical one

    Originally posted by Ove38

    Astronaut Jim Lovell never touched the surface of the moon, right ?


    And what is the point you are trying to make?

    He said "I personally made two trips to the moon"


    jra

    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 05:10 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Ove38
    He said "I personally made two trips to the moon"


    Yes, he did. Apollo 8 and Apollo 13. Neither landed on the Moon obviously, but he still made two trips to it.



    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 05:11 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Ove38
     



    He said "I personally made two trips to the moon"


    Let's see... Apollo 8 and Apollo 13....



    Happy Halloween!



    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:06 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by jra

    Originally posted by Ove38
    He said "I personally made two trips to the moon"


    Yes, he did. Apollo 8 and Apollo 13. Neither landed on the Moon obviously, but he still made two trips to it.

    But never reached it



    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:10 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Ove38
     



    But never reached it


    Technically, both flights went past the Moon. Yep, both went around the far side.



    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:18 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by DJW001
    reply to post by Ove38
     



    But never reached it


    Technically, both flights went past the Moon. Yep, both went around the far side.

    Astronaut Jim Lovell did not. Apollo missions to the moon were robotic, like all the other missions to the moon.

    en.wikipedia.org...


    edit on 30-10-2011 by Ove38 because: text fix



    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 07:00 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

    1. Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines
    2. Nguyen VanTheiu, South Viet Nam
    3. Chiang Kai-shek, Tawain
    +134 more heads of state received Apollo 11 moon rocks


    It seems strange to give such scientifically valuable moon rocks to +134 heads of state doesn't it.

    Shouldn't they be in a lab? Shouldn't the best scientists the world over be studying them 24/7?

    Why would they go to all that effort to retrieve the most invaluable scientific specimens ever ... only to have them end up in a government official's office? (or lost in a drawer),

    Just as the 700 tapes went missing, it really does seem strange that these extraordinarily valuable samples did not end up in a scientific lab, but rather in the hands on 134+ government heads.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    377
    << 630  631  632    634  635  636 >>

    log in

    join