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: 664
377
<< 661  662  663    665  666  667 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Millions of stars. It means that out of thousands of Apollo pictures there should be at least some stars captured in some of the photography - by accidental exposure, planned exposure, or badly framed pictures, etc..

By virtue of the sheer volume of pictures there should be numerous examples of "accidental star photos" from the surface of the moon. Instead, the Apollo photographic record has been systematically wiped clean of all evidence of stars.


As Anders recalled, "Suddenly, we saw millions of stars, more than you could see in a planetarium, to the point where it confused the constellations. So that was rather spectacular. And I remember looking at them because I was interested in astronomy, and then I looked kind of over my left shoulder and suddenly, the stars stopped. And there was this big black void, black hole. And that was the moon! That was the moon shielding the stars and yet not illuminated. It was as black as I've ever seen black. That was the only time in the flight the hair kind of came up on the back of my neck a little bit."


www.pbs.org...



FS not this BS again here is a little link for the clueless when it comes to photography!! ie 99.99% of hoax believers.

www.aaadelhi.org... go to astronomy resources left side then exposure guide.

From that a little example

Moon 50% Phase 1/4000 1/1000 1/250 thats the time is seconds for 100 asa speed film or a digital camera set at 100 asa for the following apertures f/1.4 f/2.8 f/5.6

NOW once again for the hard of learning the Moon is lit by the SUN
So taking picture of/on the moon have similar exposure times as daylight pictures on earth.

If you have a camera with manual settings (which I doubt) set it at 100 asa f5.6 and 1/250 th of a second pointed at the Moon see how many stars are on the picture!

Look at any astrophotography page most will show pictures and give exposure details BUT the most important thing is DONT make assumptions on subjects its obvious YOU dont have a clue about!



edit on 18-11-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
My inside sources tell me these guys are just trolling. I thought something was fishy.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



When you define something as 'debunked' that is merely your opinion. I don't think you can ever reach a 100%
debunked factor, because that is subjective.


You know from your own experience that this is not true. For example, if someone claims that an asteroid is going to crash into the Earth on a given date, and people present objective evidence that it will not, that claim is debunked. When the date comes and goes without incident, the claim is debunked 100%.


jra

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
By virtue of the sheer volume of pictures there should be numerous examples of "accidental star photos" from the surface of the moon. Instead, the Apollo photographic record has been systematically wiped clean of all evidence of stars.


"accidental star photos"? You can not be serious. How can one possibly take a photo of stars by accident? With day time exposure settings, it would be impossible to take photos of stars.

Do you own or have access to a camera? If so, go out on a clear night and try to take some photos of the stars with the shutter set to 1/250, F-stop set to 5.6 with a setting of 100 ISO. Lets see how many stars will show up by accident.

However there are photos of stars taken during the Apollo missions, as has been shown a number of times in this thread, but they were taken from the CSM using a high speed film (16,000 ASA). And also with the UV telescope on Apollo 16.

Venus also appeared in some Apollo 14 photos. It wasn't discovered or noticed by anyone until 2007 on the Apollohoax.net forums (link). A member named "Data Cable" found it. It's very faint and Venus is the 3rd brightest object in the Lunar sky after the Sun and the Earth.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


after 664 pages - we are back to page 2 - typical , this is how hoax believers work - regurgiate the same crap



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Neil Armstrong took this photograph using a Hasselblad Data Camera, the moon camera, a modified Hasselblad 500EL.

That line I got off the web. What were the settings used in that camera?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki
My inside sources tell me these guys are just trolling. I thought something was fishy.


Join the debate.. accusing people of trolling is getting repetitious. Discussing something in a calm manner with evidence is not trolling.. presenting an opposing view to your own is not trolling..



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


after 664 pages - we are back to page 2 - typical , this is how hoax believers work - regurgiate the same crap


But this can be applied to the moon landings believers.. If we look at the evidence impartially..

The photographs were staged. Perhaps they did get to the moon but needed high quality images to sell it to the public.

Even on the earliest Russian photos stars can be seen from the moon

www.mentallandscape.com...

The nasa surface shots do not accurately show the curvature of the moon

www.mentallandscape.com...

Later Armstrong has been briefed to add how prominent the curvature of the moon is when viewing rom the surface.. a detail forgot for 40 odd years.

They are filling in the gaps.. then they wheel out Armstrong to add new information and assimilate it into the old version..



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by mockrock
 



When you define something as 'debunked' that is merely your opinion. I don't think you can ever reach a 100%
debunked factor, because that is subjective.


You know from your own experience that this is not true. For example, if someone claims that an asteroid is going to crash into the Earth on a given date, and people present objective evidence that it will not, that claim is debunked. When the date comes and goes without incident, the claim is debunked 100%.



But if the body giving you the information is responsible for the biggest hoax of all time (that we know about so far) it is not irrational to have no faith in that information.. If there was some political gain for the U.S then who knows how far they would go.. Examples 9/11 .. planning false flag nuke attacks www.legitgov.org...

These days better to hedge your bets if NASA says an asteroid will fly 'close' by.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



But if the body giving you the information is responsible for the biggest hoax of all time (that we know about so far) it is not irrational to have no faith in that information..


On the other hand, since just about all the data they have provided about everything else has turned out to be correct, that argues strongly against them ever having been responsible for the greatest hoax of all time. Is it rational to think otherwise?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



Even on the earliest Russian photos stars can be seen from the moon


The problem being that not all the photos show these "stars," even the ones taken moments apart:

www.mentallandscape.com...

www.mentallandscape.com...

Coupled with the fact that one sometimes sees mysterious dark specks on the lunar surface, it suggests that these stars are actually dust on the lens.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki
My inside sources tell me these guys are just trolling. I thought something was fishy.


Join the debate.. accusing people of trolling is getting repetitious. Discussing something in a calm manner with evidence is not trolling.. presenting an opposing view to your own is not trolling..


Accusing? I'm not accusing, I'm TELLING you you're trolling. Big difference.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


I am still waiting for you to supply us with the picture numbers and the site address as requested to your supposed proof that the landing was hoax according to the picture this post reference.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 



In the words of Columbo...'Just one more thing..'

Uploaded with ImageShack.us" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>




Images from aulis.com...



Do you understand Parallax now.. ? and how this analysis proves the images were faked.

edit on 18-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


Sorry to BURST YOUR BUBBLE but if you cant give details of the film format the lens and cameras or the distance in those shots or the terrain YOU cant work out what should be seen or the effect of parallax?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



Do you understand Parallax now.. ? and how this analysis proves the images were faked.


Good grief. Your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, nor have you provided a link to the source of the images. You do not link to the images because it will reveal that the pictures were taken a great distance apart, so naturally the LM would not be in the field of view. The Aulis site shows example after of example of this sort of trickery. For example, he compares two panoramas taken from different positions near the LM and claims that the LM is turned around, when in fact the pictures were simply taken from different positions relative to the LM. Even FoosM understands that is cheating. Unless you post links to all the original images you are manipulating, I'm going to sic the Mods on you for T&C.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Confused again? keep up..

Parallax does not have a dramatic effect on objects close to the horizon..

The images I presented were from aulis.com...

None have been cropped. I added the LEM and declared this on the description and presented the labelled original side by side to illustrate the point.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


I will god honest donate my kidney to charity if you can show me even a single photograph taken at iso100 / 1/250th / f5.6 that shows stars.
Go try it out yourself before you make a fool of yourself online.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by mockrock
 


I will god honest donate my kidney to charity if you can show me even a single photograph taken at iso100 / 1/250th / f5.6 that shows stars.
Go try it out yourself before you make a fool of yourself online.


They had no capacity to take pictures of the stars? Seriously?

www.youtube.com...#!

Put that kidney on ice..

For anyone wanting to research this further wealth of information here aulis.com...

US needs china's help to get to the moon..

"Efforts at US-China cooperation in space have failed in the past decade, stymied by economic, diplomatic and security tensions, despite a 2009 attempt by President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, to launch collaboration."

aulis.com...

How is it that NASA have to taxi a lift with the Russians, when NASA's budget is 20 times that of the Russian Space agency..?

"Despite recent funding increases, Russia’s space budget of $638 million this year is dwarfed by NASA’s budget of $16.5 billion."

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Time to ask some serious questions, where has the money gone? How come the Russians still do it better and cheaper.. The real reason NASA wanted Russian collaboration was to poach their knowledge.. much like the attempt to latch on to China's space program..
edit on 18-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Reading comprehension much? Re-read and try again.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 661  662  663    665  666  667 >>

log in

join