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: 665
377
<< 662  663  664    666  667  668 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Reading comprehension much? Re-read and try again.



It is clear what you are trying to say.. But it makes no sense in this argument.

The astronauts could not see stars.. nor take pictures of stars. If they had time to compose the vast amount of propaganda shots which would have taken great care and time.. a forgetting to snap the stars was quite an oversight




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



The astronauts could not see stars.. nor take pictures of stars. If they had time to compose the vast amount of propaganda shots which would have taken great care and time.. a forgetting to snap the stars was quite an oversight


This post is directed at whoever it was who was naive enough to star your post. Mockrock knows perfectly well that the astronauts took pictures of stars:







www.lpi.usra.edu...

Here's a link to one of the countless times the "star gambit" has been debunked:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Reading comprehension much? Re-read and try again.


Apparently ISO, shutter speeds, and f-stops are too much for high school drop outs to understand.


I will elaborate for our IQ challenged friend here.

ISO is light sensitivity. Lower = less, higher = more. 100 is low (daytime settings).

Shutter speeds are just that. 1/250 means a shutter speed of 1/250th of a second. Basically very bright settings for the day time, or sports photography. For the record, it was pretty bright on the moon.


F-stops = aperture settings. The lower the setting, the more light is let in, the less depth of field, and the more Bokeh. 5.6 is a lowish to medium setting.
edit on 18-11-2011 by JohnnySasaki because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:34 PM
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..


Notice how I quoted an astronaut about "WE SAW MILLIONS OF STARS" and all the part-time camera club members come out of the woodwork??


Here is the real deal about the lack of identifying star photos in NASA's hoaxed Apollo scam, read it.

Read it and weep NASA cheerleaders!

"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."



If one thing is for certain it is the fact that NASA are experts at photography - more expert than any pedestrian camera buff in this thread. The only plausible explanation for the missing stars is that stars did not exist in space when NASA went to the moon between 1969-1972.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
As have been already pointed out there has been plenty of pictures of stars. You just refuse to even look at them because it busts your argument wide open. Also this:



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.


Instead of playing keyboard warrior get to it. Find those pics or stop with this bs.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

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..


Notice how I quoted an astronaut about "WE SAW MILLIONS OF STARS" and all the part-time camera club members come out of the woodwork??


Here is the real deal about the lack of identifying star photos in NASA's hoaxed Apollo scam, read it.

Read it and weep NASA cheerleaders!

"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."



If one thing is for certain it is the fact that NASA are experts at photography - more expert than any pedestrian camera buff in this thread. The only plausible explanation for the missing stars is that stars did not exist in space when NASA went to the moon between 1969-1972.


NASA might know more about photography that I do, but I still know a lot more about photography than you do.

The proof is in the pudding chief. If you knew anything about photography, or at least understood my previous post, you would know why the stars did not show up.

Eyes =/= camera lenses. While they might have been able to see the stars with their eyes, the cameras were simply not set up to see them for most of the shots. In order to get the correct exposure for daytime, you need to set a low ISO, and a quick shutter speed. Aperture can vary during the day, but it looks like they had a relatively large aperture beings the background is usually in focus as well.

So bottom line is, the stars were simply too dim to outshine the sun, and were not picked up on the photo's. If they were to have shot a picture of the stars, everything lit up by the sun would be way over exposed.

The shots DJW001 just posted are streaky because they probably needed to increase the exposure time in order for the camera to pick up the stars.
edit on 18-11-2011 by JohnnySasaki because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Can you please post some pictures of the millions 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."

As you know the photographic missions were explicitly planned out and scripted. Frank Borman even joked to William Anders about the famous photograph taken by Anders...


Anders looking out the window and saying, 'Oh my God, look at that picture over there.' Frank Borman says, 'What is it?' Anders says, 'It's the earth coming up. Wow, is that pretty.' And Borman at this point gives Anders a little dig about being so rigid about the photo plan and says, 'Don't take that, that's not scheduled.'

www.pbs.org...

Frank Borman said that because he the kind of rigid military officer who reads his orders literally. If the mission says "go to the moon and come back" Frank interprets that as "go to the moon and come back"... Frank would not interpret that as "orbit 10 times and take pictures".

If Frank Borman had secret orders we don't know. He could have secret orders (to take fake pictures while in Earth orbit) and we would never know about it. That is why Nixon ordered Frank Borman to liaison with the Russians because Borman can be trusted to keep secrets. Like all the Apollo astronauts were selected for this characteristic.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:04 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.


Wow that takes commitment. NASA spent a lot of money on the cameras, the lenses the Top Secret Kodak films, training astronauts to take good pictures, etc.

All the photo opportunities were scripted. Didn't you read the script? It says "Go here, take a panorama" or "Look down and take photos" or "Look over there, take some pictures". Duh.

If the script didn't call for taking pictures of "...MILLIONS OF STARS.." then the astros simply wouldn't think about it. The astros, all prior military officers, know how to read orders, they know how to follow orders, and they know that going outside their orders could jeopardize the mission. Therefore, the Apollo astros never question the fact that NASA gave them no cameras, no films, no lenses, with which to take pictures of the "...MILLIONS OF STARS..".



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiterTherefore, the Apollo astros never question the fact that NASA gave them no cameras, no films, no lenses, with which to take pictures of the "...MILLIONS OF STARS..".


You continually fail to understand. Hassleblad's are legendary cameras, and more than capable of taking pictures of stars, even in 1969, but you need to understand that it is impossible to take pictures of stars in the daytime, because they are just too dim for the camera to pick up and also correctly expose everything lit up by the sun.

Tell your brain to comprehend that please. It's frustrating me that you don't.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Instead of re-hashing this same nonsense again (it only makes YOU look bad, to the thousands of readers to come, in the future. Since nothing ever disappears from the Internet. Luckily for you, the anonymity will prevent personal embarrassment and ridicule).

For the record, and those of you reading this someday in 2157, while relaxing in your quarters on the newest permanent Mars colony..... I hope you will get a nice chuckle from it. Rest assured, not all of us in the 21st century were this thick and uneducated.....for the record, can the person who keeps ranting and raving about the "millions of stars" seen by the Apollo 8 Astronauts for the first time, once they went behind the Moon (first men ever to do that) and the Moon blocked the Sun, and Earth and all that extraneous light.......

......Can you come up with ANY reason that the stars should have been photographed?


We'd all like to know, in your own words, just what sort of "benefit" that would have been? What would have been so "special" or unique about a photo of stars? Even if taken from the far side of the Moon.

What is the point of doing that???


edit on Fri 18 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Read it and weep NASA cheerleaders!


"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."


Read it and weep, Moon Hoax propagandists:


The Dark Side of the Moon
As Apollo 8 neared its target, the spacecraft was turned so that its rocket engine pointed into the direction of flight. Bill Anders would later describe how he first became aware of the moon, as the spacecraft moved into the shadowed region where neither sunlight nor reflected light from Earth was visible -- what the astronauts called the "double umbra." 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."

Black Velvet Sky
Jim Lovell remembered that after they fired their engine, "On the computer then it said words to the effect 'You are now in lunar orbit. Your orbit is 60X130 nautical miles.' We all looked out the window but we didn't see any moon. All we saw was black velvet sky. And then we rotated the spacecraft around 180 degrees and there, slowly slipping by, were the ancient old craters on the far side of the moon, just about sixty miles below.


Your own source.

In other words, they could not see stars when their eyes were not dark adapted, but when they moved into the shadow of the Moon, their eyes adapted and they saw millions of stars.
edit on 18-11-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock
Uploaded with ImageShack.us" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



Use the scroll bar on the image to look to the right.. The Parallax explanation does not explain the missing LEM

Hoax... notice the matching background.. the LEM should be seen on the bottom photo.. This means the photos were staged, whether the U.S later got to the moon is a different question.

But as you can see hoax/staged photographs.
edit on 17-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)


I am quoting your entire post for clarity because it is clear back on page 621.

I have done some digging, because you have yet to give the references asked to provide concerning these pictures. I can not be positive these are the exact photos in your illustration, but they match very well. I found them here and here

AS17-134-20513
EVA 3 - Lunar Module (LM) is in the background of this view of the Taurus-Littrow landing site

AS17-140-21493
EVA 3 - part of the station 6 pan that Gene took from a position upslope of Tracy's Rock

AS17-145-22165
EVA 2 - from Gene's Station 5 pan shows Jack running back to the Rover, carrying the scoop in his left hand. Bear Mountain is above right-center and the East Massif dominates the left horizon.

The fourth picture I have yet to find.

* quotes are taken from picture captions

Map of Apollo 17's traverses.

All these pictures were taken from different points on the map facing the East Massif. The LM has not moved. The Massifs have not moved. Only the camera has moved. Due to this movement and the parallax effect involved, the LM is outside of the view of the pictures except in AS17-134-20513. The effect of the parallax is that the East Massif appears to remain in the same position while the LM seems to move around. If you will notice, the fore ground is different in each of the pictures.

But you fail (I believe on purpose) to include references or details for your argument/evidence renders your posts to nothing but that, a post without argument. In other words, it does not hold any value. One can only conclude the reason you do not use the proper T&C conditions and provide your sources, is because you know what you are presenting is false and can not back up what you are trying to present.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 


Excellent detective work, Gibber. So long as we are taking this "evidence" seriously, the fact that the post got a star means that at least one reader here requires an education about parallax. Since mockrock seems to be an expert, perhaps he can explain 1) why the "Dead End" sign disappears and 2) why the tree moves from one side of the white building to the other:







I can't wait to see his reply.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Gibborium
 


Excellent detective work, Gibber. So long as we are taking this "evidence" seriously, the fact that the post got a star means that at least one reader here requires an education about parallax. Since mockrock seems to be an expert, perhaps he can explain 1) why the "Dead End" sign disappears and 2) why the tree moves from one side of the white building to the other:







I can't wait to see his reply.





Great example, notice how the building close to the horizon stays in the same place, so the area just in front of the 'mountains' where the lunar lander is indeed in this zone of minimum parallax effect.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Well illustrated, the building in the centre stays in the field of view in both photos proving my point.. The wider field of view shot labelled A) should therefore show the LEM



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock

proving my point..



Is there any way I can give negative stars?
edit on 18-11-2011 by JohnnySasaki because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki
Is there any way I can give negative stars?



Don't feel bad if you can't understand the information.. no need to give yourself a negative star though, work on that self-esteem



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Notice how I quoted an astronaut about "WE SAW MILLIONS OF STARS" and all the part-time camera club members come out of the woodwork??


Here is the real deal about the lack of identifying star photos in NASA's hoaxed Apollo scam, read it.

Read it and weep NASA cheerleaders!

"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."



If one thing is for certain it is the fact that NASA are experts at photography - more expert than any pedestrian camera buff in this thread. The only plausible explanation for the missing stars is that stars did not exist in space when NASA went to the moon between 1969-1972.


Sayonara YOU can read I take it

They say "WE SAW MILLIONS OF STARS" the important word is saw THEY didn't say WE photographed millions of stars!

Just because the education system you went through wasn't up to scratch or you didn't pay attention thats not our problem.

If you dont know how photography works we can help its fairly easy to undestand but obviously not for everyone
eh Sayonara


Bought my fist SLR in 1979 manual focus,manual exposure the proper way to learn,so 32 years as a hobby probably longer than you have been alive! Others on here do it for a living so we can all have a good
at you and most other hoax believers on here that cant get there heads round how it works, it must seem like magic to you lot



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


You are such a loser. I expected something like this:



You fail even as a troll.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


Pathetic. Go away.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008Bought my fist SLR in 1979 manual focus,manual exposure the proper way to learn,so 32 years as a hobby probably longer than you have been alive! Others on here do it for a living so we can all have a good
at you and most other hoax believers on here that cant get there heads round how it works, it must seem like magic to you lot


Photographing star fields from space, or a double-umbra on the far-side of the moon, during any Apollo mission shouldn't be difficult, how many trips did they make? How many orbits? Does the CMP see the doubler-umbra and star fields on every orbit? Of course he does!

When an astronaut says that the moon looks like plaster of paris NASA gives us pictures of the moon that look exactly like plaster of paris.

If an astronaut says that the lunar landscape looked like "magnificent desolation" NASA gives images of gray crater fields, rocks, boulders and gray mountains ranges and such.

When the astronauts make remarks about the difficulty in judging distances on the surface of the moon, this is exactly the kind of pictures we get from NASA....... we see images which confuse our sense of perspective.

This plan works out great until the astronaut reveals how many stars he was looking at with the naked eye, when William Anders says "Suddenly, we saw millions of stars, more than you could see in a planetarium, to the point where it confused the constellations." the average pedestrian is going to want to see those images. Who wouldn't want to see an Apollo image with millions and millions of star fields! Duh


We know that access to the Apollo photography was strictly controlled, that only one man can claim to have been the first to look at every Gemini and Apollo picture before any other human had laid eyes on it. That man is Richard Underwood.


DJW001 has already agreed that Richard Underwood is the name that is blacked out in this de-classified Top Secret document courtesy of the Military-Industrial complex.



We know that Farouk El-Baz (also a photo expert, btw) says this about Richard Underwood,

Dick [Richard W.] Underwood was the photo man at NASA. He was from the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] but joined NASA.


Of course, Richard Underwood and Farouk El-Baz, had they wanted to take star pictures they would have added another camera, film lenses and training to the Apollo program. NASA took great care in planning for all aspects of the Apollo photography. But NASA made the decision to use only the photographic equipment which makes it virtually impossible for an astronaut to take a single "accidental" picture of a partial star field.

Apollogists will never understand this because they are so invested in the mythology of a civilian space program riding on the back of ex-Nazi rocket technology and of heroic astronauts flying through space and flag waving "peace talk", good-feeling American patriotism, beating the Commies to the moon and reading Old Testament Bible verses on TV during Christmas Eve.




top topics



 
377
<< 662  663  664    666  667  668 >>

log in

join