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: 92
377
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


You are WRONG at every turn....I'd be getting embarrassed, by now, if I were you...


NOTE the dates....ALL of the Astronauts had PLENTY of experience with these cameras, and LOTS of practice. For many, many years before 1969. Sheesh!
-----
Well Collins did think so. He was an astronaut wasnt he?


Anytime Foos post a long cut-and-paste and then tries to hide where its from, (or perhaps it's whomever is telling him what to say), you can bet there's more that he's avoiding.

Here's a link to the post-mission debrief. Essentailly a long bitch fest where the astronauts complain about everything they can think of.

Apollo 11 Technical Crew Defreif

Apollo 11 only had their cameras for a month, and they felt that wasn't long enough. Thus later missions such as the J-missions, had their cameras for much longer.

One of the things you will notice they do NOT complain about is having enough time to take the amount of pictures they took.

Looks like another Foos post shot down.




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Obviously he thought they could have used a more practical device.

Sorry but your argument just got busted... by an apollo astronaut



Or more time to practice with the Hassies, as you suggest in this post.

This is a case (and there are more than a few others) where hoax proponents need to step back and take a more general view of the Apollo missions. Hell, it's a syndrome that goes back to Gemini.

On the one hand, everyone from the life sciences people, to the geologists, to the PAO were trying to cram as much as possible into each space mission: more and more varied video/still records; more experiments, both in space and later on the lunar surface; more observations, measurements, and documentation in real-time by the astronauts; etc. The intent was to gather as much information as possible from these expensive missions, which meant filling up the mission timelines with as much work as possible.

On the other hand, you had test pilots (mostly) who perceived that the more items there were in the checklists, the more likely something would get preempted, overlooked, or screwed up. These weren't B students. If they were, they wouldn't have been selected for the missions. They all wanted to fly 'the perfect mission', which meant having everything in order in the mission plans: no surprises, no last minute additions, no 'take this up and try this out' nonsense.

Mike Collins' suggestion here is to either give the astronauts time and training to be better photographers, or to provide them with a camera that was simpler to use. I don't see how he's 'busted' any argument, except by maybe busting some balls amongst the mission planners.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by torch2k

Originally posted by FoosMIf NASA's official answer to the blue halo is it being due to a dust smudge, I think its a not a sufficient answer. And I posted 4 reasons why, two of which I think make complete sense.


Have been busy the last few days, but wanted to address this, as I was the one who called you on Demeo's 'theory'. And I can't seem to find your four reasons without re-reading the thread (I'm sure you can understand why that's not gonna happen), so would appreciate you restating them, especially these two you feel are so compelling.

First, the blue haze appears not only on 6818 and 6826, but on all photos from 6813 to 6853, when the astronauts returned to the LM. Clearly you and the very estimable Doctor discount the possibility that Conrad and Bean took a swipe at the lens between EVAs.

Second, the haze is not centered on the astronauts or equipments, but on bright objects in the frame. Especially near the center of the frame. 6820 is a great example of this. The glow doesn't surround Bean, as one might expect from an electro-static effect, but does show up around the brighter portions of his suit where the sun is shining most strongly, suggesting an optical effect.

Third, the blue halo doesn't show up anywhere else in the Apollo photos. Could this be because all missions from Apollo 13 onward carried brushes to clean the camera lenses more frequently?

NASA says it's an optical phenomenon. If you intend to say that it's not, then tell me what it is, why it only shows up on a partial film magazine, and doesn't manifest itself in any other surface photography. And yes, I've read Demeo's article; his arguments are weak and specious at best.

I also love the fact that OrgoneLabs will sell you copies of 6818 and 6826 for a mere $50. There's a statement that not only are these photos 'nearly impossible to find elsewhere' but that 6826 has 'never-before been made available to the public.'

Really! I could print these myself for $3 apiece simply by downloading the hi-res versions from the ALSJ. Seems to be a lack of not only reason, but integrity, over there.


Lets not make this about what Orgonelabs is or what they are peddling. We should only focus on their arguments vs NASA's.

Second, in reviewing your email, you state "NASA says it's an optical phenomenon."
can you link to where NASA says this, and are they saying a dust smudge is/or can cause a optical phenomenon?
I mean to use the word phenomenon is a bit unusual.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Ok Moon landing believers, explain this video, by just listening to the voices

1#First video i am going to post
www.youtube.com...



At 2:19 Houston says, "Well planned Pete", then you hear everyone at Houston burst out sarcastically laughing.





After climbing down the LM ladder, the Astronaut says at 1:23 "Boy that Suns bright, thats just like somebody shining a spotlight in your head" At 1:59 the Astronaut says overjoyed and laughing,



#2
or explain this video then
www.youtube.com...

My goodness NASA laughing rather then been cheerful?


laughing comes if your faking out something, or gossiping about it.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]


So you say. If Agent is still around, or if anyone else would like to take up his cause, I'd like an answer to:

1. Do we know WHY there's laughter in the background?

2. Is there another, non-conspiratorial explanation for the laughter?

HINT: It's about context, community, and culture. And it's about solid evidence that the moon landings really DID happen! Step back and think about it, hoax proponents.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by torch2k

Originally posted by FoosM

Obviously he thought they could have used a more practical device.

Sorry but your argument just got busted... by an apollo astronaut



.

Mike Collins' suggestion here is to either give the astronauts time and training to be better photographers, or to provide them with a camera that was simpler to use. I don't see how he's 'busted' any argument, except by maybe busting some balls amongst the mission planners.


Weedwhacker... as I recall, stated ALL ASTRONAUTS had the camera for months and were basically fine or proficient with them. I just showed him that not ALL astronauts were happy with those cameras and the time they had with them.

Im not disputing some astronauts had the cameras for months, but it wasnt all of them.
Regardless, its Armstrong's series of photos that are so remarkable for someone who, according to Collins, didnt have use of the cameras for that long of time.

The issue is, as any photography can tell you, when you are in a new environment, you should bracket your shots. I can imagine they were taught to do this. But, Armtrong didnt bracket his shots, even though, from what I recall, NASA had the Hasselblads designed for bracketing shots.

I mean, Armstrong wasnt taking vacation photos. Those photos he was taking were going to be very valuable.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


STILL worried about Collins?? (OH, and....good attempt at pulling out the Gene Cernan reference from your 'way-back machine'!
Ain't gonna work though --- however, it DOES show that you indeed DO have a memory! SO, we can assume that you are fully aware and cognizant, but only 'playing' a game with everyone here??)


Back @ Collins....it does deserve a mention, here (and adding, the other data was presented that showed how LATER missions learned from Apollo 11 --- and not just the cameras, and hands-on time desired...) that Collins DID NOT use the Hasselblads on the Moon's surface...
SO, HIS "gripes"? Irrelevant. I'd be willing to bet his main frustration was the fact he was in microgravity, and probably that added to his desire for more practice, since he had to find a way to BRACE himself, without the benefit of gravity and the support it provides. Perhaps, also, he was irritated by the demands of the flight plan put on him, while in orbit. It would have been a learning curve...to manipulate the Hassie in 0G, and complete all tasks. Of course, not many chances of doing the 0G practice back on Earth, anyway...so.

Sounds like his "complaints" were more like observations, and suggestions.

Anyone who reads more FULLY would understand that, and be able to see it in context.

FOR...all of the Moon "hoax" nonsense relies on taking things OUT OF CONTEXT, and making them seem easy to 'ridicule'....pretty childish, really. And intellectually dishonest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Forgot to ask: I put up a few pictures, actually SHOWING Armstrong and Aldrin practicing with the Hassies...on Earth...before the mission....seems someone didn't look at them????



[edit on 4 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

The issue is, as any photography can tell you, when you are in a new environment, you should bracket your shots.


That wasn't what I was taught. Bracketing shots is useful when you are shooting a scene that is not lit in a normal way. Sunsets are a good example. The moon's surface was about as plain as you could get. Sun in the same position in the sky. The sky always the same color. etc.




I can imagine they were taught to do this. But, Armtrong didnt bracket his shots, even though, from what I recall, NASA had the Hasselblads designed for bracketing shots.


Link please?

And as it turned out, Armstrong was wrong in his debrief (link is the same as the one above):


I suspect that when we look at all out films, many of them will show that we suffered from not understanding exposure or lighting well enough over all situations. That's a weak area.


As the photos showed, the pictures were very well exposed. As a matter of fact it was probably Armstrong's proficiency that kept NASA from changing cameras to auto exposure.

You need to read your own sources Foos.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Lets not make this about what Orgonelabs is or what they are peddling. We should only focus on their arguments vs NASA's.

Second, in reviewing your email, you state "NASA says it's an optical phenomenon."
can you link to where NASA says this, and are they saying a dust smudge is/or can cause a optical phenomenon?
I mean to use the word phenomenon is a bit unusual.


Phenomenon, artifact, issue ... all my words. NASA's take on it can be found here:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

NASA says, in no uncertain terms, that it's a smudge on the lens.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd




2. How could the astronauts know what to expect in terms of lighting? Its not like they had been on the moon before.


We had unmanned landers on the surface taking pictures before Apollo. Also, it isn't hard to measure the amount of light on the moon's surface by telescope.
------
I'm speechless.



I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Why are you "speechless"? What specifically is wrong with that statement?

I'm not going to let you ignore this, I'll keep reposting it until I get an answer.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Weedwhacker... as I recall, stated ALL ASTRONAUTS had the camera for months and were basically fine or proficient with them. I just showed him that not ALL astronauts were happy with those cameras and the time they had with them.


First, link to the quote where he said that specifically. Second, who would you hand the cameras out to first? Does it not make more sense to ensure the astronauts scheduled to be on the surface would get the most familiarization?


The issue is, as any photography can tell you, when you are in a new environment, you should bracket your shots. I can imagine they were taught to do this. But, Armtrong didnt bracket his shots, even though, from what I recall, NASA had the Hasselblads designed for bracketing shots.

I mean, Armstrong wasnt taking vacation photos. Those photos he was taking were going to be very valuable.


And film was expensive, and time was at a premium, and bracketing is costly in terms of both. Quite sensibly, the photography planners studied lighting conditions on the moon and established a shooting plan that would minimize variables.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Aldrin's two-hour, 20-minute tethered space-walk, during which he photographed star fields (wait, what? Where are those photos?!)


They're pretty boring, as they were UV spectroscopic images. If you're really interested, you can check it out here:

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

The issue is, as any photography can tell you, when you are in a new environment, you should bracket your shots. I can imagine they were taught to do this. But, Armtrong didnt bracket his shots, even though, from what I recall, NASA had the Hasselblads designed for bracketing shots.

I mean, Armstrong wasnt taking vacation photos. Those photos he was taking were going to be very valuable.


Ignoring the fact that moon exposure was pretty simple you do realize that film is double exposure? You first expose the film and then expose the photo paper when it's printed. Even if there was a minor error in exposure it would've so easily corrected that it's not even worth mentioning. In fact when you expose the paper you first measure what value is the optimal and then do the exposure.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by torch2k

Originally posted by FoosM
Weedwhacker... as I recall, stated ALL ASTRONAUTS had the camera for months and were basically fine or proficient with them. I just showed him that not ALL astronauts were happy with those cameras and the time they had with them

First, link to the quote where he said that specifically.

----
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Was it really necessary ?



Second, who would you hand the cameras out to first? Does it not make more sense to ensure the astronauts scheduled to be on the surface would get the most familiarization?
----
Did you read the text, or the debrief?
Does it sound to you that they got the cameras at different intervals?
Sure it might make sense, but your speculating that it happened. Read it for yourself, did it happen?




The issue is, as any photography can tell you, when you are in a new environment, you should bracket your shots. I can imagine they were taught to do this. But, Armtrong didnt bracket his shots, even though, from what I recall, NASA had the Hasselblads designed for bracketing shots.

I mean, Armstrong wasnt taking vacation photos. Those photos he was taking were going to be very valuable.


And film was expensive, and time was at a premium, and bracketing is costly in terms of both. Quite sensibly, the photography planners studied lighting conditions on the moon and established a shooting plan that would minimize variables.
----
Again, did you read the debrief?
Do you get that type of information from their discussion?
I sure didnt. The photography section sounded like a mess.
But anyway, why are you discussing this with me, we are focused on something else.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Can you find photos: AS11-40-5850 to AS11-40-5858?
Maybe its there, I just dont see them.

Or maybe those famous footprint photos: AS11-40-5876 to AS11-40-5880
Because I cant locate them either.


"I'm speechless", as they say.

Here you go, FoosM. For *thumbnails* of AS11-40-5850 to ..58, look here:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

That lets you see the sequence. Why, if you SCROLL DOWN, you'll even find the others. Amazing stuff, "this Inter-web", hey? I'd have to note that site has been posted here at ATS MANY times.

For high resolution copies, there are many ways, but here's one of my favorites - it's a bit of a slow process, but well worth it - may I suggest you BOOKMARK and LEARN HOW TO USE this site:
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Now it takes a bit longer this way, but normally it will be the highest resolution, closest-to-original-source file (ie directly scanned from the original film, not a 'dupe'. Willing to learn?

Now, what you have to do is this:

1. Click on the Menu at the top, in this sequence - Find, Search, Mission-Roll-Frame.

2. In the screen that appears, in the empty box on the RIGHT, type in the Mission-Roll-Frame, eg AS11-40-5880. Don't touch anything else.

3. Click on Run Query at the bottom of the page.

You will presented with a screen that shows the result, so..

4. Click on the funny looking Quick View icon.

You'll see the thumbnail. Don't be too disappointed - these images are low-contrast, unadjusted. (If you need them souped up and nicely presented, just ask me nicely and I'll teach you how to do that, too...)

5. Now here's the tricky bit, just under the image you will see the innocent looking text "See all metadata, images and captions" Click on it.

6. See the bit that says Large Images to Request for Downloading ? Click on REQUEST.

7. A screen will appear telling you they are grabbing the full-res image from archive - yes, especially for you.. Do what it tells you - wait a minute or two, then just click on the link to get it.

TADA!

Now, is there anything else we can spoon feed you?

And may I suggest that next time you are outside taking pictures on a sunny day, you take note of the exposure settings that your camera uses You will note something -they don't change that much. Ever heard of "sunny 16"? Yes, they could have bracketed, but it simply wasn't that important, or a high priority. What they DID do, when they remembered, was to use the presets.


Still no comment on the radiation issue?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Oh, CHRLZ!!

Don't you know that this site: www.lpi.usra.edu...

...is completely made up??


Yup, ALL of that very extensive, detailed, completely understandable (to people with more than three brain cells to rub together) information was somehow (magic, I tells ya!!! MAGIC!) put together. So perfectly, that it [gasp!] looks EXACTLY as if all the information is actually TRUE!

Imagine that!!

How incredible are those "fakers"?

YET....fortunately, people like [gag] Bart Sibrel (and apparently his Devil Spawn "JarrahWhite") have seen through ALL of the subterfuge, and have oh-so-cleverly EXPOSED NASA!!!

HooRah! [sarc]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Attempt number 3:


Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd




2. How could the astronauts know what to expect in terms of lighting? Its not like they had been on the moon before.


We had unmanned landers on the surface taking pictures before Apollo. Also, it isn't hard to measure the amount of light on the moon's surface by telescope.
------
I'm speechless.



I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Why are you "speechless"? What specifically is wrong with that statement?

I'm not going to let you ignore this, I'll keep reposting it until I get an answer.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Did you read the text, or the debrief?
Does it sound to you that they got the cameras at different intervals?
Sure it might make sense, but your speculating that it happened. Read it for yourself, did it happen?


Again you prove you have no idea what you are talking about. The link you were hiding was to a technical debrief for Apollo 11. How in God's name would that document have anything in it about subsequent missions?

Do you EVER think before you hit "reply"?





Again, did you read the debrief?


You hid the link, how were we supposed to read it? Or were we only supposed to read the stuff you posted?


Do you get that type of information from their discussion?


No, we already know it from other sources. For some odd reason you treat the fragment of a document in front of you at that time as the only real, true information available.

Things don't work that way. Especially debriefs. They aren't meant to be accurate.


I sure didnt. The photography section sounded like a mess.


That's becasue you've obviously never participated in or even seen a tech debrief. You also know nothing about photography. Which is why that discussion confuses you so much.



But anyway, why are you discussing this with me, we are focused on something else.


We're just using this again to point out how clueless you are about almost every aspect of Apollo.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I've seen White's videos, and they are really good. The moon crater, the flag...those things are crystal clear: a HOAX.

Thats a definitive statement. No dust on the landing pad's is the most undeniable proof. The US/NASA fooled the world using the "new technology" called TV.

The movie/mix theme was a great job. Kubrick is a master. Fooled an entire generation. But not anymore.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeinthematrix
 


You haven't read the thread have you

I would, you might learn something..



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
First, a quick grammar lesson, as this sentence is SUCH a good example...

Originally posted by lifeinthematrix
Thats a definitive statement. No dust on the landing pad's is the most undeniable proof. The US/NASA fooled the world using the "new technology" called TV.


The term "thats"' as used here is clearly meant to be a contraction of THAT IS, as in "THAT IS A DEFINITIVE STATEMENT". An apostrophe IS required. It should read "THAT'S a definitive...".

Immediately after that, 'life' says "..on the landing pad's". "pads" is obviously a plural form of the noun. NO apostrophe should be used, it should be "landing pads".

Thanks for your cooperation in future, to help lift the hideous standard of literacy these days.. [/rant]


Now, back to the topic. I see 'life' has bravely expressed his favorite evidence - the fact that there is 'no' (truth is, there is some, but not very much..) dust on the landing pads.

Tell me, 'life', how exactly does the dust get ONTO those curved up landing pads? That may sound like a ridiculous question, but only if you are not a 'thinker' - I have a very non-ridiculous reason for asking. Please explain the process in your own words - and be careful with those words...

And yes, I'll happily admit - it's a TRAP (in fact, TWO traps in one). Let's see just how much 'life' knows his topic... I think those who know Apollo will know why I ask, but please let 'life' do his own talking on this one.

Or perhaps another denier would like to help out?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join