Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 49
105
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA 81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981-82 ANSMET collection season, on January18, 1982.


First one found 1982 LAST Apollo mission 1972


Irrelevant. The point is that the existence of lunar rocks on the earth is not in any way dependent upon a manned lunar mission. It doesn't in any way prove the opposite, but it is a faulty supportive argument.


YOU used the link to back your claim, it back fired so now YOU have to back pedal the IRONY is lost on you!!!




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA 81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981-82 ANSMET collection season, on January18, 1982.


First one found 1982 LAST Apollo mission 1972


Irrelevant. The point is that the existence of lunar rocks on the earth is not in any way dependent upon a manned lunar mission. It doesn't in any way prove the opposite, but it is a faulty supportive argument.


YOU used the link to back your claim, it back fired so now YOU have to back pedal the IRONY is lost on you!!!


If you say so. You say that I'm backpedaling, but from my point of view you are assuming and I choose not to do so.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Except that the engine was running at minimum thrust when they landed. They were throttling down the entire time they were descending once they got close. The LEM had from 1,050 lbs of thrust, to 10,125 lbs of thrust. The LEM was at 5 ft/s at landing. As they got closer to the surface they had to throttle down, or they would have bounced back into the air, which didn't happen. They were at the highest thrust during the initial descent to slow them down, and at the lowest thrust at touch down. So there wouldn't have been any kind of crater, because there wasn't enough thrust to create one.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



So your suggesting that all NASA Apollo photos have the stars airbrushed out? I have heard tales to this effect to but you have to ask yourself, why would they do this? The tale states that they did this to prevent any "confusion" for anyone looking at the photos...To any hoax believer, that would seem like a very suspicious practice!


I can't believe you fell into the "no stars" trap! Since you clearly have absolutely no idea how photographs are produced, allow me to explain: magazines and newspapers like for the images they publish to have appealing compositions. Therefore, NASA prepares images especially for media use that have been processed to provide the sort of aesthetic value that the media crave. In the famous image of Aldrin, this involved rotating, re-centering, cropping and adding a section of black sky to cover the crop. This process is described in detail elsewhere by the NASA PR people who did it. The original image is also available in the strictly documentary archives.


Was it to hide any recognisable Star Constellations in the Lunar sky that under scientific scrutiny might betray the photo's as a hoax?


No, because stars would be to faint to be recorded by a camera set for daytime exposures.


A far more likely scenario is simply that there are no star constellations visible in the Lunar sky because it wasn't actually shot on the Moon!


Actually, star patterns were recorded from orbit and from the surface of the Moon using a UV telescope, so, no.


It would be extremely difficult to fake moving star patterns on a fixed studio backdrop, so they invented the story that they airbrushed them out as a convenient lie.


No-one invented a story that they airbrushed them out. They were never there in the first place, as you would know if you knew anything about photography.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Your cant even remember what you type


Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
3) One of the LM's landing pads is visible at the bottom right corner of frame. Despite the fact the LM's rocket plume, which have have continued firing until 5 seconds after touchdown,


5 seconds after touchdown CONTACT means the probe is on a solid surface TOUCHDOWN is when the pads make contact


Lets look at the rest of your BS


Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

So your suggesting that all NASA Apollo photos have the stars airbrushed out? I have heard tales to this effect to but you have to ask yourself, why would they do this? The tale states that they did this to prevent any "confusion" for anyone looking at the photos...To any hoax believer, that would seem like a very suspicious practice!
Was it to hide any recognisable Star Constellations in the Lunar sky that under scientific scrutiny might betray the photo's as a hoax?
A far more likely scenario is simply that there are no star constellations visible in the Lunar sky because it wasn't actually shot on the Moon!
It would be extremely difficult to fake moving star patterns on a fixed studio backdrop, so they invented the story that they airbrushed them out as a convenient lie.



I wasn't suggesting stars are air brushed out so lets see that again proves your not a photographer, the picture was taken for correct exposure of the Astronauts and the landscape STARS will not show a real photographer knows that ANOTHER FAIL on your part


YOUR picture you linked too had extra sky airbrushed in because the Astronauts helmet was close to the edge of the frame on the ORIGINAL picture CALL yourself a professional photographer that's ANOTHER FAIL on your part


I suggest you find out how long it takes for the Moon to rotate on its own axis the STARS don't move at the same speed as seen from Earth ANOTHER FAIL on your part


You really are starting to make yourself look really dumb!!



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
]

Actually all it proves is that YOU don't have a clue what your talking about!

Watch this video of the Apollo 15 landing and use a stopwatch to count from when he says "contact" to when he says "engine shutdown"...Even without a stopwatch I can still count about 5 seconds!


www.youtube.com...
edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)


So you're entire point is based on the assumption that he's dictating his actions at the exact second he's doing them? Do you think he may be preoccupied with something a little more pressing, like landing on the moon? But if we want to use your logic along with your evidence, you'll notice that there's about 9-10 seconds between when he announces "engine shutdown" and when he announces that "challenger has landed" So by your own evidence that you were so kindly to present, there was AT LEAST 8 seconds between engine shut down and lander touchdown. Thank you for saving us the trouble and proving yourself wrong


jra

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
In regards to the petrified wood.

The petrified wood was a personal gift given to the former Netherlands PM from the US Ambassador J. William Middendorf during the time when the Apollo 11 astronauts were visiting. The Apollo 11 astronauts did not give the gift to the PM.

Real lunar gift rocks are very small. They range from .05g to 1.1g and are in cased in a clear acrylic. The petrified wood was 98g and not in cased in anything. Apollo gift rocks were given out after all the missions were done in 1972. This visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts was in 1969. And like I said above, it was a personal gift from the Ambassador to the PM. There is no way anyone in the world anyone would get a 98g Lunar rock all to themselves. Middendorf wasn't trying to pass it off as a Lunar rock either. I'm not sure where the misunderstanding started. Either by the former PM, who was 83 years old in 1969 and was supposedly starting to go hard of hearing and sight (according to a relative in one article). Or misunderstanding by the museum that took some of his possessions after he died.

So in summery:

-NASA didn't give out gift rocks until the early 70's, this visit happened in '69.
-The gift rocks were small ( 0.05g - 1.1g) and and in cased in a clear acrylic.
-The petrified wood was a personal gift from the Ambassador to the former PM, it was 98g and not in cased in anything.

It was really just an unfortunate misunderstanding, and now HB's latch on to it desperately as some evidence that Apollo was a hoax. Even though all the real Apollo gift rocks check out to be authentic.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 


I think the problem with the article is that the provenance of that piece of petrified wood is totally anecdotal, he gave it to him, who told him about who told him and so on and so forth with a Dutch art museum being the last one to hear the story and then they relayed it to the BBC who reported it as such. The easiest way to either confirm or deny this would be historical research. In October 1969 Collins, Aldrin and Armstrong were bigger than the Beatles, people only cared about two things Vietnam and Apollo. If in 1969 the crew of Apollo would have presented a moon rock to the prime minister of the Netherlands it would have been front page national news without a doubt. Yet from my personal research I can't find any news articles or photos from the time showing such an event having happened. Unless someone can find something otherwise, I feel pretty safe in concluding that the article you mentioned is simply the last person in a 40 or so year game of telephone that got some details mixed up.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



So your suggesting that all NASA Apollo photos have the stars airbrushed out? I have heard tales to this effect to but you have to ask yourself, why would they do this? The tale states that they did this to prevent any "confusion" for anyone looking at the photos...To any hoax believer, that would seem like a very suspicious practice!
I can't believe you fell into the "no stars" trap!


What trap? I have explained why there seems to be no stars, and no its nothing do with exposure differences because the odd star is usually visible even in photos and videos where the Astronauts are over exposed.


Since you clearly have absolutely no idea how photographs are produced, allow me to explain


Actually I am a professional photographer, so you were saying?



magazines and newspapers like for the images they publish to have appealing compositions. Therefore, NASA prepares images especially for media use that have been processed to provide the sort of aesthetic value that the media crave. In the famous image of Aldrin, this involved rotating, re-centering, cropping and adding a section of black sky to cover the crop. This process is described in detail elsewhere by the NASA PR people who did it. The original image is also available in the strictly documentary archives.


And what has this got to do with the evidence I posted earlier which makes no mention of stars?


Was it to hide any recognisable Star Constellations in the Lunar sky that under scientific scrutiny might betray the photo's as a hoax?



No, because stars would be to faint to be recorded by a camera set for daytime exposures.


Then why is there nearly always at least 1 star visible in the pics and videos even when the Astronauts are over exposed? It blows your myth out the water!


A far more likely scenario is simply that there are no star constellations visible in the Lunar sky because it wasn't actually shot on the Moon!



Actually, star patterns were recorded from orbit and from the surface of the Moon using a UV telescope, so, no.


We were not talking about stars being visible in Lunar orbit, we were talking about them not being visible on the Lunar surface.


It would be extremely difficult to fake moving star patterns on a fixed studio backdrop, so they invented the story that they airbrushed them out as a convenient lie.



No-one invented a story that they airbrushed them out. They were never there in the first place, as you would know if you knew anything about photography.


Of course they were never there in the first place, because they weren't taken on the Moon!
edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 

Someone else here who can't believe you fell for the "no visible stars" one as apparrant proof the whole thing was hoaxed.In fact I'm sure this was the very first bit of "evidence" of fakery when this whole ridiculous charade first started.
They used various Kodak Ektachrome films between 64 and 160 ASA,the number part tells us it's sensitivity to light.64 ASA film is the "slowest" film that was normally available,meaning it was the least sensitive to light(This also means the smallest grain structure and so best image quality).They used slow film because of the very high light levels on the moon,much higher than we ever get on earth as the moon doesn't have a water logged atmosphere to reduce the amount of visible light energy reaching it.
At a guess any photo taken on the surface of the moon would probably have needed an exposure as short as 8000th of a second or faster for a properly exposed image.To record anything at all from the much fainter stars I'd guess at about 10 seconds or longer.If you expose for the ground the stars will be invisible,If you expose for the stars,the ground will be washed out and just a white blur.
Even todays best digital imaging sensors don't have anywhere near the dynamic range needed to be able to "see" both at the same time.

Oh and finally don't forget to play your trump card of the Van Allen radiation belts causing the films to fog and so rendering any images recorded onto them useless.We'd be VERY disappointed if you didn't!



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Except that the engine was running at minimum thrust when they landed. They were throttling down the entire time they were descending once they got close. The LEM had from 1,050 lbs of thrust, to 10,125 lbs of thrust. The LEM was at 5 ft/s at landing. As they got closer to the surface they had to throttle down, or they would have bounced back into the air, which didn't happen. They were at the highest thrust during the initial descent to slow them down, and at the lowest thrust at touch down. So there wouldn't have been any kind of crater, because there wasn't enough thrust to create one.


1,050 lbs of thrust at minimum throttle is hardly nothing! Thats about 478 kg of thrust (roughly 1900hp).
5 seconds burn at that thrust on the Lunar surface would have left evidence.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


I'm afraid that you are showing your lack of understanding about exposure times and astrophotography.

Here's some pictures I took:

constellation of Orion, Cannon AE1, 50mm lens, 800 ISO at 15 seconds of exposure time:


constellation of Taurus, Cannon AE1, 50mm lens, 800 ISO at 15 seconds of exposure time. Half moon out, with street lamp lighting the trees (except they looked black to my eyes):


The moon with my digital camera zoomed in. Exposure time: 1/120 of a second....and it was over exposed as you can see:


There are no pictures in most of the lunar landing pictures because of the fact that exposure times were much too fast to capture any stars. The ground on the moon was bright enough for taking pictures with a shutter speed like here on earth during the day. My shot of the moon above was at 120th's of a second, and it still came out over exposed.
My star shots take up to 15 seconds of exposure to see them decently. Snap a picture at only a fraction of a second and you will get nothing,

There is a photo floating around here on ATS that someone posted that is an over exposed photo from the moon's surface, and in it, you can clearly see the Orion constellation, while everything else is very washed out from over exposure. Can't remember who it was that had it so I'll have to go search. for it.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


It's nothing if you are landing on rock covered in dust. It's not going to blast a crater out of the rock. It's going to blow the dust around, like it did, but it's not going to leave any kind of noticeable crater.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



1,050 lbs of thrust at minimum throttle is hardly nothing! Thats about 478 kg of thrust (roughly 1900hp).
5 seconds burn at that thrust on the Lunar surface would have left evidence.


Setting aside the fact that thrust is measured in Newtons, you then need to divide that by the area of the exhaust cross section to estimate the actual force on any given surface area. In any event, the rocket did displace the regolith laterally. You can clearly see the striations, even on the photograph you posted yourself.


jra

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


You (and everyone else who's interested) should take a read through this page: www.braeunig.us...


Despite overwhelming evidence that American astronauts landed on the Moon during the period 1969-1972, there are many conspiracy theorists that dispute this. One of their arguments point to the fact there is no evidence of a pronounced crater beneath the engine nozzle of the lunar module (LM). They insist a crater should have been formed by the erosive action of the engine's exhaust stream. The typical response to this is that the exhaust stream was not strong enough or concentrated enough to excavate a crater, but can this be proven scientifically? This is the purpose of this web page. We will show that the transfer of kinetic energy from the engine exhaust to the lunar soil was insufficient to produce an obvious crater.


It's a good read and very informative.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Except that the engine was running at minimum thrust when they landed. They were throttling down the entire time they were descending once they got close. The LEM had from 1,050 lbs of thrust, to 10,125 lbs of thrust. The LEM was at 5 ft/s at landing. As they got closer to the surface they had to throttle down, or they would have bounced back into the air, which didn't happen. They were at the highest thrust during the initial descent to slow them down, and at the lowest thrust at touch down. So there wouldn't have been any kind of crater, because there wasn't enough thrust to create one.


1,050 lbs of thrust at minimum throttle is hardly nothing! Thats about 478 kg of thrust (roughly 1900hp).
5 seconds burn at that thrust on the Lunar surface would have left evidence.


Take a look at this image here:



And now take a look at in full resolution of 3900 x 3900. You'll see the blast marks from the engine:

AS11-m-5921

And if you still do not believe the physics, you can prove us wrong by video taping an experiment using compresed air as your rocket thruster and a surface using materials that are compatible with the moons surface (rock and dust).



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagewerx
reply to post by BrandonD
 

Someone else here who can't believe you fell for the "no visible stars" one as apparrant proof the whole thing was hoaxed.In fact I'm sure this was the very first bit of "evidence" of fakery when this whole ridiculous charade first started.
They used various Kodak Ektachrome films between 64 and 160 ASA,the number part tells us it's sensitivity to light.64 ASA film is the "slowest" film that was normally available,meaning it was the least sensitive to light(This also means the smallest grain structure and so best image quality).They used slow film because of the very high light levels on the moon,much higher than we ever get on earth as the moon doesn't have a water logged atmosphere to reduce the amount of visible light energy reaching it.


The light level on the Moon must take into account the albedo of the soil...The average albedo of the Earth is between 30-35% but the average albedo of the Moon is only 8%. Because there is no Atmosphere on the Moon light scattering cannot take place, only reflection. Given that the only light source is supposed to be the Sun and that only 8% of the Sunlight that reaches the Lunar surface gets reflected there isn't enough reflected light to account for the lack of silhouettes where the Astronauts are backlit.


At a guess any photo taken on the surface of the moon would probably have needed an exposure as short as 8000th of a second or faster for a properly exposed image.

As that is a guess we can dismiss it as evidence.


To record anything at all from the much fainter stars I'd guess at about 10 seconds or longer.If you expose for the ground the stars will be invisible,If you expose for the stars,the ground will be washed out and just a white blur.


You already said that light levels on the moon are much higher than we ever get on earth as the moon doesn't have a water logged atmosphere to reduce the amount of visible light energy reaching it...That means the stars would appear much brighter in the Lunar sky that they do here on Earth.

[quote}Even todays best digital imaging sensors don't have anywhere near the dynamic range needed to be able to "see" both at the same time.


DR is touchy subject on photography forums...Everyone likes to think their camera has more DR than yours. Of course the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.


Oh and finally don't forget to play your trump card of the Van Allen radiation belts causing the films to fog and so rendering any images recorded onto them useless.We'd be VERY disappointed if you didn't!


Well since you mention it...



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Except that the engine was running at minimum thrust when they landed. They were throttling down the entire time they were descending once they got close. The LEM had from 1,050 lbs of thrust, to 10,125 lbs of thrust. The LEM was at 5 ft/s at landing. As they got closer to the surface they had to throttle down, or they would have bounced back into the air, which didn't happen. They were at the highest thrust during the initial descent to slow them down, and at the lowest thrust at touch down. So there wouldn't have been any kind of crater, because there wasn't enough thrust to create one.


1,050 lbs of thrust at minimum throttle is hardly nothing! Thats about 478 kg of thrust (roughly 1900hp).
5 seconds burn at that thrust on the Lunar surface would have left evidence.



Take a look at this image here:



And now take a look at in full resolution of 3900 x 3900. You'll see the blast marks from the engine:

AS11-m-5921

And if you still do not believe the physics, you can prove us wrong by video taping an experiment using compresed air as your rocket thruster and a surface using materials that are compatible with the moons surface (rock and dust).


Nice try, but unfortunately you didn't check it close enough...We would expect to see a completely symetrical pattern of dust disturbance around the bell nozzle, but the fine linear patterning in the dust running in a SW to NE direction continues on into the left of frame, instead of turning away from the nozzle.
edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


"Only 8% of the sun's light reaches the moon." ????

Where did you go to school at? I'd like to know so I can forbid any of my kids to go there........

100% of the sun's light reaches the moon, except when the sun is eclipsed by the Earth during a lunar eclipse.

Please take some time to get familiarize your self with Albedo.

Albedo is normally measured from 0.0 to 1.0. The moon's surface average (note that word please "average") albedo is 0.12:


The overall albedo of the Moon is around 0.12, but it is strongly directional and non-Lambertian, displaying also a strong opposition effect.[18] While such reflectance properties are different from those of any terrestrial terrains, they are typical of the regolith surfaces of airless solar system bodies.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


You will never get a perfect pattern if you apply that thrust to a geological topography.

The surface of the moon is not a flat sheet of glass with fine dust laying on it.

Nice try yourself.

Why don't you take some physics? Better yet, again, you say it fake: DO the experiments yourself and prove it instead of armchairing it in front of your computer.

Don't worry, we'll still be here, you can video tape it and post it for all of us to see.





new topics




 
105
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join