Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM

....and are preparing a response to spin the evidence....

There is only one person posting on this board who's doing any "spinning"....it's obvious to all who can read.


This is yet another feeble attmept at distraction and diversion, and irrelevant claims that are insubstantial to the purported "argument".

While we're on the topic of discussing photos ... why did they only take 2 .. yes 2 photos of an astronaut beside the flag on the very 1st moon landing.

The very first time ever we stepped foot on the moon (allegedly) and they only take 2 photos beside the flag ?

How did they know they'd turn out ok without a viewfinder, or that the exposure would be correct, or that some technical problem wouldn't have ruined them.

Everyone knows you take many, many more shots than you need when you've spent a whole lot of money to set it up, to ensure you get at least one that's right.

With all the time and effort to set the flag up, only 2 photos ?

And here are those 2 photos.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c403ca118960.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7039cdc7f7a.jpg[/atsimg]

Surely you would take a whole big bunch of them. Wouldn't you?

According to previous posters ... it SHOULD have been really easy.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
notice that many of the shots were REPETITIVE, rapid-fire panoramas

Originally posted by zvezdar
The number of photos taken seems perfectly reasonable: i've rattled off hundreds of photos in an hour plenty of times.

Originally posted by torch2k
A few steps. Bang bang bang on the shutter. A few steps more. Bang bang bang again. it's easy to bang off 20 photos per minute with an auto-winder?

Originally posted by Tomblvd
They shot a lot of panoramas, which are 8-10 shots in only a few seconds. If you spent any time with a camera, you'd know it isn't very hard.

These comments relate to a previous post way, way back where I referenced a time and motion study that showed how hard it would have been to have taken all those photos, whilst conducting other activities.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


So out of 1408 images why only 2 photos of an astronaut beside the flag on man's very first landing on the moon ?

Wouldn't you take at least 10 ... seeing as it was so easy. Very puzzling.

edit: please look for yourself ... from the source
www.lpi.usra.edu...

[edit on 8-9-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55

Wouldn't you take at least 10 ... seeing as it was so easy. Very puzzling.

No, what is very puzzling is this obsession of yours....just scouting about, repeatedly, to come up with ANY notion, no matter how arcane....in order to foment this ridiculous idea of it all being "faked".

Reminds one very much of the Creationists' attempts to cherry-pick any and all things, no matter how completely unrelated, in order to keep their fingers in there ears regarding the facts of evolution.

Would eleven photos be enough?

And, did you forget about the Apollo DAC?







Really, photos of the flag???

Who really cares, when they had ALL THE OTHERS!!?


Finally, the plaque mounted on the LM's landing strut? Remember??

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c423d51354ed.jpg[/atsimg]



LINK to a picture of a replica for sale here on Earth:

This Apollo 11 Plaque is a 8" x 6" replica plaque of the one that was left on the Moon by the Apollo 11 crew.

It reads:

HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON JULY 1969, A.D. WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND

(Note the bolded and underlined sentence.....)

Yes...in peace, even for YOU!


[edit on 8 September 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by ppk55

While we're on the topic of discussing photos ... why did they only take 2 .. yes 2 photos of an astronaut beside the flag on the very 1st moon landing.

The very first time ever we stepped foot on the moon (allegedly) and they only take 2 photos beside the flag ?

How did they know they'd turn out ok without a viewfinder, or that the exposure would be correct, or that some technical problem wouldn't have ruined them.

Everyone knows you take many, many more shots than you need when you've spent a whole lot of money to set it up, to ensure you get at least one that's right.

Why do Moon Hoaxers seem to think that the astronauts had nothing better to do than pose for pictures? The two photographs were taken in rapid succession, probably with a quick exposure adjustment to assure that at least one would look good. In photography, it's called "bracketing." Here's the contents of the only complete color magazine taken on the lunar surface by Apollo 11:
Magazine 40

Most of the photographs are pretty boring because they were more interested in documenting the condition of the craft, the qualities of the regolith and the mechanics of lunar locomotion. Most of their time was scheduled for tasks like ALSEP deployment. In addition to the mandatory "astronaut and flag" photo, there is also a shot of the Earth beaming down on the LM. This was also bracketed, suggesting they believed it would make a good PR shot and they wanted to make sure it turned out. You hardly ever see this shot reproduced because it turned out to be boring. The Earth just isn't as big and impressive in real life as it is in the movies, I guess. Oh? And what's that at the end? A mysterious orange light? Why would the last frame have a mysterious orange light?

Originally posted by ppk55
How did they know they'd turn out ok without a viewfinder, or that the exposure would be correct, or that some technical problem wouldn't have ruined them.

Practice, practice, and more practice.

If you follow those three simple steps, you too will be able to become competent at taking photos without a viewfinder (it's really not that hard), and be able to manually adjust the exposure settings (plus with this simple guide, it makes it really easy)

Everyone knows you take many, many more shots than you need when you've spent a whole lot of money to set it up, to ensure you get at least one that's right.

Sure, when you're on Earth and have access to virtually unlimited amount of film. On the Moon, there is a slight lack of convenience stores to go too and they only had so much film with them. Just how many shots should one waste taking photos of one another standing next to a flag?

The two photos turned out fine, it wouldn't have been that difficult of a shot. Plus there were plenty of chances in the missions to follow, to get a good shot of an astronaut next to a flag.

HOW in the world did I miss this thread?

Excellent videos, I'm digging my teeth in now.

Wonder if he addresses the van allen radiation belt.

Originally posted by ppk55
While we're on the topic of discussing photos ... why did they only take 2 .. yes 2 photos of an astronaut beside the flag on the very 1st moon landing.

The very first time ever we stepped foot on the moon (allegedly) and they only take 2 photos beside the flag ?

How did they know they'd turn out ok without a viewfinder, or that the exposure would be correct, or that some technical problem wouldn't have ruined them.

.....................

With all the time and effort to set the flag up, only 2 photos ?

Leaving aside all the assorted argument from incredulity, how, exactly, does this prove a hoax in any way, shape, manner or form?

Everyone knows you take many, many more shots than you need when you've spent a whole lot of money to set it up, to ensure you get at least one that's right.

Uh, no, not "everyone". Just you. When you have limited time and film, you take as many different pictures as you can. Concentrating on the pictures that were specified on the mission plan. (which that picture wasn't)



[edit on 8-9-2010 by Tomblvd]

Originally posted by kinglizard
HOW in the world did I miss this thread?

Excellent videos, I'm digging my teeth in now.

Wonder if he addresses the van allen radiation belt.

He does, but not very well.

He has a very hard time understanding the intricacies of radiation.

How about the laser ranging reflector? ...or faking radio broadcasts back to earth?

Guess I need to do some digging on my own rather than ask stupid questions I can find the answer to myself.

Originally posted by kinglizard
How about the laser ranging reflector? ...or faking radio broadcasts back to earth?

Guess I need to do some digging on my own rather than ask stupid questions I can find the answer to myself.

Yep and yep.

The videos that are being dumped on this thread (requiring the invention of a new form of logical fallacy, argumentum ad youtubum) were made by an Aussie called Jarrah White. He has made over 400 videos concerning the Moon Hoax (IIRC), so it is safe to say he covered just about every hoax theory imagined. He draws heavily from Ralph Rene and Bill Kaysing.

reply to post by kinglizard


As you review the thread (grab a tub of popcorn, take off your shoes, and sit a spell....) you'll find plenty of other videos, and links, that completely, absolutely and WITHOUT question trash, destroy, invalidate (insert synonym of choice) any of the silly, inane (more synonyms) dreck, garbage (ibid) that is "presented" by 'Jarrah White'.


As pointed out, there is "Nothing new under the Sun" coming from 'JW's immense plagiarism of others' works.

Particularly the so-called "grandfather" of the entire Apollo "hoax" nonsense, Bill Kaysing. And, the uncomfortably nutty "uncle" of the "hoax theories" who chimed in and garnered a lot of attention for himself:

Ralph (..."the scientists are all just gasbags"...) Rene'.

Perhaps we should focus more in HIM, and his craziness? (He seems to have been elevated, in 'JW's mind, to some sort of exalted "idol" status....)

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by zvezdar
reply to post by FoosM

 

Where's your SPE data?

We're waiting

And Im waiting for people to state whether or not a major SPE occurred during an Apollo mission. What do you say?
Yes or No?

My position has been made clear, as has that of others on this thread. There was no major SPE during an Apollo mission.

I've asked repeatedly in this thread for you to post up data if you believe otherwise. So post it. Stop beating around the bush.

And when i say data, i do mean data. Measurements. Numbers. Not words. I am more than happy to be wrong if you can actually provide data that demonstrates it, something you have not done a single time in this thread.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by zvezdar]

Ok ok ok...

Would you (all) accept
solar proton events with
a flux of over
8 particles (cm^2s ster)^-1 above 8 MeV
as major SPE's?

If not, then why not...
If so, then cool we can continue.

this kid has impressed me, i have watched most of his vids and i admit got me thinking pretty hard

reply to post by FoosM

Would you (all) accept solar proton events with a flux of over 8 particles (cm^2s ster)^-1 above 8 MeV as major SPE's?

No.
Because that is not even an event. The flux is way too low as is the proton energy. 8MeV won't penetrate a space suit, much less a spacecraft. You may want to confirm that pfu data, did you really mean 8 rather than 8^-1? 8^-1=0.125. Either way, it is not a high flux level.

NOAA's Space Environment Center (SEC) declares an SPE to be in progress when the dose rate of particles with energies above 10 MeV (i.e., space-suit-penetrating) exceeds 10 particles cm–2s–1sr–1 (directional flux) for more than 15 minutes.

www.nap.edu...

Certainly there would have been great motivation to accomplish moon missions with or without fakery. There was more on the line than inspiring a nation and fulfilling the wishes of a president. We needed to show the world our way of life was superior to the Russian way of life. A successful landing would solidify that and show everyone the US was the superior world power and more scientifically and technologically advanced. The world would invest with the US.

When you have so much on the line I would not doubt that if a true landing was not technologically possible other ways would have been worked out. Failure was not an option at the time.

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok ok ok...

Would you (all) accept
solar proton events with
a flux of over
8 particles (cm^2s ster)^-1 above 8 MeV
as major SPE's?

If not, then why not...

Ermm. No... And no one does (no one that actually understands anyway).

NOAA Scale for
Solar Radiation Storms Proton 10 MeV Integral Flux exceeds

S5 - Extreme 100,000 pfu

S4 - Severe 10,000 pfu

S3 - Strong 1,000 pfu

S2 - Moderate 100 pfu

S1 - Minor 10 pfu

www.swpc.noaa.gov...

Wherever or not your (non)event is supposed to be 8 PFU or 8^1 PFU - it's kind of.. irrelevant. Try again.

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok ok ok...

Would you (all) accept
solar proton events with
a flux of over
8 particles (cm^2s ster)^-1 above 8 MeV
as major SPE's?

If not, then why not...

Ermm. No... And no one does (no one that actually understands anyway).

NOAA Scale for
Solar Radiation Storms Proton 10 MeV Integral Flux exceeds

S5 - Extreme 100,000 pfu

S4 - Severe 10,000 pfu

S3 - Strong 1,000 pfu

S2 - Moderate 100 pfu

S1 - Minor 10 pfu

www.swpc.noaa.gov...

Wherever or not your (non)event is supposed to be 8 PFU or 8^1 PFU - it's kind of.. irrelevant. Try again.

Guys... guys, I said above 8.
Why do you guys assume it is 8?

In otherwords, are all solar proton events with
a flux

over

8 particles (cm^2s ster)^-1 above 8 MeV
called major SPE's?

I never asked how much damaging the SPE would be.
I asked if they would be called MAJOR SPE's by the scientific community.

Or let me ask it this way, what would be the minimum particle and minimum MeV
for it to be called "major"?

The NOAA scale for solar storms according to PFU is in my post and also the link. Learn to READ.

If anybody was wondering why I was asking Foos to define the terms he was using, his most recent post is glaring example of why.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The NOAA scale for solar storms according to PFU is in my post and also the link. Learn to READ.

If I have to learn how to read I wouldn't know what you wrote in your post, now would I?
Now besides that, I have no idea what you are trying to infer with the PFU scale.
I didnt ask for a PFU scale, I asked, at what point are SPE's considered major?

That scale that you want to throw around could very well be measurements within MAJOR
SPE's and not ALL SPE's. Just like how their scale for "Radio Blackouts" begin at M1 and not C1.
In other words all flares are not being considered.

Now if you dont want make you cry behind your keyboard, watch your insults.