Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by ppk55

Respond to the above questions raised.

I did!

As for this one:

More importantly, where are all these amazing star studded pictures of the stars from all 3 of these missions?

If you had actually read my reply carefully, you would realize that these amazing star studded pictures exist only in your mind. You can request prints of the fuzzy grey blobs from the NSSDC, however.

reply to post by ppk55


So come on whats your photography question or will you log off yet again like only you can do.

reply to post by ppk55


Honest??? Serious???

THIS is your "big reveal"?? The "smoking gun" of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal you claim shows it to be....what is your term, I forgot??? Is 'unreliable' close to your assertion???

Yet, in all of it, complaining about the weight of a color video camera of the day.....you found this???:

But, smuggling a copy of playboy on board was no problem .. no need to tell NASA about the extra weight.

OH. MY. GAWD!!!!!

Sorry, but face/slap just isn't strong enough for this one....from YOUR source (you even added the friggin image!):

A photo of DeDe Lind, taken from Playboy's November 1969 issue, was secretly stuck to a locker in the ship using Velcro and a cardboard cue card.

Are you trying to lie intentionally??? You wrote: "A copy of Playboy". THAT is a lie. Why do you do this???

Not withinstanding, a full magazine, if it had been taken along (it WASN'T) doesn't weigh all that much....but, a SNIPPED photo, on piece of cardboard?? I mean....it wasn't "life sized"!!!!

Just how much, do you think, a photo about 3 inches by 4 1/2 inches (and cardboard) weighs? Six, seven, eight pounds???


And then, this??:

Why take another flag, been there, done that on apollo 11. More weight.

Why not tell everyone just HOW MUCH the pole, and flag, actually weighed?? Aluminum tube, thin and light...and a piece of nylon fabric. Any ideas??? (I know...)

Then of course, in later missions they managed some small extra items like an entire Lunar Roving Vehicle.

Yes...the 'J' missions. Really, it is ALL explained, in terms of how they altered the propulsion, the fuel quantities, thrust values, etc.....

And, the UV telescope, extra experiments etc... etc.. not to mention the extra water, food etc that would have been needed for the extended missions.

'J' missions....see above.

BTW....what, in your exhaustive research, have you detemined would have been the weight penalty with the heavier color camera of that era, with the extra tubes and components? And, did the creativity of devising a lighter alternative not seem rather clever??? That way, they had "room" in the payload for other things....all in the very tight compromise and planning that went into it......

I'm sure I've missed some other major items.

Just might be the "Statement of the Century" (or, at least, of the "Thread")....

reply to post by weedwhacker


Nice one weed like his idols JW and Foos why tell the full story when a little LIE is more fun these guys make me glad I wasnt educated at the same time as them what the hell went wrong with education world wide it seems over say the last 25-30 yrs!

reply to post by ppk55

So how can this statement be true ...

Sourced from NASA Lunar Surface Journal - Apollo 12
David Woods writes in the Apollo Flight Journal: "To save size, weight and power consumption, the TV camera on board the CM had only one imaging tube, rather than the three or four found in contemporary colour cameras.

So, let me see if I understand you: the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is bunk because the astronauts did not bring one of these:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c93a0c98b41.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by ppk55

What was your question .. I can't find it.

Here:

Why don't you try to answer these questions yourself? I'd love to hear what you think. Seriously.

Here are the questions I was referring to:

So the big question is ... what will the world wide implications be when the hoax is revealed ?
How will teachers handle this issue?

What do you think would happen? Let your fantasy run wild... physics textbooks burning in the streets, satellites falling from the skies, Jarrah made The Boss Of You For Life....

Originally posted by DJW001

So how can this statement be true ...

Sourced from NASA Lunar Surface Journal - Apollo 12
David Woods writes in the Apollo Flight Journal: "To save size, weight and power consumption, the TV camera on board the CM had only one imaging tube, rather than the three or four found in contemporary colour cameras.

So, let me see if I understand you: the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is bunk because the astronauts did not bring one of these:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c93a0c98b41.jpg[/atsimg]

Why would you post a deliberately misleading picture of a colour camera with 3 tubes (if they are that) that would have never been used in space exploration. They look more like studio cameras.

Here is the colour camera they supposedly used on apollo 17.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c1a88696450b.jpg[/atsimg]

They look a little different don't they.... So that ridiculous statement on your post and the lunar surface journal needs to be retracted.

reply to post by ppk55


Is it possible that you really don't understand?

They had what was available, off the shelf, for the earliest Apollos.....by the time of 17, much effort had gone into designing and developing better, lightweight, color camera technology....JUST for the space missions!!!

Your personal incredulity notwithstanding.....YOU (and everyone else) can benefit as a result. With the plethora of smaller, lighter, solid state digital equipment that continued to be developed, ever since.

eta:

You are doing nothing more than seeming to find "points" to raise, based merely on a "feeling" (and absent any research, nor facts) and flinging them against the wall, seeing what will stick.

A wee bit of some REAL research, and all this wasted time would have been saved...(one good aspect, I suppose, is it IS a way for others to learn, just by reading here...and hopefully, spurring them on to research more in depth). BUT, certainly it can be said to be frivolous, and someone childish....these weak attempts to ridicule what you don't seem to comprehend.

Here....source for some education:

Video Cameras:

Apollo 11: Westinghouse Apollo Lunar Television Camera
Apollos 12-14: Westinghouse Lunar Color Camera
Apollo 15-17: RCA J-Series GCTA

www.myspacemuseum.com...

RE: the RCA cameras, on the Apollo 'J' missions.......:

This advanced system flew aboard the J-Series lunar missions on Apollos 15, 16, & 17. It gave unprecedented quality in the color video transmitted from the moon. But, alas, few people watched as America had by this time lost interest in watching men on the moon.

reply to post by ppk55

Why would you post a deliberately misleading picture of a colour camera with 3 tubes that would have been used in space exploration. They look more like studio cameras.

They are studio cameras! Even the color cameras they developed for the Apollo program only had one tube, just as most digital cameras have a single CCD chip. Read up on the history of color TV if you want to understand, otherwise just carry on believing whatever you want to. Just don't expect to be taken very seriously. Or to really get a job as a cinematographer.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
by the time of 17, much effort had gone into designing and developing better, lightweight, color camera technology....JUST for the space missions!!!

Source please. Don't just post general assumptions, please go into details and post relevant links / text. I'm going to start demanding more and more proof of some of your statements, as they are not generally forthcoming.

reply to post by ppk55



Oh??????

I'm going to start demanding more and more proof of some of your statements, as they are not generally forthcoming.

Well.......if you'd clickety click on the linkety links, THEN you will see, for yourself, the relevant proof.

Anyhow.....what's the matter with doing a bit of YOUR OWN follow-up research, too?? Merely hand-waving and attempting deflection, with irrelevant replies, as you did here is getting to be quite the trend in this thread........

reply to post by ppk55

Source please. Don't just post general assumptions, please go into details and post relevant links / text. I'm going to start demanding more and more proof of some of your statements, as they are not generally forthcoming.

The only person you are in a position to make demands upon is yourself, ppk. You need to challenge yourself to learn about the world around you instead of expecting to be spoon fed with pre-chewed morsels. It's precisely that sort of intellectual laziness and incuriosity that allows lying hoaxers like Jarrah White to brainwash you. Wake up!

reply to post by ppk55


Here's everything you ever wanted to know about Apollo and TV cameras from the people who equipped the missions.
www.tvtechnology.com...


But somehow I think none of this information will be good enough......

Originally posted by FoosM
Shot with Nikon 35mm
color negative,
SA 1600
Normal Film Exposure

You need to know aperture, film speed, and shutter speed to determine. All we've got there is film speed.

When they say "normal" exposure, all they mean is it's not underexposed or overexposed. All it tells you is that the aperture, film speed, and shutter speed were set at the appropriate values to get a proper exposure. It doesn't tell you what the actual values were, though.

Originally posted by FoosM
Since we have been debating the stars issue.
Some people have stated the lack of seeing stars from the moon was possibly
due to the reflection of the sun hitting the regolith impairing the astronaut's vision. And this would also be an issue for photography.

It's an "issue" for photography in that if the camera is set to make a proper exposure of the surface, it's not going to let enough star light in to capture them in the photograph too.

Originally posted by FoosM
2. Shadow
If the astronauts were in the shadow of the LM or even facing their own shadow the ground would not be an issue.

Not true at all. If they can see the surface, that means light is reflect off it into their eyes by definition. Even standing in the shadow, they'd be able to see the surface.

Originally posted by FoosM
3. The visors should have cut down such a problem. I would accept that the visors made it impossible to see starlight, but not while sitting in the LM, and not while in the CM.

In the LM there would be light reflecting off the surface into the windows, as well as cabin lighting. In the CM there would be light from the moon, the sun, the earth, and cabin lighting.

Originally posted by FoosM
4. If the reflection of the sun of the ground was such an issue, how come nobody complained about it? Or, do we have proof that it impaired them for other activities?

Why would it impair their activities? Do you have problems doing things outside in the sun? It doesn't impair anything except for their ability to see very dim things, which none of their activities on the surface required of them.

Originally posted by FoosM
6.Ultra Violet Camera
If this big thing was easy to use and worked in the shadow of the LM.
They same could have been done with a Camera taking pictures of the cosmos.

Why? There's scientific value in UV photos, since you can't take good UV photos from the earth's surface. Anything other than a large telescope on the moon taking visible-spectrum photos of the stars isn't going to be much different than what you can take on earth. So why waste the payload on it when there are other things you can't do from the earth?

Originally posted by FoosM
They main issue we have with taken photos on the moon is that the hasselblads simply didn't allow for exposures to take stars. So basically NASA gimped the cameras.

They provided cameras for shooting their objective, which was the lunar surface.

Originally posted by FoosM
I challenge Apollo defenders to show us one photo or video that cannot have been produced on Earth or in orbit or by a moon probe. The one thing they could of had as evidence are photos of the stars with the moon in the background!

Well that's a big logical fallacy right there. Just because something "could be" doesn't mean it "was." Of course stars could be faked, too. If people really believe we didn't, and in fact couldn't, go to the moon, all they have to do is show one bit of evidence that it was impossible. They can claim things SHOULD have been done a certain way, but that's meaningless unless you show the way it WAS done is scientifically impossible. Otherwise, all you have is a difference of opinion, which isn't a form of evidence.

Originally posted by FoosM
Taking a look at the photo galleries one will see that a majority of the photos are repetitive. Moon, Earth, Moon, Earth, Moon, Earth and surface photography that also has many repetitive shots.

Repetitive and overlapping photos are useful for photogrammetry.

Originally posted by ppk55
edit: so on all three missions this occurred " the camera photographed another part of the Milky Way as a result of a translation error in coordinates from the ground."

More importantly, where are all these amazing star studded pictures of the stars from all 3 of these missions?

I believe the LPI web site is in error listing the same description for the Nikon camera on Apollo 15, 16, and 17. If you look at the Data Users' Note for Apollo 15, you'll find this description of the Nikon 35mm camera:



Whereas in the Data Users' Note for Apollo 17, you find this:

Originally posted by ppk55
So how can this statement be true ...

Sourced from NASA Lunar Surface Journal - Apollo 12
David Woods writes in the Apollo Flight Journal: "To save size, weight and power consumption, the TV camera on board the CM had only one imaging tube, rather than the three or four found in contemporary colour cameras.

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where you've proven the Lunar Surface Journal is a sham.

Is there something wrong with the statement that a single-tube camera would take up less size, weight, and power? Are you claiming a single-tube camera would be heavier, larger, and more power-hungry?

Originally posted by FoosM
And your forte is not spelling or photography.
You don't know what they mean by normal exposure?
Well I do.

Holy hell. I really wanna see this one. Please give me your best shot for the term 'normal exposure'. Make it juicy too. (Btw, my forte is photography. Spelling sucks thought if that bothers you.)

reply to post by PsykoOps


He wont reply because he knows to many of us on here are keen and even professional photographers so the subject will be changed yet again to try and back up that youtube IDIOT JW!

Here is a nice little link to an exposure value table

en.wikipedia.org...

it gives ev values for combination of shutter speed and aperture setting

below that is a table which gives ev values for various lighting conditions using 100 asa film

This information is for the members with NO REAL UNDESTANDING of photography or how it works the
main 2 on this thread being Foosm and ppk55 although many other members on other threads have the
same problem in grasping how it works.


info for the Moon from second table ev number

The Moon,c altitude > 40°
Full 15
Gibbous 14
Quarter 13
Crescent 12

Now for the Northern and Southern Lights

Aurora borealis and australis
Bright −4 to −3
Medium −6 to −5

Lets look at full Moon ev 15 from first table
1/8000th of a second at f 2.0 to 1/4 of a second at f64

the N/S lights bright -3 ev
30 mins at f 2.0 to 512 mins at f64

Look at the ev value for full moon 15 and the following

Typical scene in full or slightly hazy sunlight (distinct shadows) ev 15

Yet Foosm etc insist that the Moons surface would not have been bright

Dont really need to say anything else!!

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by FoosM
And your forte is not spelling or photography.
You don't know what they mean by normal exposure?
Well I do.

Holy hell. I really wanna see this one. Please give me your best shot for the term 'normal exposure'. Make it juicy too. (Btw, my forte is photography. Spelling sucks thought if that bothers you.)

If your forte is photography, then why are you asking?
Dont you know?

But I doubt you understand photography.
Because if you did you would have ripped DJ a new one with his
laughable example of a night shot where no stars are visible.
LOL.