Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Black Sky Region

part 2


NASA had conveniently GIMPED the Hassies so they could not effectively
take snapshots of the stars.
In other words they created a convenient excuse for themselves
if questions like "Where are the star and planets?" came up.

If NASA did not gimp the Hassies, or simply requested simple
modifications for astrophotography, we could have been rewarded with at least this
from the moons surface:


Higher rez:
science.nasa.gov...

Stars baby stars

"There's always something good to see out the window of the space station," says Pettit,
who happens to be an amateur astronomer as well as the science officer of the International Space Station (ISS)

One of the curious things about sky watching from orbit is the appearance of stars. "They don't twinkle," says Pettit.
Twinkling is caused by irregularities in Earth's atmosphere that refract starlight to and fro. But in orbit there is no atmosphere.
Stars are remarkably steady and piercing.

Oh noes, did I just see stars alongside the Sun?

Whats this Astronaut doing taking unauthorized photos?
He's not up there on vacation!
Why is he taking photos for personal use?
LOL.

The excuses are wearing thinner than the heels of a hobo's socks.


science.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by FoosM

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.

Nice try. Answer the freaking question.

Originally posted by FoosM
Oh noes, did I just see stars alongside the Sun?

None of those photos show stars by the sun. But they do give a great idea of how a long enough exposure to get stars results in a way overexposed moon:



And the amount of movement between shots and motion blur in the night-time photos should give you a good idea they're pretty long exposures.

Originally posted by FoosM
NASA had conveniently GIMPED the Hassies so they could not effectively
take snapshots of the stars.
In other words they created a convenient excuse for themselves
if questions like "Where are the star and planets?" came up.

Actually, Venus, being the 3rd brightest object in the Lunar sky after the Sun and Earth, has shown up in some Apollo 14 photos. It was discovered by a member with the user name "Data Cable" on the apollohoax.net forum. You can read the thread here.

remmebr jared lee sayin that they send the space craft empty into space? an green machine..

reply to post by FoosM



Your spamming of this thread with irrelevant poppycock is shown, with all its glory, with this latest screed.

OFF topic, attempt to distract and distort and deflect. Tactics seen a hundred times, by now. And easily shown to be merit less, in their implications and assertions.....and, growing wearisome. Long ago....past wearisome. Borderline troll-like.....

DO you really think YOU are 'helping' your *hero*, "Jarrah White with this nonsense???

The YT video.

THIS one: www.youtube.com...

(Note...people will now HAVE TO LINK to it, so that they can read what I will also repeat here...the video description):

Time lapse footage taken by Oregon State University alum Don Pettit during his time on the International Space Station. This one is of an aurora.

DO you know how you responded to this video? You asked:

Oh noes, did I just see stars alongside the Sun?

Sun? What "Sun"?? In refernce to that SAME video (which everyone can watch and see...NO SUN!), you said this:

Whats this Astronaut doing taking unauthorized photos?
He's not up there on vacation!
Why is he taking photos for personal use?
LOL.

The ISS???

This thread is about APOLLO! And, if by now, you STILL have no concept of the missions of the crewmembers on the ISS, then....you are truly so lost in the delusion, by that "pied piper" of ignorance "JW", or you are "gimping" (your words up above, in the post, as you referred --- incorrectly --- to the Hassies) this audience, this Board, and in effect, yourself. Maybe the entire Human race....depends a lot on some DNA paths, in the future......

Originally posted by nataylor

And the amount of movement between shots and motion blur in the night-time photos should give you a good idea they're pretty long exposures.

Of course they are long exposures.
Whats your point?

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Nice try. Answer the freaking question.

en oh

no.

Originally posted by FoosM

Of course they are long exposures.
Whats your point?

Just making sure everyone understands what it takes to make a "normal exposure" of dim light.

reply to post by FoosM

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.

Okay, if you refuse to explain what "normal exposure" means, then explain why my example is laughable. You've already mistaken a CGI animation with actual telemetry and now seem unable to identify celestial bodies in long exposure time lapse videos.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Nice try. Answer the freaking question.

en oh

no.

So you admid that you don't know anything about photography. Well I knew that already.

Of course Foos won't answer, he only has two options:

1) Repeat the definition everyone else has stated, proving he had no clue initially or was trying to deceive and that he's an idiot

2) State a definition that is completely incorrect, and that he is an idiot.

Oh dear Trying to think just doesn't suit some people.......

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

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.

Okay, if you refuse to explain what "normal exposure" means, then explain why my example is laughable. You've already mistaken a CGI animation with actual telemetry and now seem unable to identify celestial bodies in long exposure time lapse videos.

DJ you have some apologizing and retractions to do before I answer any of your questions.
Starting with " You've already mistaken a CGI animation with actual telemetry"

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Nice try. Answer the freaking question.

en oh

no.

So you admid that you don't know anything about photography. Well I knew that already.

I know more than you can imagine,
If you were a true photography you would set DJ straight.
DJ knows why there are no stars in the picture.
But what you and he are interested in is setting traps for people and not the truth.
This way you can feed your delusions with righteousness.
Im not playing those type of immature games.

If you know sooo much about photography, tell us readers what settings
the CM pilots needed to set their Nikons on to capture starfields and constellations on the
dark side and day side of the moon.

And then tell us if those Nikons they had onboard
were or were not able to be programmed for those settings.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Of course they are long exposures.
Whats your point?

Just making sure everyone understands what it takes to make a "normal exposure" of dim light.

I think everyone here understands that it generally takes several seconds to expose for stars.
But would that have been a problem for a 35mm camera in the CM?
Or a non gimped Hassie on the surface of the moon (given we have the example of them using a camera/telescope)?

I dont know why people make it sound so difficult and impossible.

You all claim man went to the moon due to scientific achievement and drive.
They produced a 60 million dollar moon buggy for the adventure.
But then in the same breath you all come up with all kinds of excuses why NASA
could not produce images of the cosmos ?
6 days of their trip they are in space!

Let me remind you that Apollo 8 and 13 didn't even land on the moon!
They could have at least took photos of the starfields.
What a waste.
What a lie.

Originally posted by FoosM
I know more than you can imagine,

At the risk of reading like one of your posts...



What a shame none of it (whatever it is) includes science, photography or anything else relevant to the subject.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

And the amount of movement between shots and motion blur in the night-time photos should give you a good idea they're pretty long exposures.

Of course they are long exposures.
Whats your point?

Were the Moon surface exposures long DOH!!!

No they were typical sunlit exposure times for the speed of film used.

Obviously when a process uses three factors it's to much for YOU and ppk55 to grasp how it works.

Film speed ,aperture and shutter speed show me a picture taken at the film speed aperture and shutter speeds the Astronaunts used on the Moon's surface used at night to take pictures of stars.

I Will not hold my breath.

Looking forward to your answer in which you will change the subject because YOU KNOW and WE all KNOW you are WRONG!!!

Posted a link to the EV table a few posts back obviously to complicated for you to understand

reply to post by FoosM


DO you know any of the settingsfor the Nikon, film speed, lens focal length aperture range etc etc.

DO you think there would have been any benefit taking pictures of stars from the moons surface with a Hasselblad since the pictures would not be any better than what telescopes on Earth produced.

The Astronauts had limited time on the surface so why photograph the sky.

Anyway it turned out a benefit because when the first lot of IDIOTS claimed no stars in the pictures showed it was fake, EVERY photographer would have a good laugh at the lack of knowledge of those IDIOTS making the claims.

Its just unfortunate that due to the lack of decent education systems round the world we have a NEW BATCH OF IDIOTS LIKE JW!

Originally posted by FoosM
They could have at least took photos of the starfields.
What a waste.
What a lie.

Just because someone personally doesn't understand or agree with the rationale behind their photographic choices doesn't mean the whole thing never happened.

I think it has been well established here in this thread that dim-light photography was an item of interest on Apollo 8 and there are no dim-light photographs to speak of.

On page 47 of of the pdf Nasa News Release No: 68-208 dated Sunday, December 15, 1968
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Dim-light targets were items of interest on Apollo 8's mission.

Item of Interest -- Dim-light targets: Gegenscheig ( a
round or elongated spot of light in apace at a point 180
the sun) photos on one-mlnute exposure wlth spacecraft held
in inertial attltude on dark side on Moon and during translunar
and transearth coast; Zodiacal light along the plane of
the e c l i p t i c (path of Sun around celestial sphere), one-minute
exposures during dark side of lunar orbit; S t a r f i e l d s under
various lighting condttions to study effect of spacecraft
debris clouds and window contamination on ability to photograph
stars; lunar surface In earthashine to gain photometric data
about lunar surface under low-level illumination.

Where are those Apollo pictures of S t a r f i e l d s?

Potential answers.
1. The Apollo 8 was performing the barbeque roll manouvre during trans-lunar phase (slowly rotating the spacecraft to help balance out thermal radiation absorbed by the surface of the vehicle facing the sun )and it was not technically feasible to do long exposure, dim-light photography for this reason.

2. NASA has pictures of Apollo 8 starfields taken from LEO or MEO which could potentially reveal a hoax.

3. The surface of the moon is too shiny, outshining all other objects in space (save Venus, which was mentioned to be in a few photographs), therefore, attempting dim-light, long term exposure photography from the surface of the moon would be an exercise in futility.

4. Same argument as 3 but using radiation as the excuse.

5. Listed as an item of interest by NASA in the December 15 news release (see above) dim-light, long-exposure photography was not undertaken by the Apollo 8 crew nor any subsequent Apollo mission because it did not serve the propaganda need at the time and which television served to specifically do: brainwash the population into believing that some blurry tv show was "a witnessing of history in the making".

6. They didn't carry enough cameras or film.

7. Frank Borman and Houston were aware of this item of interest (see above) but were forgetful or neglectful in pursuing it.

8. Windown contaminations aboard Apollo 8 significantly impacted the photographic capabilities of the mission.