Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

You give NO camera or exposure details so another disingenuous post but then again it came from you.

So you want to claim that NASA and Apollo were incapable of Astrophotography while in Space?
Is that it? Astrophotography is only possible here on Earth.
Go on, just say it.
Yes or No.

Originally posted by FoosM
I want to see the photos from the STELLAR camera
I want to see the photos from the UV camera

Originally posted by DJW001
Either request them from the NSSDC or stop tantruming,
Request NSSDC ID: ASVI-00009 Simbay Stellar Photography Support Data. They'll send you a microfiche

A very big question, why are these images not readily available on the NASA sites, along with all the other imagery?

I believe it's because the many and skilful amateur astronomers might detect some anomalies with them.

Can't they just do a low res scan as with all the other Apollo photos.

They should be freely available for students and researchers all over the world to access and study.

The fact that they are not is worrisome.

Why make the thousands of 70mm stills available, but restrict these few.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

You give NO camera or exposure details so another disingenuous post but then again it came from you.

So you want to claim that NASA and Apollo were incapable of Astrophotography while in Space?
Is that it? Astrophotography is only possible here on Earth.
Go on, just say it.
Yes or No.

Again being disingenous I am not claiming they cant take pics when in space. You show pictures that you claim show stars etc in space and claim that they should have shown up on the Moon mission pictures but once again you show to others your complete ignorance or lack of understanding that photographs exposed for the Astronauts on the Moon or even during a space walk will not show stars. Obviously there is something in your makeup and indeed ppk55 regarding photographic exposure that is to much for YOUR feeble minds to deal with.

You obviously have some kind of vendetta against NASA or your related in someway to that clown JW, and dont like people showing what an idiot he is.

I posted a few posts back YOU PROVE that using the same film speed , aperture and shutter speed as used to take pictures on the Moon or during space waiks you can photograph stars YOU cant people who read this see you cant and looking at your posts can see you are not honest in your replies

reply to post by ppk55

A very big question, why are these images not readily available on the NASA sites, along with all the other imagery?

Go back two pages and re-read the thread.

Originally posted by ppk55


Why make the thousands of 70mm stills available, but restrict these few.

Yeah right, I mean why should I have to go looking around in this day and age for a microfiche viewer.
LOL.

None of the directories for photography are complete.
They all are missing photos,
or do not have high resolution versions of all the sets.

Its quite embarrassing.

Let alone try to look for information regarding the rocks and sand, satellite data, and other information surrounding Apollo and you will find yourself going in circles and running into dead links.

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by FoosM
I want to see the photos from the STELLAR camera
I want to see the photos from the UV camera

Originally posted by DJW001
Either request them from the NSSDC or stop tantruming,
Request NSSDC ID: ASVI-00009 Simbay Stellar Photography Support Data. They'll send you a microfiche

A very big question, why are these images not readily available on the NASA sites, along with all the other imagery?

I believe it's because the many and skilful amateur astronomers might detect some anomalies with them.

Can't they just do a low res scan as with all the other Apollo photos.

They should be freely available for students and researchers all over the world to access and study.

The fact that they are not is worrisome.

Why make the thousands of 70mm stills available, but restrict these few.

Maybe its because the quality is very bad photographing stars takes a long exposures, or very bulky large aperture lens with very highspeed film all of which cause problems its bad enough doing it here on earth so it wouldn't be simple in the confines of spacecraft or when working in a space suit.

Look at typical exposure times for star photography with a 50mm lens set to f4 aperture with 400 asa film 30 seconds to get a decent image. Thats on a tripod and using a small focal length lens so trails dont appear.So if I used same speed film used on Moon missions 160 asa I would need almost 2 mins exposure to produce the same result but stars would have trails.

Its not that difficult to understand why it was not really practical for the Astronauts to photograph stars although it seems to be for YOU and Foosm.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Star pics from the ISS?
www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by FoosM

Yeah right, I mean why should I have to go looking around in this day and age for a microfiche viewer.
LOL.

It's called "research."

None of the directories for photography are complete.
They all are missing photos,
or do not have high resolution versions of all the sets.

Many of the pictures did not turn out well, but if you wish to volunteer your time, NASA would probably be happy for you to scan them.

Its quite embarrassing.

Don't be embarrassed, we all make mistakes.

Let alone try to look for information regarding the rocks and sand, satellite data, and other information surrounding Apollo and you will find yourself going in circles and running into dead links.

You seem to be laboring under the false assumption that if something isn't on the internet it does not exist. If you are having difficulty locating a specific data set, you can always send a written request. That's how it was done 40 years ago,

Coordinated Request User Support Office (CRUSO)
Code 690.1
National Space Science Data Center
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: +1-301-286-6695
Fax: +1-301-286-1635
Office Hours: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (Closed holidays)

NSSDC

Originally posted by backinblack
Star pics from the ISS?
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Yup, Douglas Wheelock has taken some awesome pictures up there.

Here's a picture from Expedition 25 (not sure who took it) that you can just barely make out some stars (click it for a bigger version):

I picked that one because it has EXIF data embedded in the photo from the digital camera that took the shot. This tells us the exposure settings that were used. So it was taken with an aperture of f/2.8, with a shutter speed of 1/6th of a second, and the ISO was set at 20,000.

Now let's compare that to one of the photos taken on the moon's surface. A typical exposure would be f/5.6 at 1/250th of a second, on ISO 80 film.

Knowing the two values, we can make a comparison of the total amount of light captured by each photo. The aperture settings are divided up into what are called "f-stops." Typical f-stops are f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, & f/22 (the math used to get those numbers is a little complicated, but these are the standard settings you'll find on any SLR camera). Each step up in f-stop means the ammount of light let into the camera has doubled. So if you keep your shutter speed and ISO at the same settings, and then take a photo at f/5.6 and one at f/4, the one at f/4 will have captured twice the amount of light as the one at f/5.6

The same thing goes for shutter speed. With two photos with fixed aperture and ISO, one taken with a shutter speed of 1/250 and another taken with a shutter speed of 1/500, the one taken at 1/250 will have captured twice the light of the 1/500 photo.

And again, same thing goes for ISO. Shoot two photos with fixed aperture and shutter speed, and the one taken at ISO 400 will have captured twice the light of the one at ISO 200.

So, putting this all together:

We know the ISS picture was taken at f/2.8 and the moon photo was taken at f/5.6. That's a two-stop difference, so we multiply by 2 for each difference in f-stop:

2*2=4

So we have 4 times the amount of light being captured in the moon photo just based on the aperture.

For shutter speed, we have 1/6th on the ISS picture and 1/250th on the moon photo. That's over 5 shutter speeds in difference (1/250 -> 1/125 -> 1/60 -> 1/30 -> 1/15 -> 1/8). We'll round the 1/6th down to 1/8th so we stay at nice whole factors of 2. So 5 difference in shutter speed is:

2*2*2*2*2=32

Just in shutter speed, we know the moon picture is capturing 32 times more light than the ISS picture.

Now let's look at ISO. The ISS picture is at 20,000 and the moon picture is at 80. Let's round that up to 100 just so we can work with whole factors again. And we'll round that 20,000 down to 12,800 for the same reason. That gets up 7 differences in ISO (100 -> 200 -> 400 -> 800 -> 1600 -> 3200 -> 6400 -> 12800):

2*2*2*2*2*2*2=128

So the moon photo is capturing 128 times more light just based on ISO.

Now, to get the total difference, we multiply the differences produced by aperture, shutter speed, and ISO:

4*32*128=16,384

So yup, there's 16,384 times more light in the moon photo than the ISS photo. Well, there's actually a fair bit more than that as the rounding I did decreased the difference.

The moon landing is such a big hoax it's not even funny. I can't believe how so many people actually believe we landed on the moon, so many times even. Their moon evidence is so fakey, and the moon film footage so obviously faked, Billy Meier could have made more convincing moon landing footage(and I like Meier).

For the record, I predict that Jarrah White's next video will be a "detailed analysis" of "supposed 'space photography'" He will mercilessly "debunk" un-named "propagandists" who do not understand photography as well as he does. He will dramatically reveal that NASA claims to have an archive of star fields taken by Apollo, but that these archives don't exist, or are classified or something. Can anyone guess what theory this would prove?

reply to post by tom502

The moon landing is such a big hoax it's not even funny. I can't believe how so many people actually believe we landed on the moon, so many times even. Their moon evidence is so fakey, and the moon film footage so obviously faked, Billy Meier could have made more convincing moon landing footage(and I like Meier).

You are welcome to your opinion. This thread is about that "young Aussie genius," Jarrah White.

Originally posted by nataylor

So yup, there's 16,384 times more light in the moon photo than the ISS photo. Well, there's actually a fair bit more than that as the rounding I did decreased the difference.

Thats nice and all, but are you saying that astrophotography was impossible on the moon and/or in the CM/LM during the time of Apollo?

Originally posted by FoosM
Thats nice and all, but are you saying that astrophotography was impossible on the moon and/or in the CM/LM during the time of Apollo?

Not at all. Just making sure people understand the difference in the amount of light between sun-lit landscapes and stars, so they understand why photos of stars would need big apertures, sensitive film, and long exposures.

Apollo Fraud Revealed :

www.youtube.com...

by by buzz

Originally posted by webstra
Apollo Fraud Revealed :

www.youtube.com...

by by buzz

I believe this video was recently posted.
But in any event how did Buzz reveal the fraud?

Originally posted by DJW001

Many of the pictures did not turn out well,

Source
Evidence
Link

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by webstra
Apollo Fraud Revealed :

www.youtube.com...

by by buzz

I believe this video was recently posted.
But in any event how did Buzz reveal the fraud?

It;s the title of the youtube film...not mine.

At one time he speaks : go where man never gone before. But it is the ay how you interperted it.

Originally posted by FoosM
yeah yeah cry all you want about it.
You guys have been using diagrams not to scale for years to support your theories.
This diagram helps people to see visualize that the craft would hit all areas of the belts.

I've already explained why you can't just overlay that one graphic on top of the other, since their equatorial planes are not parallel to each other.

So let's look at some diagrams that do have parallel equatorial plane.

I fired up my copy of Starry Night. It allows you to display various Apollo mission trajectories in 3D. I loaded the Apollo 11 trajectory.

I then set the camera to be level with the earth's equator, made images facing the earth at 0, 90, 180, and 270 relative degrees of longitude. This lets us overlay the Van Allen Belt graphic, because it too assumes the plane of the earth's equator is exactly perpendicular to the plane of the image. I also made an image looking down from directly over the earth's north pole.

In these images, the cyan line represents the trans-lunar part of the journey. The blue line is the trans-earth part. The red line is the earth's equator. The green line is the moon's orbit. The magenta line represents the path of the CSM while in lunar orbit. And the yellow line is the path of the CSM when it was in earth orbit. The indicated position of Apollo 11 was taken exactly 2 hours after the trans-lunar injection burn started. Everything is to scale.

These are all large images, and the lines are thin, so I suggest click on them to view the full version.

First shot, we'll call this longitude 0:

Boy, the Van Allen Belts are small when you're looking at a scale that includes the moon's orbit. Let's take a closer look:

Now from longitude 90:

And a closer version:

From longitude 180:

And a closer version:

From longitude 270:

And the closer version:

And now the view from overhead, directly over the north pole. Since we're looking down, I color-coded the various regions of the VAB so you can see their horizontal extent surround the planet:

And closer:

So, as you can see from these views, Apollo 11 never came close to the most intense region of the VABs. And you can see that they had passed through them completely in under 2 hours.

These pictures also show how unbelievable ridiculous far the trip was.

and 2 hours in radiation is really something.