Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by DJW001

 

This is a poor example to use in this context as many war photographers were not only battle hardened but trained soldiers. Hell in the Australian Navy there used to be a specific category just for photographers.

DJW001 was showing the photograph to prove a point YOU obviously missed that photoraphs can be taken without have to resort to light meters or indeed having to spend time trying to focus its an example of shooting from the hip like the Astronauts did.

reply to post by FoosM



Foos,

Please go on a photography course! It is getting embarrassing watch you stumble about on this thread. A basic photography course will provide you will all the information that you require. Obviously you will have to check the background of the instructor. Those NASA apologists get everywhere! On second thoughts don't. You'll probably end up at the Jarrah White School of Photography!

TJ

Originally posted by nataylor

They could tell just by looking at lens. It would look something like this:

With just a glance, you can see the camera is set at 1/60th shutter speed, f/8 aperture, focus is set at about 18 meters, with a depth of field covering from 7 meters to infinity.

edit on 27-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)

Thats right, with that reflective coating it would sure easy to see those tiny numbers in that blazing sun. And no to mention your vision is improved with the fact that your visor is cutting 80-90% of your light, that sure helps too. And lets not forget if you turn into towards your shadow, you have to dark adapt, and light adapt when you turn back towards the sun. We also have many examples of astronauts taking off their cameras to inspect their lenses for their settings.

reply to post by FoosM



As you have a short memory




Re you links to photography videos were any of those guys wearing space suits and helmets so why not use the viewfinder

Look at this link

www.kataan.org...

Using these guides like this and info given to Astronauts it possible to be in focus over a range and to get exposure ok due to known light source the sun.

Linking to videos of photographers working on the earth earning a living is not the same just another deflection as per usual.

An example of using depth of field due to aperture setting you can control whats in focus.



See its really simple IF you know how.

YOU DONT!

Foos,

On the subject of pressurised gloves.

Look at U-2 and SR-71 aircrew? SR-71 Pilot, Col. Rich Graham, talks about operating with pressurised gloves during testing.

From his book 'SR-71 revealed: The Inside story.

'To display our agility, Habus (SR-71 Aircrew) routinely demonstrated to PSD (Physiological Support Division) visitors how they could pick up a thin dime with a fully inflated pressure suit.'

You can find the entry and quote on Google Books.

TJ

Originally posted by FoosM
Thats right, with that reflective coating it would sure easy to see those tiny numbers in that blazing sun. And no to mention your vision is improved with the fact that your visor is cutting 80-90% of your light, that sure helps too. And lets not forget if you turn into towards your shadow, you have to dark adapt, and light adapt when you turn back towards the sun. We also have many examples of astronauts taking off their cameras to inspect their lenses for their settings.

All things anybody working outside with sunglasses on would have to deal with. Yet people are able to do it all the time.

Originally posted by ppk55
Nataylor, could you please show how this was possible...

Well, there's a surprise ppk once again can't do his own legwork and needs others to help.

I note, ppk, that you have run like the wind from your 'better star images' issue and completely avoided discussing the actualities or answering my questions. Another FAIL.

This is how ppk thinks he can keep this going and avoid any responsibility, and he thinks no-one notices that he loses every point. By quickly moving onto the next laughable claim, and not answering even the most basic questions, acknowledging his errors or lack of knowledge or the fact that the claims were deliberately misleading.

It's the hoax believers stock in trade.

But no-one notices, ppk. Your secret is safe.

Just a quick question to you, ppk and FoosM - how many folks here have you convinced do you reckon, and why isn't there a whole pile of followers egging you on, and supporting you with citations?

It's also notable that Foosm STILL doesn't know what a citation is. Gee, could that be deliberate, given that the mod's let him get away with it constantly?

reply to post by wmd_2008

You mention strange dials they may be strange to you but again that just proves you do not have a clue what you are talking about!

Got my first SLR in 1979 I will have a guess and say that the camera is older than you, fully manual the best way to learn about photography!

As usual, wrong guess...
I don't believe I said anything that is untrue so I don't know WTF you are rambling about..
BTW, I had a Minolta SLR around the same time as you and was working at Scot's Graphic Arts in Melbourne..
We had some damn big cameras..
Our parent company, Colour Centre, had one of the first colour seperators in the southern hemisphere..
Was a fun place..Great for making fake pics well before computors and photoshop were around..
One guy was even arrested for forging $20 bills....

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
I was more thinking of this situation:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/868a47fc3791.gif[/atsimg]

Or do you think the blinding reflected light off the mountain and terrain would hamper a few seconds to a minute worth of an exposure?

Assuming that photo was taken at 1/250th of a second, a 1 minute exposure would be 15,000 times more light than what you see in the photo. Yeah, it would be completely blown out and overexposed.

Oh... scary number there.

Now why would you assume 1/250th and not 1/125, or anything else?
And why would they need to do 1 minute of exposure?
And what exactly will be completely blown out? The shadow on the mountain?
The sky would turn white? What do you mean blown out and over exposed?
Or are you just concerned about the ground?

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Thats right, with that reflective coating it would sure easy to see those tiny numbers in that blazing sun. And no to mention your vision is improved with the fact that your visor is cutting 80-90% of your light, that sure helps too. And lets not forget if you turn into towards your shadow, you have to dark adapt, and light adapt when you turn back towards the sun. We also have many examples of astronauts taking off their cameras to inspect their lenses for their settings.

All things anybody working outside with sunglasses on would have to deal with. Yet people are able to do it all the time.

Too bad all those Hasselblads that went to the Moon are still there! That silver spray paint sure worked great protecting the film from radiation exposures Must have been that special NASA "silver" spray paint they mail ordered from the back of a comic book. Oh, those Wonderful Hasselblads, Amazing and Magical!
WHAM!

It's amazing and magical process to manipulate the general population with tv/photographic propaganda. Let's recall that Richard Nixon lost the 1960 election to JFK over what historians call "that tv debate". Let's recall how tv's were selling off the shelves in 1960-1970 timeframe, including color tv's. Let's recall the suspicious Yuri Gagarin propaganda. Let us recall the cover of Life magazine with famous LHO assassin on the cover. Let's recall Nixon's famous "phone call to the moon". Let's recall what Borman said, Anders agreed, that Apollo was to "beat the Russians to the moon.... I want to give you a clue!". Let us recall how Apollo 8 mission was changed to beat the Russians. Let us recall how, in 1968, the year of maximum death toll on US soldiers, war was being broadcast to the US public every night on tv. Let us consider how usefull NASA was to the CIA when a U2 spyplane went down in Russia... Let us reflect on the power of propaganda to dictate what is real, what is authentic, what is establisment history. What does the propaganda say? 2 things:

Space is safe from radiation. Apollo 8 received only .16 rads on the entire journey to the moon.
NASA is technologically incapable of taking high resolution photos of Apollo landing sites in 2011.

Importantly, we should look at what the NASA propaganda claims. We should also look at what the NASA propagandist avoids. There is a key to this conundrum.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You may wish to devote less time to and more to researching...on this, in particular:

Too bad all those Hasselblads that went to the Moon are still there...

Really? Do you stand by that comment, with all intensity and solidity? You are certain, in other words???

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You may wish to devote less time to

and more to researching...on this, in particular:

Too bad all those Hasselblads that went to the Moon are still there...

Really? Do you stand by that comment, with all intensity and solidity? You are certain, in other words???

Did they bring any back??

When Eagle left the moon after its 22 hour visit the moon camera was not on board. It was abandoned, along with a whole pile of other equipment on the moon.

In total, 12 cameras were left on the moon between 1969 and 1972. In fact they are still there now. If anyone would like to bring them back the address is "Somewhere in the Sea of Tranquillity, The Moon".

www.mir.com.my...

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
I was more thinking of this situation:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/868a47fc3791.gif[/atsimg]

Or do you think the blinding reflected light off the mountain and terrain would hamper a few seconds to a minute worth of an exposure?

Assuming that photo was taken at 1/250th of a second, a 1 minute exposure would be 15,000 times more light than what you see in the photo. Yeah, it would be completely blown out and overexposed.

Oh... scary number there.

Now why would you assume 1/250th and not 1/125, or anything else?
And why would they need to do 1 minute of exposure?
And what exactly will be completely blown out? The shadow on the mountain?
The sky would turn white? What do you mean blown out and over exposed?
Or are you just concerned about the ground?

I would assume 1/250th because the vast majority of the photos were taken at 1/250th. And I was assuming 1 minute because you asked "do you think the blinding reflected light off the mountain and terrain would hamper a few seconds to a minute worth of an exposure." I would say with a 1-minute exposure, probably all of the landscape would be white. When all your highlights blend together into white, that's "blown out and over exposed."

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


So what do you class as hi res give us an example of what you consider that to be

Originally posted by tommyjo

'To display our agility, Habus (SR-71 Aircrew) routinely demonstrated to PSD (Physiological Support Division) visitors how they could pick up a thin dime with a fully inflated pressure suit.'


TJ

How much pressure and how were the gloves similar or dissimilar to the ones used in Apollo?
Would those gloves be adequate for the moon?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You may wish to devote less time to

and more to researching...on this, in particular:

Too bad all those Hasselblads that went to the Moon are still there...

Really? Do you stand by that comment, with all intensity and solidity? You are certain, in other words???

I'm pretty sure some of them are still there. I remember reading someone from hassel saying that if you can get them you can keep them

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Importantly, we should look at what the NASA propaganda claims. We should also look at what the NASA propagandist avoids. There is a key to this conundrum.

Sorry, but this thread is devoted to Jarrah White's propaganda, and how the people he has brainwashed avoid looking at his glaring lies and manipulation of the "evidence." We have been looking very hard at what he avoids here and proven him to be an utter, hypocritical hoaxer. Why people continue to defend someone who insults their intelligence is the conundrum. (Do I need to cite links to the various posts that expose his fraud? You know, the Let's Roll post, the Kovalev affair... ?)

Originally posted by nataylor

I would assume 1/250th because the vast majority of the photos were taken at 1/250th. And I was assuming 1 minute because you asked "do you think the blinding reflected light off the mountain and terrain would hamper a few seconds to a minute worth of an exposure." I would say with a 1-minute exposure, probably all of the landscape would be white. When all your highlights blend together into white, that's "blown out and over exposed."

edit on 27-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)

But would you see the stars?


Outside the ASA and F-stop.
Because those have not been taken into consideration have they?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You may wish to devote less time to

and more to researching...on this, in particular:

Too bad all those Hasselblads that went to the Moon are still there...

Really? Do you stand by that comment, with all intensity and solidity? You are certain, in other words???

He or she has not read the entire thread.
Many people are under the impression that all the cameras were left there.
Those who have been following this thread know that I gave evidence that at least
one was returned.
So please dont imply that Apollo defenders knew about this all along.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You mention strange dials they may be strange to you but again that just proves you do not have a clue what you are talking about!

Got my first SLR in 1979 I will have a guess and say that the camera is older than you, fully manual the best way to learn about photography!

As usual, wrong guess...
I don't believe I said anything that is untrue so I don't know WTF you are rambling about..
BTW, I had a Minolta SLR around the same time as you and was working at Scot's Graphic Arts in Melbourne..
We had some damn big cameras..

Our parent company, Colour Centre, had one of the first colour seperators in the southern hemisphere..
Was a fun place..Great for making fake pics well before computors and photoshop were around..
One guy was even arrested for forging $20 bills....

Two things, first one why say strange dials if you have a background in photography, second if you have a background in photography YOU know Foosm is talking BS !