Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
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!

You are right! You, and others here, have successfully convinced me that the Astronauts
were well trained, well information, well equipped, and well supported by mission control to successfully provide the public with astrophotography from the moon.

Therefore my original conclusion still stands.
There was absolutely no excuse for the lack of astrophotography by the Astronauts.
It could have been done, it should have been done.

Thanks

Originally posted by FoosM

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?

NO you would not see the stars because if the surface was in view your eyes would adjust to the light level and if the sun was in you field of view you would have no chance of seeing them.

reply to post by FoosM


Its like talking to the hard of LEARNING no possible reason for taking pictures of stars with the Hasselblads on the Moon its that simple!

Oh and the fact that most of the film used on the Moon was around 160 asa iirc then exposures would not be long enough to show stars anyway 1 sec max shutter speed.

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by Komodo

 

Liquid oxygen is about 3000 times more dense than the oxygen in the atmosphere of the CM. The CSM carried about 650 pounds of liquid oxygen. The LM descent stage carried about 48 pounds of oxygen, and the ascent stage carried about 4.8 pounds. The PLSSs were charged with about 1.2 pounds of oxygen.

As your source states, a person uses about 550 liters of oxygen per day. That volume of oxygen at 1 atmosphere of pressure is about 1.4 pounds.

So it's pretty easy to see how they had plenty of oxygen.

edit on 26-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)

I think you misunderstood what I was driving at. I'm NOT talking about the the PURE oxygen the LM was using, I'm talking about the AIR need for the men to breath JUST @ rest~! Obvisously, it can't be pure oxygen as we know. I"m talking about the mixrture of air they needed to breath with while out on .......8HOURS of experiments they conducted while on the moon~!

You didn't address the other facts I put in there...

I'll say again, I'm NOT talking about the LM oxygen. It's all about the amount of BREATHABLE air the needed JU*ST TO survive the 6 day ordeal~!

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by Komodo

 

Good point Komodo!
Nasa obviously thinks we are all stupid.
They claim the stored 1.05 pound of Oxygen at 900 PSI in that cardboard backpack. They don't even give a number for the volume!
What where they like, stuffing oxygen in there? Folding it neatly to make more fit?

Of course, scuba divers should get 5, maybe 6 minutes out of their flasks if what you say is true.

edit on 26-1-2011 by debunky because: (no reason given)

Thx dbunky. Yea... I took a beginers crash course and those tanks are heavy for a reason. yea.. 900PSI .. hmmmmmm... LOL..

it's just not logical . LOL. . and yes.. I'm quoting Spock !~!!! LOL

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
well.. i don't know what cloud your on there.. but, i just got dish network and i can see the ENTIRE earth from just 22k ft.........so where's the 200k atmosphere ?? LOL

try again shall we ??

What? I have no idea what you're saying. At 22,000 feet, you'd only be able to see about 180 miles in any direction. And what does that have to do with the density of the atmosphere at 200,000 feet?

I"m saying I.............have ..................dish ...........network.........and @ 22,000ft............i........can ..look at the ............entire earth from ......Dish Networks SAT. LOL..

check it yourself.. it's on channgle 276 LM*O~!! DOH !!!

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor
After all we've gone over about photography, you're expecting to see a star field and landscape in one photo?

Yes.
If they could accomplish this kind of photo:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d2b77269d627.gif[/atsimg]
Exposed for the ground, exposed for the shadow side of the LM, good framing, good focus no use of bracketing.
they could accomplish horizon and stars in the same picture.
I still wonder what settings was used for that photo....
No fill in flash... while your taking a picture up sun...

Originally posted by FoosM
Make up your own mind, watch some photo shoots, in a controlled environment, for example:

Do you understand the difference between artistic photography and documentary photogrammetry? There's nothing particularly artistic about the Apollo photos. But for their location and subject matter, they'd be in the bottom of a shoebox somewhere based on their artistic worth.

I beg to differ, see
spaceflight.nasa.gov...


There is another question I have about that photo, and others...
How do astronauts managed to close the LM hatch on the way out?



what make this picture odd to me is that, in one of the NASA offical vids on this thread, the men on the moon, accidently caught the sun directly in the lens and 'apprentantly' fried the film inside, acc to NSAA narator..

since this is true, because NASA stated so, how could this picture even survive is the others did not.. ??

Originally posted by Komodo
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d2b77269d627.gif[/atsimg]

If that is the sun then why is the LM not in shadow?
Obviousl by the shadows the sun is well in the background,,
It looks all sparky gold...

It is in the shadow. Can you even imagine what the sunlight side looks like?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
It is in the shadow. Can you even imagine what the sunlight side looks like?

Bright, but I've also seen other pics of the shadow side and it looks a lot darker than that..
Just saying

I mean, look at the ground that's in shadow..
You see hardly any detail at all..
Yet the LM is very clear..

Originally posted by Komodo
I"m saying I.............have ..................dish ...........network.........and @ 22,000ft............i........can ..look at the ............entire earth from ......Dish Networks SAT. LOL..

check it yourself.. it's on channgle 276 LM*O~!! DOH !!!

I think you meant 22,000 MILES, not feet. 22,000 feet is lower than what commercial airliners typically fly at.

rogersimmons.com...

Dish has added a new channel called Dish Earth, and I must admit it’s pretty cool. It’s a live video stream of the Earth — taken with a camera mounted on Dish’s EchoStar 11 satellite – orbiting about 22,300 miles above our planet.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

But would you see the stars?


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

NO you would not see the stars because if the surface was in view your eyes would adjust to the light level and if the sun was in you field of view you would have no chance of seeing them.

What are you talking about?
I am discussing about stars in photos.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

Its like talking to the hard of LEARNING no possible reason for taking pictures of stars with the Hasselblads on the Moon its that simple!

They had every possible reason, the sky was pitch black while the Sun was out!!
That reason alone would be fantastic to see in photography.
Its like saying you went to vacation at Niagara Falls and didnt take photos of the waterfall.
You want to impress the people back home, thats impressive, nobody has ever seen anything like that.
And thanks to Apollo, we still havent

Oh and the fact that most of the film used on the Moon was around 160 asa iirc then exposures would not be long enough to show stars anyway 1 sec max shutter speed.

Ok, now see, we have two NASA defenders contradicting each other.
WMD, do you want to review NAT's posts to see where you two are not in agreement?
Or should I point it out to you?

You know...
I've tried my best to come up with reasons why there were no photos taken with stars in them.
From the CM, and from the Moon's surface.

I came up with: NASA gimped or modified their cameras so it wasn't possible.
But here comes NAT saying, wait a minute, they could take whatever exposure they wanted to, and they had like 6000 asa film available.

I then tried to blame the astronauts, saying that they were hampered by their suits, lighting conditions on the moon, dust, etc.
But then all the Apollo defenders came and claimed how easy it was to shoot photos from the hip, how easy it was to manipulate the settings of the cameras to get the correct exposures. They even came up with the example of photographers managing to get great shots right in the middle of a war.

I tell you, considering the statements made the last few pages, I think Apollo defenders should be up in arms wondering where all these photos with stars in them are? I mean, you guys have done a better job explaining why it simply makes no sense that there no stars in any of the photos.
So I think we are all, on both sides in agreement.


Lets move on to how those astronauts managed to close the door of the LM while they were conducting their EVA. And, when did those astronauts go into LM to check it, after it was first docked to the CMS.

Originally posted by DJW001
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... ?)

That is some big talk. Where is your video series in rebuttal to Jarrah White?

Originally posted by backinblack
Originally posted by Komodo
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d2b77269d627.gif[/atsimg]

If that is the sun then why is the LM not in shadow?
Obviousl by the shadows the sun is well in the background,,
It looks all sparky gold...

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

That is a cool photograph. That is Apollo 14 on the surface of the moon. And this is Apollo 14 lifting off. There is the antenna in the still photograph but I did not see the same antenna in the Apollo 14 lunar liftoff video. Was I missing something?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
That is some big talk. Where is your video series in rebuttal to Jarrah White?

I imagine it's in the same place as Jarrah's peer reviewed journal article on the moon landings being fake?

reply to post by FoosM


You know, for me, 100% UNDENIABLE PROOF that man was on the Moon would be pics, taken on the moon with an astronaut, Earth and maybe stars in the background..

All Apollo missions had pics with accurate time stamps and we knew when they were there anyway..

With a GOOD pic of Earth it would be simple to chech what view of Earth would be visible from their position..
We could even check weather patterns for that day...

I have seen no pics that would be suitable..
Anyone know if there is any????

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM

 

You know, for me, 100% UNDENIABLE PROOF that man was on the Moon would be pics, taken on the moon with an astronaut, Earth and maybe stars in the background..

All Apollo missions had pics with accurate time stamps and we knew when they were there anyway..

With a GOOD pic of Earth it would be simple to chech what view of Earth would be visible from their position..
We could even check weather patterns for that day...

I have seen no pics that would be suitable..
Anyone know if there is any????

As of 2011 NASA, JAXA and ISRO are technologically incapable of taking high resolution photographs of 40 year old Apollo landing zones on the Moon. JAXA and ISRO both have links/ties to NASA. Neil Armstrong said we need to "remove one of truth's protective layers". What a cryptic comment... and another condundrum for the avid Apollo enthusiast to consider

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


No comment on what I said??