Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

how did they actually take a picture of the sun w/o a filter ?? !!!!

If there is a fliter, what kinda is it, cuz' NASA couldn't do it.. and it fried their film..

Do you mean the picture above and when you say NASA fried their film what camera did that happen to
The Hasselblads had a polarizing filter on them on the Moon.

The Astronauts didn't look through the viewfinder at the sun and a few pages back we pictures on the Moon with the sun in view.

reply to post by Komodo



Watch the video!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

First up, a little conspiracy theory philosophy.

As you, dear reader, will see if you examine the last few pages, the first two rules of debating from ignorance are:

MULTIPLE TOPICS!!! Yes, post as many distractions as you can, as the one thing you DON'T want is for people who know what they are talking about to focus (pun intended) on all the things you get wrong.

CHANGE THE SUBJECT!!! As soon as any difficult questions are asked, or it is clear that you are losing an argument, move on to something else...

Now, on the topics at hand...

Can I suggest that *all* sides in this debate take a step back, a deep breath, and check their facts, please!!!

First up, Komodo - please do not just make up stuff and post it. Do CITE where this camera's film was 'fried' by the sun. It is possible to damage film in that way with a really bad exposure choice, but it would only affect that frame - I think young Komodo is confusing this with a VIDEO camera incident on Apollo 12, where a video camera was left facing the Sun for a tiny bit too long, and the vidicon tube was damaged.

NOT FILM.

In regard to the ignorant comment about needing a filter to shoot into the Sun, that's just ridiculous. Other than lens flare, which as I've pointed out was a bit of a problem with the Hasselblads, there is no problem pointing a film camera at the sun, as long as you get the exposure roughly correct. You'll just get a very bright patch in your image, and in the case of those Hasselblads, a lot of lens flare. (Note that it isn't a good idea to point a digital camera, esp. a cheapie, at the Sun for very long, as it doesn't have a shutter so the sensor is exposed even when you aren't taking the shot. Sensor damage of that type is rare, but it does happen..)

I particularly enjoyed this komodism:

it's impossible to take a picture of the Sun directly without a filter

Classic! Do they not have cameras in your region, Komodo? I would estimate that I have more than a thousand images in my collection - both digital and film - that include the Sun in shot, and did not have any filter attached. BTW, I have plenty of filters, inc. polarisers... but I know when to use them.. Now I don't want to turn this thread into an art gallery, but here's an example - NO filters:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e826f9b7033b.jpg[/atsimg]
That's the SUN, not the Moon. I deliberately adjusted the exposure way down to get the silhouette effect. NO filters. That's a filmscan by the way - the original is a kodachrome slide.

Seriously, that statement by Komodo is just astonishing! How can someone seriously post that drivel?

I repeat - as long as you are using an appropriate exposure setting, and as long as you don't keep a cheap digital pointed at the Sun for minutes at a time, there is absolutely no problem in taking a normal snapshot that includes the Sun in shot.


Finally, although on the Moon there was a little more UV/IR radiation from the sun due to the lack of atmosphere (hence the gold-colored visors), brief exposure to the Sun was not a major issue for the astronaut's eyes, and absolutely no problem for the cameras/film, especially given the wide angle lenses.

THE CLIP THAT KOMODO POSTED TO MISLEAD THE FORUM, WAS ABOUT SOLAR ECLIPSES. Solar eclipses are dangerous because the brightness of the Sun is greatly reduced near eclipse, so your pupil dilates, yet that tiny area is still getting exposed to the IR/UV. Because eclipses are simply wonderful to watch, you are likely staring at exactly the same spot for extended periods, not realising that you may end up with a tiny burnt patch on your retina. The sun was not being eclipsed on the Moon, so Komodo merely picked that clip to MISLEAD.


wmd_2008, I believe they did take a polariser on some of the missions, but I think only for the 35mm cameras. A polariser would not have given any significant advantage for shooting into the Sun - that's *not* what they are for.

Now, Komodo, if you have a point and you actually understand the basics of photography, please make it. Stop posting irrelevant garbage.

And FoosM, I see you haven't addressed the point at hand, but have now 'moved on'. Typical. But I haven't forgotten. I'll be back...

BTW, for anyone who wants to investigate the silly "show us a picture with the astronauts and the stars in shot" request, the next step you can do yourself. Using a manual camera, set it to f5.6 and oh say 10 seconds (I'm giving FoosM a lot of latitude there), and then take a shot of something/anything) illuminated by sunlight.

Good luck with that.

PS - I will not accept claims for damage to your digital sensor - I warned you about the issue up above.

reply to post by CHRLZ

In regard to the ignorant comment about needing a filter to shoot into the Sun, that's just ridiculous.

Bit harsh..I started that post saying I didn't know much..
But I thought they took special shots of the sun corona and would have needed filters for that...

Originally posted by backinblack
Question...
Can someone tell me what position the moon was in relevant to the Earth and Sun at the time of the landings?
Did all missions occur during the same phases?

Here's a pic..


Positions are numbered 1-8..
Does anyone know or have a link to where I can see??
Please.

This information is available somewhere - I've seen a NASA page on it, but it might take me a while to find it. You could also use a program like Celestia to model it yourself on your own PC if you are game... You can (and people have) work out precisely where any celestial object should be in any photo, as they are all date and time tagged...

Sadly Nasa's site navigation and ease of search was never one of their high points... but if I get time I'll take a look...

And DJW (as always!) was correct - they timed their visits to be there in the lengthy lunar 'morning', and they always left before 'noon' , but each visit varied and got longer. The 'latest' they were there, was a Sun elevation of about 49°. Just after morning coffee!

There are plenty of moon maps showing their locations, so you could pretty easily work out the Earth angle from that, as the Moon always faces us the same way...

May I ask what you are inquisitive about? Might be easier to help if we knew..

Aha, found some of it:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

The earth locations are somewhere too, I'm pretty sure, but I'll leave that to someone else, or you could just work it out from their lunar lat/lon.

BTW, do you ever see this sort of help coming from the deniers?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

In regard to the ignorant comment about needing a filter to shoot into the Sun, that's just ridiculous.

Bit harsh..I started that post saying I didn't know much..
But I thought they took special shots of the sun corona and would have needed filters for that...

Sorry! I sometimes can't keep up. I was referring to komodo and foosm's claims, and the fact that a polariser would be pretty much useless for that. Komodo seems to think that the cameras would explode if they dared to include the sun in shot, despite there being numerous examples of those images.

Yes, there are special filters for specialist coronal viewing, but afaik they didn't do anything like that with the Hasselblads (and would have needed some sort of obscuring mechanism - it's not all that easy to do) - happy to be proven wrong. But was there some other point that I missed - ie what does any of this have to do with doubting the veracity of the missions?

Added PS - FTR, I think you have been doing very well in the last few pages! Keep it up, BiB. And asking FoosM for his favorite is a good move.... Once, it was radiation, I believe, but he seems to have got a bit shy about that now...

reply to post by CHRLZ


Thanks Chrlz..
I'll check that site and see if I can play around with it..
Hey, I get on with most members and they are all helpfull..

Hey, check this pic..
I have no idea where they took it from..
Looks like from the surface but that seems odd as I though the Earth was mostly above them..

reply to post by CHRLZ

May I ask what you are inquisitive about? Might be easier to help if we knew..

I was just trying to get my head around why the Earth was in partial shadow..
The site you just linked answers that..
The sun was quite low on the moon's horizon which would leave a partial Earth showing

Apollo 11
Landing: 102.75 GET
EVA
Start: 109.00 GET, 14.0 deg.
Finis: 111.75 GET, 15.4 deg.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

Thanks Chrlz..
I'll check that site and see if I can play around with it..
Hey, I get on with most members and they are all helpfull..

Hey, check this pic..
I have no idea where they took it from..
Looks like from the surface but that seems odd as I though the Earth was mostly above them..

Link not working for me. If you can help identify the picture that would be good... Although it sounds like you may have answered your own question now?

Like I said, you can model all this in programs like Celestia, and verify that the earth phases are exactly correct, even for the entire missions, not just the surface eva's. Those with more time than me have even checked telephoto images like this one:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
(that one was taken from the CM, not the surface!) against the weather patterns at the time, and they match too. Them clever nasa guys/gals didn't miss a trick...

Hi CHRLZ

Your point re digital cameras and sun damage is a good one as we have all seen the Nibiru posts on ATS with black dots over the sun which is sensor damage although you will never convince the Nibiru believers thats the case

According to the Hasselblad site the polarizing was fitted to the f5.6/60mm lens used on the Moon, I know what a polarizing filter is used for and we know the shutter helps protect the film in a camera.

Thats why I asked komodo what camera he was talking about when he mentioned the problem because it was obvious in the way cameras work that would be a tv type camera that had confused the hoax believers.

The subject of photography is to much for some.(Foosm,ppk55)

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Hi CHRLZ
Your point re digital cameras and sun damage is a good one as we have all seen the Nibiru posts on ATS with black dots over the sun which is sensor damage although you will never convince the Nibiru believers thats the case

True that! Note that the black spot effect is the first sign of sensor overload, and does not necessarily indicate permanent damage. But if you leave a cheap digital camera pointing in the same direction at the Sun for say 20 seconds... I'd be getting very nervous..

According to the Hasselblad site the polarizing was fitted to the f5.6/60mm lens used on the Moon, I know what a polarizing filter is used for and we know the shutter helps protect the film in a camera.

Well, there you go, I've learnt something - I apologise! But note it just says they had access to an easily removable one, not that they used it.

Two points though - First, I'm almost certain that any shots where they used the polariser would be noted in the journals. Second, and more importantly, a polariser is designed for selective filtering of polarised light, eg reflections from non-metallic surfaces. It is pretty much useless as a 'sun filter', as it only drops the light by 2 f-stops at most (usually more like 1.7). To filter the sun in any useful way, you need either a neutral density (ND) filter (these are often rated at several stops, and darken the image substantially (polarisers only darken it a little)), or some sort of selective bandwidth filter, eg to stop/allow UV/IR. What is even more problematic about using them, is that any additional filter *adds* lens flare!! The Hasselblads were already prone to excessive flare (mostly because of the reseau plate), so using an additional filter would not have been advisable unless there was good reason

Thats why I asked komodo what camera he was talking about when he mentioned the problem because it was obvious in the way cameras work that would be a tv type camera that had confused the hoax believers.

Indeed. We shall await Komodo's response, as he cites the film/camera that was 'fried'. And after that he can explain what it has to do with Apollo being real. Not holding my breath.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
You seem to miss the WHOLE POINT of a SPY MISSION

You seem to miss the point of my post.

You wrote in response to the Discoverer satellite later being shown to be the Corona spy satellite ...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
I would think anyone on the project would have known what it was for.

Which I've shown was false.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Everyone involved with the design, construction, testing, launching, guidance, etc. etc. had no idea of it's true purpose. edit: Nearly everyone, obviously.

You can now extrapolate this to the Apollo program.

No one is denying Discoverer, sorry, Corona was a spy satellite. The fascinating part is how everyone who had anything to do with it had no idea of it's true purpose. Apart from those that knew what it's true mission would become and those that swapped the payload at the very last moment.

So when people say hundreds of thousands were involved with the Apollo missions. Well, yes they were. Did they know what would happen just after launch? Absolutely not.

Just like the mice were replaced by spy camera film on the Discoverer / Corona mission, perhaps the astronauts might have met a similar fate.

reply to post by ppk55

Everyone involved with the design, construction, testing, launching, guidance, etc. etc. had no idea of it's true purpose. edit: Nearly everyone, obviously.

You can now extrapolate this to the Apollo program.

NO, you cannot!!! That is utterly ridiculous, and anyone who bothers to pay attention to the last 340+ pages can clearly see why.

This is pure desperation, stemming from ignorance and some weird, fervent desire that I cannot comprehend.

Now, if you STILL haven't figured out why your idea of such a "charade" is bonkers, here is just ONE little tidbit that blows you out of the water --- Astronauts are Human. This means they can speak, and communicate.

IF you still don't understand, after putting on your thinking cap? Might need another instructor, because sometimes it just takes another person to come at it correctly, in order to trigger that "Aha!" moment in a student.

reply to post by ppk55

Everyone involved with the design, construction, testing, launching, guidance, etc. etc. had no idea of it's true purpose. edit: Nearly everyone, obviously.

Everyone involved in the design, construction, etc. knew exactly what its purpose was: to loft 250 kilogram payloads into an orbit of about 200 km altitude. It didn't matter what the payload was. The clients could shoot mice into space for all they cared. Pretty sure no-one really thought it was mice after a while.

You can now extrapolate this to the Apollo program.

Exactly. Everyone involved in the Apollo program knew they were designing, building and launching a rocket capable of sending a massive payload to the Moon. They also knew they were developing manned spacecraft capable of travelling to the Moon, landing and returning.

No one is denying Discoverer, sorry, Corona was a spy satellite. The fascinating part is how everyone who had anything to do with it had no idea of it's true purpose.

Everyone involved in designing and operating the Corona satellite knew everything about its mission and operation, obviously. You seem to be confusing the contractors who built the boosters with the clients at DARPA. The contractors didn't need to know what the satellite was for; so long as it was under 250 kilos they could put it into orbit.

So when people say hundreds of thousands were involved with the Apollo missions. Well, yes they were. Did they know what would happen just after launch? Absolutely not.

Why not? They had all worked hard to build a spacecraft with a specific mission, unlike the Thor-Agena used in the Explorer/Corona programs.

Just like the mice were replaced by spy camera film on the Discoverer / Corona mission, perhaps the astronauts might have met a similar fate.

So are you saying the astronauts were replaced by a spy camera... or mice?

reply to post by weedwhacker

Now, if you STILL haven't figured out why your idea of such a "charade" is bonkers, here is just ONE little tidbit that blows you out of the water --- Astronauts are Human. This means they can speak, and communicate.

I'll accept any evidence you care to put forward but simply saying they are human and thus can't keep a secret is just wrong..
Live by your own standards of acceptable evidence weed..
You tend to have two sets of standards...

reply to post by backinblack


That's not what I intended. It was obviously too subtle.......

I have another idea for a hint, maybe you'll understand this time.

Search for the "Turing Test", if you haven't heard of it before. THAT should show where I was going with the mention of the Astronauts being Human and able to communcate (as opposed to mice, who last time I checked, don't speak much).

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

That's not what I intended. It was obviously too subtle.......

I have another idea for a hint, maybe you'll understand this time.

Search for the "Turing Test", if you haven't heard of it before. THAT should show where I was going with the mention of the Astronauts being Human and able to communcate (as opposed to mice, who last time I checked, don't speak much).

edit on 3 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

I know the turing test but still don't see your point..Well not all of it anyway...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM

 

Foosm, forget everything so far and just tell me what is your one BIG piece of evidence to prove the moon landings are a hoax??
There should be atleast ONE undeniable bit of proof..

Oh noes not the 'one single proof' question



Its difficult... difficult to just pick one. And difficult to prove you have proof.
Its similar to growing up religious with some nagging questions, and one day waking up not believing in God anymore. Once that happens you can point to many aspects of the bible or koran, etc that you simply cant accept as being factual, or plausible. When before the same words were reasons to support your faith.

So its the same with Apollo. All these questions started to come up, then one day like a switch I absolutely didn't believe in it anymore. And now when I see references to Apollo on TV or in magazines, instead of being fascinated by it, I just shake my head in disgust because it looks so fake, yet people are pushing it like its real. Like proselytizers.

So let me think about is some more, but for now its not about the single shot, its a buck shot.

Little clarification to all about polariser filters. They block out light that comes from a specific angle. When light leaves a source the waves move in all directions. When it hits a surface and bounces the light waves will only travel in specific direction and when you put a polariser filter on a camera you can match that direction to block them out. It doesn't do anything if you point the camera directly at the source of the light since light waves are moving in all directions.
Sorry if I'm abit lousy at explaining things

reply to post by FoosM

Its difficult... difficult to just pick one. And difficult to prove you have proof.
Its similar to growing up religious with some nagging questions, and one day waking up not believing in God anymore. Once that happens you can point to many aspects of the bible or koran, etc that you simply cant accept as being factual, or plausible. When before the same words were reasons to support your faith.

So its the same with Apollo. All these questions started to come up, then one day like a switch I absolutely didn't believe in it anymore. And now when I see references to Apollo on TV or in magazines, instead of being fascinated by it, I just shake my head in disgust because it looks so fake, yet people are pushing it like its real. Like proselytizers.

Your religious language makes your issues crystal clear. You do not understand the difference between faith and belief on the one hand and knowledge and understanding on the other. You seemed to "believe" in the historical record of the Apollo programs based on nothing more than faith. Belief and faith are appropriate in the sphere of religious discourse, but are completely invalid in the scientific disciplines, both physical and historical.

As we have seen, your inability to understand why there are no stars in the photographs taken on the surface of the Moon was the result of your lack of knowledge about photography. Once the principles of proper exposure, and the relative brightness of different objects were explained, you were able to understand why there no stars in the infamous photo, which out of deference to backinblack I will not post here.

Similarly, knowledge of basic physics would help you to understand why objects move the way they do on the Moon and why spacecraft behave the way they do in space, A more advanced knowledge of physics (and some rudimentary knowledge of biology or medicine) would help you understand why the ERBs and short term exposure to the space radiation environment were risky, but not necessarily fatal. Most importantly, since these events took place before you were even born, a knowledge of historical methodology would help you understand why the overwhelming preponderance of physical and documentary evidence makes the Apollo program an indisputable historical fact.

It may be this religious attitude on your part that colors your resistance to learning the objective sciences (including history) that you need to move your paradigm from one of belief and opinion to that of understanding and knowledge. It may also explain your frequent outbursts of polemics. The only proselytizer on this thread is you, as you are the only one basing your arguments on opinion.