Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

1. The presence of an atmosphere scatters some light (hence our blue sky). Not a great deal is lost (only about 10-15% at earth sea level, which is bugger-all when talking about exposures and seeing stars). In regard to general viewing/photography, it had very little effect except for two biggies:

Now see how you are misleading?
You are quoting an average based on all conditions..

No misleading at all. It wasn't an average - I stated QUITE CLEARLY, that I was talking about at SEA LEVEL. Looking towards the horizon would OF COURSE involve more losses (gee, maybe that's why the Sun is often reddish at sunset, :duh

..

Sea level?
CHRLZ I dont think SEA LEVEL (height of the ocean's surface) has anything to do with horizon.
You care to elaborate?

reply to post by FoosM

DJ, can you take pictures of stars during a typical Earth day? No, not normally.
Can you take pictures of stars during a Moon day? Yes, with the right exposures.

Thats how I read JW's quote without looking into its context of the conversation.

In other words, you agree with Jarrah if you take him out of context. Wow. Why do you find it necessary to take him out of context? If you simply look at what he means, he's just plain wrong. Raylegh scattering does make it impossible to see stars below a certain magnitude on Earth during the day, but it is not impossible to see bright celestial objects such as supernovae and planets:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0a9849fe2559.jpg[/atsimg]
eclipstours.com
files.abovetopsecret.com...[/atsimg]]Larger version.

This photograph was taken in broad daylight... albeit during a solar eclipse. Note that Mercury and Venus are clearly visible, as would be Sirius and Rigel were they above the horizon. Note also that the landscape, darkened by the eclipse, is properly exposed.

Why are you willing to twist Jarrah's words in order to agree with him?

reply to post by FoosM

Sea level?
CHRLZ I dont think SEA LEVEL (height of the ocean's surface) has anything to do with horizon.
You care to elaborate?

I suggest you google "altitude + horizon." In this context, "sea level" is an altitude. Think and/or do some research before you post.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Sea level?
CHRLZ I dont think SEA LEVEL (height of the ocean's surface) has anything to do with horizon.
You care to elaborate?

I suggest you google "altitude + horizon." In this context, "sea level" is an altitude. Think and/or do some research before you post.

So what are you disagreeing with?
Your arguing for the sake of arguing.

reply to post by FoosM


I'm not arguing, I'm trying to provide you with the tools to answer your own question. Do you honestly not know what "sea level" means? Do you honestly not know about the relationship between altitude and horizon? Wait... do you not understand the relationship between the radius of a planet and the visible horizon at a given altitude? That might explain a lot of your confusion when looking at photos taken on the Moon. Seriously, go to the on-line resource of your choice and look into these questions. (Before you embarrass yourself further.)

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

DJ, can you take pictures of stars during a typical Earth day? No, not normally.
Can you take pictures of stars during a Moon day? Yes, with the right exposures.

Thats how I read JW's quote without looking into its context of the conversation.

In other words, you agree with Jarrah if you take him out of context. Wow. Why do you find it necessary to take him out of context? If you simply look at what he means, he's just plain wrong. Raylegh scattering does make it impossible to see stars below a certain magnitude on Earth during the day, but it is not impossible to see bright celestial objects such as supernovae and planets:

This photograph was taken in broad daylight... albeit during a solar eclipse. Note that Mercury and Venus are clearly visible, as would be Sirius and Rigel were they above the horizon. Note also that the landscape, darkened by the eclipse, is properly exposed.

Why are you willing to twist Jarrah's words in order to agree with him?

edit on 20-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.

Oh lord DJ just hit the turntables.


Jeezas H Christ do we have to sit here and split hairs just so you can
gain some virtual brownie points in your vendetta agains JW?

Talk about moving goal posts what did I say:

during a typical Earth day? No, not normally.

That implies that there are exceptions.
It implies its not absolute in terms of allowing for certain conditions that I assumed I didnt have to elaborate on since I expected most of you are educated enough to know what those conditions are.

DJ, you took a quote from JW that obviously was part of a long discussion.
As I said, I have not studied this conversation to know what context JW was making his statement.
Therefore, I said, just from reading his statement my opinion is he is saying that
you generally cant take photos of the stars during the day on Earth, but you should be able to on the moon.
Is he wrong about that, NO. Unless you now want to claim that astrophotography during a NORMAL Earth day is as easy as doing it on the moon.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

I'm not arguing, I'm trying to provide you with the tools to answer your own question. Do you honestly not know what "sea level" means? Do you honestly not know about the relationship between altitude and horizon? Wait... do you not understand the relationship between the radius of a planet and the visible horizon at a given altitude? That might explain a lot of your confusion when looking at photos taken on the Moon. Seriously, go to the on-line resource of your choice and look into these questions. (Before you embarrass yourself further.)

Oh man take that some place else.

Trying to conjure up implications for the purpose of obfuscation.
I can see through your tricks DJ.

So ummm... have you been able to explain the lack of FINGER & NAIL damage
that should have been noticed in the photos of the Apollo 17?
There is a lengthy post just sitting there untouched.
You guys only like to go after the easy things.
And even there you cant score points.
LOL.

reply to post by FoosM

Jeezas H Christ do we have to sit here and split hairs just so you can
gain some virtual brownie points in your vendetta agains JW?

It is clear from his actions that Jarrah has a vendetta against the world As for splitting hairs, you're the one who wants to examine photographs of the astronauts for hangnails.

DJ, you took a quote from JW that obviously was part of a long discussion.
As I said, I have not studied this conversation to know what context JW was making his statement.

I provided you with a link to the full discussion. There is no excuse for you not to read the entire thing before formulating your reply. Instead, you reflexively defended Jarrah, proving my point that you have never once disagreed with him. You owe me an apology.

Although I hate overly long quotations, I will place his statement in its exact context. I have already quoted his self important, condescending and insulting preamble. Jarrah is finding fault with Windley's presentation on "Myth Busters." This is a program that demonstrates certain principles in order to explain or debunk popular beliefs. They do not perform controlled experiments; they always know what the results will be going in. It's "infotainment." Jarrah seems unclear on the difference between a controlled experiment and a demonstration of a known principle. Anyway, here we go:

1) Mr. Windley, whilst on the moonset you demonstrate the function of the Hasselblad 500: You clearly show that the camera was operated with mechanical stops on the lens, which would grind to click with each turn. To be fair, it would be possible to use in an atmosphere. But in a vacuum, all air in a trapped environment expands: thus the fingers of the gloves worn would have inflated, so how do the astronauts know they are even touching the camera? Which of course weighs only 1/6th of its normal weight, making the pressure on the stops not as great. And in a vacuum, unless you want to try and disprove me with your scientific vandalism, the sound of the proper focus slotting into place would be absent. Rather than putting on the spacesuit yourself and attaching it up front, you simply held it to your chest with the delusion that you were equally as handicapped as
the Apollo astronauts were they really on the moon. Come to think of it, not only were you not in the suit you, a) were not in 1/6th gravity. b) not in a vacuum. c) not in a 105°C. environment and d) (Your ultimate downfall) were not in a nuclear waste zone to simulate the radioactive contamination on the moon's surface. Am I going too fast
for your pea brain? Let me go slower. Your photographs are invalid because you did not use a controlled-simulated environment.

What does 1/6 gravity have to do with the operation of a camera? What difference does it make whether the demonstrator holds the camera in his hand or straps it to his chest? These factors are completely irrelevant. The point of the demonstration was exposure. Jarrah just doesn't understand the difference between a controlled experiment and a demonstration of a specific principle.

2) You point out that shadows are pointing in different directions because of rough terrain. Well we as conspiracy theorists with an understanding of lighting and shadows would have been more than happy to swallow your pill had you not deliberately ignored pictures that feature shadows pointing in different directions on SMOOTH surfaces. Just as you deliberately ignored pictures and videos that feature astronauts black as pitch when they walk into the shadows, without the light bouncing off the surface and illuminating them. Like this
picture of Charlie Duke (assuming that's him in the costume) img.photobucket.com... If the light can reflect off the surface of the moon and light up Duke's suit, then surely it can reflect of the pit at the bottom of the crater behind him and illuminate the slope leading down into it; yet the crater is still as black as pitch. In fact, the video from
Apollo 11 shows the astronauts not getting lit up when they should be (according to your propaganda), you can purchase a copy of it for $29:95 US, its called "Apollo 11 Monkey Business." I guess the reflecting light must be having a day off.

Jarrah does not understand that shadows are distorted by the terrain. He does not understand that perspective can cause shadows to converge on the horizon. He does not understand that an astronaut standing in a shadow in the midst of a sunlit landscape will be illuminated by the light scattering off the surrounding surface, while a crater wall in shadow will be dark because the crater itself is not illuminated enough to reflect light onto it. On to the excerpt in question:

3) "We're going to find out that if we use an identical camera, loaded with identical film we wont get stars" The only problem is, as I said above, you are not using an identical environment. You were taking star photographs in an atmosphere, where light is easily absorbed and scattered in all directions by molecules in the atmosphere: no wonder you didn't get stars!

There, now you know exactly what Jarrah meant. He is under the impression that wearing gloves can affect the exposure of a photograph. He is under the impression that being in 1/6 gravity can affect the exposure of a photograph. He is under the impression that standing in a radioactive desert can affect the exposure of a photograph. Now he is stating that the presence of an atmosphere can affect the exposure of a photograph. There's just one problem: Jarrah never mentions exposure at all. He completely missed the point of the demonstration. Granted, an atmosphere can cause scattering, but that's not why they "didn't get stars!"

4) You say the flag continues to wave after it has been planted by the fact that its aluminium pole is very springy. You even demonstrate this in your moonset; but there is a difference between
the flagpoles supposedly planted on the moon and the flagpole you used on Earth: It didn't spend four days subjected to solar bombardment, you can say that the light will reflect off, but that wont stop heat from building up. If the sun can raise the moon's surface temperatures to 105°C, then surely it can raise the temperatures of the spacecraft's exterior; where the flag is transported. Through all that constant bombardment metal would have absorbed the solar heat and the heat would have caused the aluminium to expand, thus stiffen. So how can the flagpole possibly be springy?

Until you can conduct a proper experiment Windley, your results are [expletive deleted]. What next? Are you going to go round insisting that the moon is made of cheese?

I include point (4) so that you can see Jarrah's complete argument. We can debate it later if you wish. I hope you appreciate the irony of his conclusion. Jarrah reeled off a lengthy list of completely irrelevant factors and decided that Winfley couldn't conduct a proper experiment. This from someone who jumps up and down on his bed and rubs a balloon on his and considers it a proper, controlled experiment.
Edit to add link.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

1. The presence of an atmosphere scatters some light (hence our blue sky). Not a great deal is lost (only about 10-15% at earth sea level, which is bugger-all when talking about exposures and seeing stars). In regard to general viewing/photography, it had very little effect except for two biggies:

Now see how you are misleading?
You are quoting an average based on all conditions..

No misleading at all. It wasn't an average - I stated QUITE CLEARLY, that I was talking about at SEA LEVEL. Looking towards the horizon would OF COURSE involve more losses (gee, maybe that's why the Sun is often reddish at sunset, :duh

..

Sea level?
CHRLZ I dont think SEA LEVEL (height of the ocean's surface) has anything to do with horizon.
You care to elaborate?

What???? Height above sea level has everything to do with your position relative to the horizon. It is the perfect choice for what might be termed the 'worst' case. At sea level, when you look up, your view is through the typical maximum amount of atmosphere in that direction, and that is where you will see the 10-15% light reduction. If you ASCEND to higher altitudes, then obviously the amount of atmosphere is less. If you look towards the horizon, then again, obviously, the amount of atmosphere (and fog/smog/dust/water/vapour etc) increases, but again, your height above sea level will affect the angle and amount.

In simpleton's terms, and it is probably an appropriate time to answer those questions of mine from many pages back that foo, ppk and others avoided like the plague..:

The difference in a view from a high mountain compared to sea level, will be in the order of 7-10% improvement.

The difference from that, to an airless environment, is in the order of another 5-8%, all things being equal (eg using the same size (aperture) telescope/lens and shooting in total darkness). In other words, very little, and in terms of easily viewing/imaging the stars in broad bright daylight, it is unrealistic, to be kind...

On the Moon in broad daylight, you have the huge problem of shielding the lens (or your eyes) from light - even the tiniest amount of scattered/reflected light hitting the lens or any part of the front portion of the lens barrel, will potentially ruin the image (which is why that UV camera had such a long barrel....)

Secondly, you are extremely limited in the size of the lens - here on earth you can simply roll out a 10", 15" scope, and get FAR FAR better images, especially from a high altitude location. Or you can simply go to an observatory size telescope, and blow any lunar daylight imaging away by orders of thousands of magnitudes... How do you think a 70" telescope compares to a 1.5" camera lens, in terms of light gathering?

People who understand astrophotography understand this, and find this argument ridiculously ill-informed.
For it to be raised in the context of Apollo denial, clearly shows how little the deniers understand about even the most basic of topics, AND that they are completely unwilling to research before making these ignorant claims.

This entire thread is a testament to people with an unshakable belief that they have uncovered a conspiracy, when all they have uncovered is their ignorance of a multitude of topics, and the ridiculous grabbing at every image that they don't understand, as new 'evidence' to help keep their delusion alive, is just a complete waste of time.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

????????????????????

(I'm going to hate myself after midnight for this....but I'm sure, I can feed him just little bit??)

How is the light the same?

What do you think is the light source, anyway, on the Moon? Now, how about on the Earth? Any guesses?
Is it the same source? By any chance??

Who cares about the source?
Just because the main source is the SUN doesnt mean we experience the light the same.
During the same period on Earth the light looks different, the temperature is different at different locations on our planet. I can be wearing sunglasses in the tropics and have no need for them in Northern Europe.

Foosm Foosm Foosm you just DONT THINK!!

Ever heard of skiers getting snow blindness or a sun tan YES a sun tan large area of reflective material ie snow same problem on the Moon !!!!

LOTS of SNOW in northern Europe

Underlined above you do know why thats is dont you!

Originally posted by FoosM
How is the light the same?

Originally posted by dereks
It comes from the same source - see, this is what I meant that you do not actually stop and think about what you post - why do you think the light on the moon comes from a different source to the light on the moon?

Originally posted by FoosM
We dont wear gold visors on Earth.

Originally posted by dereks
Ever heard of sunglasses? Or people wearing hats?

Once again you have not stopped and thought about what you posted - you really should try it, you may realise you are posting rubbish here!

Originally posted by FoosM
Yeah Ok, wearing a hat and off the counter sunglasses will protect you on the moon as on Earth. You go with that.

Here are those sunglasses you were looking for They look like an normal pair of aviators. Unless NASA coated them with [Top Secret] they are just normal sunglasses. Gene Cernan sold his completely normal Apollo 17 sunglasses at auction in 2008.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/30a0f19dddfb.jpeg[/atsimg]

Gene Cernan's Apollo 17 Lunar Module Flown Sunglasses and Beta Cloth Case. Manufactured by American Optical, 5½" size, 1-10 12K GF, with a NASA part number of "SEB12100033-201" and serial number of "60" printed on the right earpiece. There is a small piece of Velcro on the left earpiece to facilitate attaching them to the spacecraft control panel for safekeeping. The Beta cloth case has a hard plastic liner and a tag sewn to the top with the following information, "POUCH, SUNGLASSES/ SEB 12100034-203/ S/N 1054/ MFG. NASA MSC 3-70". Cernan has hand written on the back of the case, "Flown on Apollo XVII to Lunar Surface Gene Cernan".

To protect the astronaut's eyes from the extremely bright and unfiltered sunlight that could enter the windows of the Apollo spacecraft, each astronaut was provided with a pair of sunglasses. These sunglasses were worn by Cernan during the historic final mission to the moon in December 1972, both while aboard the Command Module America, and on the lunar surface in the Lunar Module Challenger. Complete with the Beta cloth covered case, these sunglasses were an important part of Cernan's personal flight equipment, as he became the last man to walk on the moon. From the personal collection of Captain Gene Cernan accompanied by written authentication by Cernan. link to source : historical.ha.com...

Maybe the surface of the moon is not so very bright after all. Apollo 17 Schmitt (gold visor up) and Cernan work



So is the surface of the moon bright? Or not bright?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
So is the surface of the moon bright? Or not bright?

It's bright obviously, but you can still look around without the gold visor up. You wouldn't want to do that for hours at a time due to potential eye damage, just like if you were outside in the snow, desert or on the water on a sunny day. Having the gold visor up for a little while isn't going to blind them or do any serious harm.

Originally posted by DJW001
you're the one who wants to examine photographs of the astronauts for hangnails.

Wow, comparing dry skin to ripping your nail off it's quick. What a way to
insult the astronauts

Apollo 17 CDR Gene Cernan my hands were nothing but blisters. The skin on my knuckles was gone. It took three months for lunar dust to grow out from under my nails. It infiltrates." the blisters we had on our knuckles and it felt like our fingernails were driven back into the joints?"

That sure sounds more serious than having dry skin around your nail. Dont you think?
But I understand. You dont want to deal with something you cant find an argument against.

As a recap for our readers who might of missed it.
Apollo 17 astronauts claimed that working on the moon caused pain and damage to their hands.
However, LunarCognita found only one photo that possibly could be used to support their claims. Many other photos showed no such evidence:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Conclusion, claims of being and working on the moon=False.
NASA willing to manipulate photos to continue the cover-up.

Originally posted by backinblack
[[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ddba6792372.gif[/atsimg]

I see the rovers tracks but where do they go?

"Where" indeed.
And then you have examples with no rover tracks.
Besides the over-sized astronaut, this photo also has issues with disappearing tracks:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/34ab93733d48.gif[/atsimg]

hi res:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

If you find them, let me know.

reply to post by FoosM

You dont want to deal with something you cant find an argument against.

I'm sorry, but the title of this thread is "Young aussie genius..." What you posted was not only not a Jarrah original, it was not even your own; you simply cut and pasted it from someone's blog. In point of fact, due to color temperature and focus issues, it is impossible to make out sufficient detail in the photographs to reach a reasonable conclusion one way or another.

Now, back to Jarrah: now that you have no excuse for being aware of Jarrah's criticisms of Windley's contributions to "Myth Busters," what do you have to say about them?

Originally posted by backinblack
[[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ddba6792372.gif[/atsimg]

I see the rovers tracks but where do they go?

Firstly, and I've said this numerous times in this thread already, USE HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES!. There are NO excuses not to be using them.

Because if you did that, you'd see that they turn a bit to the right and get cut off from our point of view as they go down a slope. You can see the tracks continue on in the distance. It also helps to look at the preceding and succeeding images as well.

AS16-117-18754

Originally posted by FoosM
And then you have examples with no rover tracks.
Besides the over-sized astronaut, this photo also has issues with disappearing tracks:

This has been explained so many times, it's getting ridiculous. The astronauts walk all around the LRV when at a geology station, especially around the back to get there tools and equipment. All that walking around will cover up the tracks in places. You can even see a boot print right where your circle is.

The image you linked to is part of a panorama, did you check the rest of the photos to see in the tracks continued from behind? Because they do: AS15-85-11430

Did you look for other images of the LRV at station 2? Because you can see where they get cut off and continue again due to the astronauts walking all over them: AS15-85-11437

reply to post by DJW001


This is my favourite thread on ATS but I wonder if I should start a new one as its a fearsome long thread to wade through. My new thread would focus on Jarrah's heartfelt beliefs and his genuine attempts to make a point and also correct his mistakes.

Because people like DJ in particular constantly make venemous comments about Jarrah that they can never prove... such as he is a hoaxer and he lies ON PURPOSE.

people like DJ can't disengage from their own agenda and revel in this young mans zeal and energy and research and.. dare I say it.. noteriety.

I like Jarrah White. I don't think he's a genius but he has an interesting mind and I totally admire the work and effort he puts in to back up his feelings.

Rather than fling muck I think people here should applaud his efforts... even, or ESPECIALLY, if, they disagree with his beliefs. That is what ATS is about. I think.

At least Jarrah goes to great lengths to back up his belief system... like PRIESTS and POLICEMAN. If only more posters did (hint).

DJ... I hope you spend as much time and anger at jealousy demonising the 'truths' illicited by priests and police as you do to your vengeful and sometimes hateful attitude to young Jarrah White...

The Aussie 'genius' who just won't go away.

LONG LIVE JARRAH AND HIS QUESTIONS!!

I can't wait for his new series... hours and hours on moon rocks... BRING IT ON!!!! (but maybe in a new thread )

www.youtube.com/user/WhiteJarrah

reply to post by manmental


Do you consider yourself a "pea brain?" I don't. Jarrah does. If you like Jarrah, you have no respect for human dignity.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by backinblack
[[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ddba6792372.gif[/atsimg]

I see the rovers tracks but where do they go?

Firstly, and I've said this numerous times in this thread already, USE HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES!. There are NO excuses not to be using them.

Because if you did that, you'd see that they turn a bit to the right and get cut off from our point of view as they go down a slope. You can see the tracks continue on in the distance. It also helps to look at the preceding and succeeding images as well.

My eye sight must be bad..I see no tracks continuing on..
What I do see, thanks to your HD pic is the tracks look like they maybe doubles..
ie: the rover may have gone forward a few feet then reversed in the same tracks...