Jarrah, I don't want to be rude, but don't you think stars is not the reason man went to the moon? It was to explore the lunar surface. If you can see the same stars from Earth, why would they care to take pictures of them from the moon??
Studying the stars from moon is a huge advantage over studying them from the earth. The earth's atmosphere blocks out some of the starlight and the twinkling we see is a distortion due to starlight being refracted through the miles and miles of air. A binary star can look like a single star as a result of this.
Space-based observatories and definitely moon based observatories would be free of this issue for obvious reasons.
its like when we discovered america,but just stay at the beach,never borther to explore the inland....and return to europe with tales of a small beach...now that would be considered as a missed opportunity...now these man were explorers,so its logical to explore....what is nasa? nuthing to do with exploring,so i wonder what is there 'plan'.......wanna see vegas?ok but keep ur eyes on the sidewalk.....?
I've seen that video and read the comments. I've noticed that various pro-NASA guys commenting have claimed those stars are negative pin-holes or cosmic rays.
judging by the size of the landing modules that were taken.....i seriously doubt that ANY telescope that could have been smuggled aboard would have held any value to photos taken from earths observatories....multi million dollar telescopes used for research vs.teeny little scope on the moon....really? im also only guessing that nasa based their modules with necessity in mind and something like taking pics of stars was probably not high priority for a MOON EXPLORATION trip.
The entire Apollo project brought us thousands of photos. They could have taken at least a few photographs of the stars, or an object and the stars visible in it...
So Michael Collins can not see stars & Buzz Aldrin saw UFOs????
This is so credible how can anyone dought these to astroNOTs.
Why do the NASA propagandist argue with plausible reasons why Moon missions were faked. Tey they are silent when it comes to the(present) UFO claims sighted during Apollo?
Note how they are given prime TV coverage(Larry King Live/ with no insults nor macking) Where are the Mythbuster on the Apollo UFOs claims???
What we should have heard from anyone travelling to the moon, would have been. "Jesus Christ Houston, we are puking our guts out into the command module. We keep seeing stars shooting all around, even though our eyes are fucking closed. For fucks sake Houston, why didn't you tell us about the radiation!" At some point we would have heard nothing as the instruments would have failed, Astronots would have died, and the CM drifted into space, an eternal resting place for three dead heros.
un4g1v3n1, you claim that men have never been out of LEO, yet you seem to have a precise knowledge of exactly what it SHOULD look like. That's not science! You're putting the cart before the horse.
And...you're ignoring my simple question: "Were Shuttle observations made during earth daylight or night time?" At least a simple yes, no or I don't know would be constructive.
Watch the videos...Find out for yourself..I'm not going to waste my time if you are either unwilling or incapable of finding out for yourself. Jarrah, GM and I, as well as many others don't spend our time making videos to enlighten people you try to mindfuck to go provide information you are either already aware of, too lazy to look at, or too ignorant to understand!!!
You're not willing to waste time on perhaps the most critical point of the argument you and WJ have? Then why am I here? This video is hollow without the critical answer to the question: Do Shuttle astronauts see stars in daylight?
Soon, I will have no choice but to conclude you either don't know or don't want to say because it will crush your premise. The credibility of this video hangs on this question.
Did you see the first quote in Jarrah's video? There is no crushing Except the space between your ears which will eventually collapse if you don't stop acting as if you are too stupid to understand very simple concepts..Such as NO ATMOSPHERE equaling, unobstructed view of STARS! Now, how f*cking simple are you? Are you so dense as to not understand that...If so, go to watch?v=aisdh5sdrgk Listen to a canadian astronaut explain very simply to a little girl how atmosphere obstructs view of stars!
As far as why you are here! We both know that answer! And anyone paying attention to your lame ass excuses can see...You try to fling shit on very simple explanation which out NASA and it's NAZI beginnings! We know what you are doing here LT! It is all very obvious.. What I want to know...Is when do you plan on regaining your conscience, and stop trying to lie to the young minds of the world. How f*cking big is the cooking your NASA taskmasters give you for your efforts?
Congratulations, un4g1v3n1, you're getting better at name-calling & insulting. If this clip was about me, that would be interesting, but it's not about me, is it?
Now, if only you & WJ were as good at answering simple requests:
Were the Shuttle astronaut observations made in daylight or not?
What are the lighting condition of the various shots selected for this video?
What were the shutter/aperture settings for the shaky video segment showing the star?
They could have changed aperture settings...YES? Or would you like to lie about that?
Answer would prove you are serious about dialog...
Melvilles mind-blowing view of the stars were on the daylight side...WATCH THE VIDEO!
You waste valuable time with your inane babbling svinctor...er..svector! We both know your true nature...it's clearly pointed out in Radioactive Anomoly pt 1.
Melville's statement is not that "the stars are mind-blowing" but that SEEING them in daylight "is mind-blowing." He wasn't suggesting that the sky was painted with a Star Trek-like mural of color-drenched celestial bodies.
I have never refuted that they can be seen during daylight. Cernan noted them while on the moon. Apollo has acknowledged that. With effort, the brightest stars can be seen. It's not that Armstrong COULDN'T. He just DIDN'T.
My question was not about changing aperture settings, but WHAT setting WJ used to capture the bright star in the "shaky star" segment. Also, has he zoomed in? That could change matters.
I'm not being unreasonable. I'm just asking questions. Why do you find that so offensive?
Why waste a mission to the moon to study stars when that can be done much more cheaply from LEO? If the Far UV wasn't a photographic telescope, what was it? You want a telescopic camera and when one is provided, you say it wasn't! The Jeep comparison is nonsense! The LRVs were not assembly line produced and far more complex! You want
Waste a mission to the moon? You are truly moronic! Like bringing along a photographic telescope would have been a big deal or waste. Your excuses grow more pathetic you know that! You should really try debunking something you can sound less stupid about! Waste of a mission? Reading your comments could very well lead to those unaware to losing valuable IQ points!!!
un4g1v3n1, Happy Holidays. I see you're keeping your insults an namecalling in good shape, I only wish you engaged the question.
No other agency in the world but NASA has done as much to study the stars--including sending a photographic observatory to the moon on Apollo 16. It was done! The rest of Apollo focused on THE MOON! Is it hard to imagine that most of our moon trips were for the purpose of studying the moon?
Hmm...glad you like them...Happy holidays to you too...I would be glad to retract the moron statement if you could come up with comments free of moronic blathering! As of yet, you have proven incapable of such!
Just like using sunglasses, or bowls to simulate Apollo space helmet face shields...
It seems you prefer using moronic statements in lieu of actual, accurate, believable research!
Rightfully so, since once one does the necessary research, one can only surmise Apollo as Fantasy!
Shuttle astronauts go into space to do experiments and such that have nothing to do with stars...And yet at least four that have been mentioned in my videos and Jarrahs, have found the view of the stars so breathtaking, that they actually mention them. Yet all those Apollonots, on very long missions, just conveniently forgot to even mention the stars. And to you that isn't odd? Which proves you to be free of critical thinking, as well as common sense!!!!
Be precise. Are they seeing the stars on the daylight side of earth or from inside the brightly lit Shuttle or during EVAs? Don't you think these are legitimate questions that reflect critical thinking?
Apollo astronauts walked during daylight hours from a brightly lit surface. Despite this, at least 1 astronaut (Cernan) says that with effort, he WAS able to see stars. I suspect stars from dark locations and without atmosphere are quite wonderful to see, but how wonderful is subjective.
Cernan is a joke. 30 years after the fact. LOL! Not a word during the missions though. Your assessment is rather moot. And since they had plenty of time, in the darkness of space between the moon and Earth to comment, it's rather odd they didn't mention them....But again, you don't see odd..You don't use critical thinking..You just make excuses...Did you miss MoonFaker: Dude, Where's My Star? You can go to my channel, click on the first playlist and educate yourself.
un4g1v3n1, nope. immediately, in his mission debrief:
"It was also generally true that, when you were on the surface in the LM's shadow, there were too many bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible. But I remember that I wanted to see whether I could see stars, and there were times out on the surface when I found that, if you allowed yourself to just focus and maybe even just shielded your eyes to some degree, even outside the LM shadow you could see stars in the sky."
MISSION DEBRIEF? Not worthy of mentioning to the masses eagerly awaiting to hear what space looks like! Who payed combined, billions in taxes...Yet he failed to mention them as he travelled there....Hmmm....again, odd factor level 1000000000000million...and you are unable to see that....You are not blind, stupid or lack critical skills..You are worse...NASA lackey, shill excuse maker...
Wear your badge with pride LT! Has NASA made you shills one yet?
un4g1v3n1, Apollo was not about site-seeing and stars. Apollo was a mission to get a man on the moon and study THE MOON. Despite those mission objectives, astronauts DID make observations and shared them. In fact, Apollo 16 DID take photos of stars, but not to your liking.
You wrongly assumed Cernan made his comments years later. You were wrong.
Now, care to answer whether Shuttle astronauts saw stars in daylight or not? Your silence on this speaks volumes.
And when you drive to work...Do you not pay attention to the f*cking red lights...or the blonde on the back of the motorcycle with her thong showing? No, you have to get to work to quickly troll and spam the videos attempting to awaken the world to NASA's f*cking big ass lie! Okay...So your blind on the way to your destination...and you refuse to acknowledge or talk about anything remarkable. I forgot...you are a simpleton!
I thought you watched Lunarcy: Reach for the stars...It seems that more recent astronauts make very extreme comments about the magical, wonderful site of the stars. Or the MIND-BLOWING view of the stars as is mentioned by Melville. But I suppose that was too subjective eh? Taxpayers pay 30 billion dollars for their supposed trip to the moon, and they don't feel any obligation to describe the amazing sight of the stars. Fucking unbelievable, just like your excuses for them!!!
un4g1v3n1, stay on point. First, what are the answer to these questions: Are these Shuttle observations during earth daylight? Are these observations from a fully lit cabin or with lights off?
Plenty of time to follow these other rabbit trails later, but why can't you or Jarrah make distinctions between stars during day or night? Let's deal with first things first.
Educate yourself... It's your mind, waste it in ignorance if you like. But you can't pull the wool over the eyes of the educated, researchers of the Apollo Fairy Tale! I thought you would have learned that by now!!!
Your delusions of Apollo Granduer, remain delusions!
How was the overhead shot of the shuttle lit? Daylight? Daylight reflected off the earth? The video of across the back of the cargo bay is obviously dusk or dawn, but the is the photo at night or day? What WAS the exposure setting? These circumstances all appear to be different. How can we compare them if we don't know the exposure settings that would be needed?
Melvill's quote regarded the "blue sky turning pitch-black" as he passed into night. No one argues that seeing stars at night is quite possible! I'd imagine they're quite vivid above atmosphere.
Armstrong never looked for stars. His EVA was short and very busy. Cernan later confirmed that in the shadow off the LM he could see a few stars if he shaded his eyes. Not easy, but possible. This is reasonable and consistent with the physical laws we know.
It is an observatory, and it is photographic, and it does enlarge the image telescopically.
How is that not a "photographic telescope"? And if it's not? What does it matter? You're just being nitpicking semantics.
The observatory is what it is. And what it is very hard to deny proof that someone was on the moon taking photos of the stars at a very specific date and time, a date and time they just happened to claim to have been on the moon.
Jarrah... THE star that you are imaging in that one jiggly shot, is NOT being imaged on FILM as you claim. That's a modern CCD video camera, isn't it? Thats hardly a a side-by-side comparison of like technologies.
"Jarrah... THE star that you are imaging in that one jiggly shot, is NOT being imaged on FILM as you claim. That's a modern CCD video camera, isn't it? Thats hardly a a side-by-side comparison of like technologies."
If you're gonna complain about my Panasonic footage, what about Jay Windley comparing Hasselblad star photography with his own CCD photo of Mars?
Also... that single, zoomed-in shot of a star does not compare with an attempt to image stars with brightly lit terrain in the frame WITH the star. Try THAT and show us your star. Better yet, try doing it with ASA 60 Ektachrome photographic film. Then you'll be doing some significant comparrisons.
No I ain't. If you are gonna criticize my equipment then what about Windley's? Furthermore, I've already shown a daylight image of a brightly lit shuttle clearly showing stars among other examples.
Jarrah: On tha video I see a lot of people saying that under thus and such a condition, you could photograph stars. There's a few unqualified, exerpted statements saying stars should be visible, blah, blah, blah...
Put this issue to rest, Jarrah. Stick some ASA60 Ektachrome in your SLR, stick it on a tripod, go out tonight to a brightly lit parking lot, Shoot the night sky while including the brightly lit surroundings in the picture... show us the stars. Enough of all this pedantic dogma.
"Jarrah: On tha video I see a lot of people saying that under thus and such a condition, you could photograph stars. There's a few unqualified, exerpted statements saying stars should be visible, blah, blah, blah..."
If you bothered to watch the video the whole way through, you would have noticed the brightly lit shuttle photo from STS-6 showing stars in the background.
I suppose we could always go through the trouble of trying to match the stars up. Though as we have seen stars and celestial bodies only match up when they are convenient to Jarrah's conclusions. When they are inconvenient to his conclusions they mysteriously fail to match up, even when other people have managed to do just that.
"Put this issue to rest, Jarrah. Stick some ASA60 Ektachrome in your SLR, stick it on a tripod, go out tonight to a brightly lit parking lot, Shoot the night sky while including the brightly lit surroundings in the picture... show us the stars. Enough of all this pedantic dogma."
That would be even easier than shooting objects in the brightly lit sunlight of the moon too. should be a wee bit easier.
Qualify that, Italiano. What were the potical parameters of that UV telescope that fall short of YOUR expert standard of what is and is not a telescope?
Italiano... The Hubble is the size of a School Bus!!! They could have only taken incredible Hubble-like pictures... if they HAD a Hubble Space Telescope! How obvious is THAT?
A compact 600 pound astronomical telescope? They would not have had time to set it up, calibrate and align it and do any significant astronomical work, and that process would have consumed the precious opportunity to devote time to their ACTUAL mission... exploration of the MOON! They DID NOT GO TO THE MOON FOR ASTRONOMICAL PURPOSES!
"They would of had incredible Hubble-like pictures back then that would of blown people away."
No, they wouldn't. Did you not notice the picture posted from the UV Telescope? They didn't have the technology to send up anything able to take near the quality of photos of an earth based observatory. They didn't blow anyone away except possibly some astronomers that wanted to see what the earth looked like in the UV spectrum.
3 BUGGIES $6O MILLION DOLLARS each, someone was making a lot of money. There is no way this figure covers labour costs and time etc.
The Americans have been ripped of by their alrady rich elite contractors . Every American should ask for a breakdown and explanation in detail of these costings etc.
"There is no way this figure covers labour costs and time etc."
Yeah, if only there were other things they had to pay for. I mean why would they have to do any research or experiments, surely they could have just downloaded the plans for the buggies off the internet like everyone else.
yeah, at 2:18 he claims they ended up with one "dim, somewhat blurred photo", when, as your video shows quite well, there plenty more than that. He seems to be claiming they didn't take the opportunity to bring an observatory equipped with film, when it's quite obvious that they did. And that observatory *did* take magnificent photographs of not only the stars, but also the earth, and those photos revealed new information that had never been available before.
"he claims they ended up with one "dim, somewhat blurred photo", when, as your video shows quite well, there plenty more than that."
Fine, 178 dim and blurred UV photos. Hardly magnificent! I've seen more spectacular views of stellar bodies from the Hubble or even ground-based telescopes. Why was no attempt made to bring better photographic equipment to the moon when to this day scientists have long wanted to bring a wide variety of telescopes to the moon, (Steve Cook being a recent example).
Second question: knowing Kaysing was aware of the UV photos, why did Windley totally misrepresented his argument regarding the UV photos?
And while you're at it, there obviously was a big demand for star photography: so why didn't they even supply a tripod for the Hassies knowing full well that they could have increased their exposures for star pictures? Or go to the lengths of providing more advanced telecopes, which is exactly what Steve Cook proposes for Orion?
"there obviously was a big demand for star photography"
I'm not aware of anyone at the time calling for standard photos of the stars from the moon. What would a standard photo of the stars from the moon reveal that a photo taken from earth wouldn't?
I can't speak for Windley, but I will say this. Kaysing may have been aware of the UV photos, but the significance of the photos was obviously lost on him. There is nothing to his argument, there's nothing there other than a mention.
Have you seen "Apollo 16: Nothing So Hidden"? I included a relevant portion from it in Part 3.
As Kaysing states: "There was not atmosphere to restrict or diffuse their light." The vacuum of space is a great advantage for the Hubble, which photographs the stars in the visible, infrared, and UV spectrum. I'm sure you can imagine how gutted astronomers were to learn its successor would photographing only one spectrum.
"The vacuum of space is a great advantage for the Hubble, which photographs the stars in the visible, infrared, and UV spectrum. I'm sure you can imagine how gutted astronomers were to learn its successor would photographing only one spectrum."
The advantages that Hubble presents to is is partly due to it's size. Apollo could have taken a small observatory (which they did). But to drag along a telescope on the size of Hubble, something weighing several tonnes would have been prohibitive.
"Hardly magnificent! I've seen more spectacular views of stellar bodies from the Hubble or even ground-based telescopes."
They are magnificent because they revealed new information. A point you have yet to refute. I don't see how the UV photography failed, nor do I see how it is insignificant. They didn't bring better equipment because what they brought did the job just fine.
Your friends hype that there is nothing special to gain from the moon that could not have been obtained better from earth orbit, so why does Steve Cook propose the placement of not one, but multiple telescopes on the moon?
"Your friends hype that there is nothing special to gain from the moon that could not have been obtained better from earth orbit, so why does Steve Cook propose the placement of not one, but multiple telescopes on the moon?"
Because now we're getting around to establishing a permanent base on the moon so it's much more feasible to send up a large permanent telescope.
"I beg to differ: I've already proven you wrong regarding UV photos from orbit and satellites carrying camera film into space."
You seem to think that by proving some of the photos could have been taken in orbit, that you have proven that all of them could have. But you know better.
"Then why to this day is there a large demand to bring better equipment to the moon on Orion?"
"I've seen more spectacular views of stellar bodies from the Hubble or even ground-based telescopes."
The Hubble weighs 75% of what the Lunar lander did. Bringing a telescope large enough to take better pictures than Earth-based observatories would have been impossible.
There was already a space telescope in orbit when Apollo 11 went up, by the way, it was called the OAO-2.
I wonder if you might elaborate on the claim that the photos could have been faked by superimposing an image of the earth over an image of the stars? Where did they get the image of the earth? Why is the shadow of the earth oriented exactly as it should. More importantly, why are the Arctic and tropical airglow bands (two different features seen at two different wavelengths) oriented exactly as they ought to be?
As usual your arguments are resigned to the "could" and not "did", but unfortunately even here you fail, for not all of the UV photography on the Apollo 16 mission "could" have been done in LEO because the photography covered such a wide range of the UV spectrum, including the range in which it would have been obscured by the geocorona.
This must have been why you omited the photo I used in my video, the one that shows the geocorona shining very brightly indeed. ;)
"This must have been why you omited the photo I used in my video, the one that shows the geocorona shining very brightly indeed. ;)"
You mean the way you omitted the Gemini 10 UV image so you could falsely claim the photos couldn't have been taken from earth orbit?
You can't come back here and tell me the geocorona would have spoiled UV photography when Michael Collins supposedly took such photos on Gemini 10, without the geocorona obscuring the ultraviolet light.
Now I'm gonna ask you again. Why did you neglect to mention the Gemini 10 UV photos, and why did you not mention that Kaysing had built his argument partly on those Apollo 16 photos you hyped about?
You are either a poor researcher or a liar like Windley, I'm here to find out which.
The same reason I didn't mention many of the other UV experiments that have taken place over the years, for brevity. Though I have considered making a follow up video that does cover the history of UV measurement and photography in space.
Whatever I said or didn't say and however you want to interpret that, the fact still stands: The Apollo 16 UV photos includes information that couldn't have been obtained in LEO, though it does contain some information that could have been.
"You can't come back here and tell me the geocorona would have spoiled UV photography when Michael Collins supposedly took such photos on Gemini 10, without the geocorona obscuring the ultraviolet light."
I won't, but I will say it would ruin *some* of the UV photography that was seen in the results of the Apollo 16. Again, the UV spectrum is very wide, nor it's characteristics uniform. Do you deny this?
"Do you deny that Collins was supposedly able to photograph the UV star field without the geocorona ruining his shots?"
No, but I'm not claiming he was capturing light in a wavelength that would be obscured by a glowing geocorona, which would happen at other wavelengths within the UV spectrum, as quite evidenced by the Apollo 16 UV photos themselves.
"And do you deny that Kaysing had built his argument on those photos? You seem to deny it in your film."
"but I'm not claiming he was capturing light in a wavelength that would be obscured by a glowing geocorona"
That's not what you claimed in your film: 'the vail of which shines brightly in the ultraviolet light from our own sun, this hydrogen wholly obscures observation from earth' You specifically stated that taking UV photos from orbit would have been impossible because of the geocorona.
I'm sorry, but what argument are you talking about? The one claim of Bill Kaysing's that you cite, that they *didn't* take a photographic observatory along, is simply wrong, since they *did* take one along. Please post something of Kaysing's where he specifically mentions the UV camera.
"That's not what you claimed in your film: 'the vail of which shines brightly in the ultraviolet light from our own sun, this hydrogen wholly obscures observation from earth' You specifically stated that taking UV photos from orbit would have been impossible because of the geocorona."
Then I mis-spoke, but nevertheless the truth remains the same and you're still back at square one: Not all the photos could have been taken in LEO.
Or lied. So far you have demonstrated that you made these UV photos your trump card against Kaysing's argument, an argument that you clearly didn't fully research before jumping the gun. And ironically enough you tried to attack an argument that was partly built upon your so-called trump card. Why should an audience trust a video whose creator attacks a subject discussed in a book he never read? That's sloppy research.
I didn't mention this in my video, but I'll bring it up here. In your film you claim that it was prohibited that satellites carry camera film.
Do you even know how the US designed their space satellites during the Cold War? Usually their cameras would record images on film and then jettison them to earth to be retrieved by the military.
I said it was "prohibitive", I didn't say it was impossible. A spy satellite and a lunar observatory are two very different things. Unless you can actually prove your claim that the photos could have been faked, you have nothing to stand on. Even if you could prove that they could have been faked, you still would have a long way to go they actually were faked.
The photos were taken on the moon.
I wonder, what do you suppose compelled Dr. Carruthers to sell out and risk his career on a hoax?
"I said it was "prohibitive", I didn't say it was impossible"
Nor did you say it was possible, but any casual viewer watching your film would come to the conclusion that it was the exact opposite. So why did you neglect to mention that film could have been used, as spy satellites routinely recorded reconnaissance images on film and returned them to earth? And knowing this how can you allege that there was 'no garantee' that the film returned safely?
"I never said he was involved in the hoax. Maybe he was duped by fake images."
How could it not be implied? he led the field and he built the camera. Are you even going to attempt to explore the absurd idea that he was "duped"? How did they create the fakes without the expertise of someone like Dr. Carruthers? Did they have super sectet scientists faking all of the scientific experiments on Apollo, duping all of the real scientists who aparently don't hang out with the evil scientists...?
I'll leave it up to you to explain it to me how anything Kaysing says contradicts what I claim the UV photos prove and reveal. I'm not seeing it. You may hold up Kaysing's book as the holy bible of the moon hoax, but that doesn't mean everyone else has. I've read plenty of the arguements and I haven't found one that is convincing enough. Indeed, I have found plenty that can be used to prove they *did* go. But let's talk specifics, what did Kaysing say?
Exactly how much of my film did you see? Go to 2:18. So, how can you allege that the 'no stars' argument is "ironic and dishonest" and that conspiracy theorists deny the existence of these photos, when in fact Bill Kaysing thoroughly and openly discussed them in his book?
Jarrah, you bring up an interesting question concerning the UV photo taken in earth orbit. I recognize the website you got the Apollo 16 UV photos, so I know you have visited it. Did you not read in-depth enough to see that they took photos using a variety of filters to capture different wavelengths within the UV spectrum? This is why in some photos the geocorona does not glow, and in others it does.
There are only three ways to "know" something. To witness it with one's own senses, to accept the account of a trusted observer or reference source, or to acquire the information by divine revelation.
Of these three, which do you think will be acceptable to you?
You should know all about closed minds, seeing as all you ever post are typical, redundant, and overly used propaganda to promote your pro Apollo claims.
You sound as though you've been programed by Jay Windley.
Why not try some original disinformation for a change?
Since the majority of society accepts the Apollo moon landings, what evidence would you need to see to be convinced of it?
Wild Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene, Bart Sibrel, Aron Ranens, David Percy, Jarrah White, GreenMagoos straydog02 and other minor players, opportunists or hucksters have attempted to show it was supposedly impossible to land American astronauts on the moon during the Apollo program. But is there anything that would prove to these MHBs (Moon Hoax Believers) that we did go?
'Since the majority of society accepts the Apollo moon landings, what evidence would you need to see to be convinced of it?'
So Neil Armstrongs claim that he couldn't see stars from the lunar surface knocks Phil Plait 'EXPERT' opinion that you would 'indeed see stars from the Moon- even during the day'.
Of course Plait wouldn't have been aware that Armstrong had said that when he published his Bad Astronomy moon hoax de-bunking page.
Nice try at misdirection and obfuscation. How about answering the question:
'Since the majority of society accepts the Apollo moon landings, what evidence would you need to see to be convinced of it?'
Eh?
How about a base on the Moon seeing as we are supposed to have landed men there 40 years ago and some sort of transportation that can take men further than a few hundred miles away from the Earth for starters.
greenmagoos states:"How about a base on the Moon seeing as we are supposed to have landed men there 40 years ago."
--You *do* realize there's no *base* on the moon, just the LM descent stages and Apollo 11,12,14-17 science stations, plus a few LM ascent stages deliberately crashed into the moon for seismic calibrations.
GM:"and some sort of transportation that can take men further than a few hundred miles away from the Earth."
--There's three Saturn Vs you can look at for yourself.
Since the majority of society accepts the Apollo moon landings, what evidence would you need to see to be convinced of it?
Wild Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene, Bart Sibrel, Aron Ranens, David Percy, Jarrah White, GreenMagoos straydog02 and other minor players, opportunists or hucksters have attempted to show it was supposedly impossible to land American astronauts on the moon during the Apollo program. But is there anything that would prove to these MHBs (Moon Hoax Believers) that we did go?
My last debate on U-Tube was about the A16 UV camera and the silly looking Hassie photos taken of it.. In the stills it's lit up as if it were standing in a spotlight, while right in the middle of a pitch dark shadow.. Your video shows that the TV footage doesn't match the Hassie still photos taken of the UV camera, and that the camera really is as dark as the shadow it's standing in.
It appears that a secondary light source was set up for the still photos but not for the TV images.
LOL! You can't get anything right can you smelly dog!
That old law, angle of incidence gets you once again. The really funny part is you don't even understand this very simple principal. Instead you ramble on like a typical tubetard.
I replied to your stuid claim s on this in the part 1 comments.
Simply put you know nothing about camera angles nor reflections and as such you don't understand WHY the UV camera SHOULD be dark in the dac footage. Its your old friend angle of incidence again coming back to bite you on your azz,
I've been "caught" at nothing. You on the other hand have once again been caught being an idiot. Good job tubetard.
"Simply put you know nothing about camera angles nor reflections and as such you don't understand WHY the UV camera SHOULD be dark in the dac footage."
You have now contradicted your first claim and your silly truck photo "experiment" of why the UV camera was so lit up in the still photo of the same scene.. So the angle of incidence means that the camera is pitch dark in the video footage but brightly lit up in the still photo !??! LOL
Yes, thats it, you finally have it. In the still frame the angle of incidence means that the bright lunar surface shows in the side of the camera. In the DAC frame the angle of incidence means the dark side of the LM shows in the side of the camera. Both are totally consistant and proper and match exactly what my truck experiment shows.
Or are you still too stupid to understand all of this?
"Yes, thats it, you finally have it. In the still frame the angle of incidence means that the bright lunar surface shows in the side of the camera. In the DAC frame the angle of incidence means the dark side of the LM shows in the side of the camera. Both are totally consistant and proper and match exactly what my truck experiment shows."
What a load of crap!. If your angle of incidence excuse was correct, the DAC and the still photos would be a match and both would show the UV camera lit up.
No it would not. The UV camera is nearly square which meand it reflectes in a direct line based on the angle of incidence. If the face of the camera "sees" the dark side of the LM, it is going to be dark. Thats the case wiht the dac footage. This is not rocket science smelly dog, even someone wiht your limited mental ability SHOULD be able to figure this one out. SHeesh.
"No it would not. The UV camera is nearly square which meand it reflectes in a direct line based on the angle of incidence. If the face of the camera "sees" the dark side of the LM, it is going to be dark. Thats the case wiht the dac footage."
THE STILL PHOTOS WERE TAKEN IN THE SAME EXACT SHADOW POSITION THAT THE DAC WAS.. THE DAC SHOWS A PITCH DARK UV CAMERA AND THE STILL PHOTOS SHOWS A BRIGHTLY LIT UP UV CAMERA, WHICH MEANS THE PHOTOS ARE FAKE AND YOUR ANGLE OF INCIDENCE IS A PATHETIC LIE.
"Or are you still too stupid to understand all of this?"
What you are obviously too stupid to understand is that the UV camera is standing in the middle of a pitch dark shadow, no where near the "bright lunar surface".
The DAC footage shows the correct image for the conditions .. The Hassie still photo does not.
Which mean that you are a lying shill who worked for NASA on their ALSJ and can not be trusted to tell the truth about this subject.
Given the shape of the side of the UV camera, angle of incidence demands that for the side of the camera to "see" the shadow below it, the camera MUST quite a distance ABOVE the UV camera...quite a large distance. That is not the case, The hassy is near level with the UV camera. AOI DEMANDS that the lunar surface not the shadow be reflected.
Both the DAC and the Hassey images show EXACTLY what they should.
You can't be trusted to understand a simple principal like angle of incidence,
"The hassy is near level with the UV camera. AOI DEMANDS that the lunar surface not the shadow be reflected."
The DAC is also level with the UV camera and some of the still photos were taken from the same position that the DAC was .. So your silly explaination is not worth a crap.
Jarrah you are awesome. Another great video
tenthousandyearsgoon 1 month ago
Jarrah, I don't want to be rude, but don't you think stars is not the reason man went to the moon? It was to explore the lunar surface. If you can see the same stars from Earth, why would they care to take pictures of them from the moon??
yesiamawizardjonny 6 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny
Studying the stars from moon is a huge advantage over studying them from the earth. The earth's atmosphere blocks out some of the starlight and the twinkling we see is a distortion due to starlight being refracted through the miles and miles of air. A binary star can look like a single star as a result of this.
Space-based observatories and definitely moon based observatories would be free of this issue for obvious reasons.
WhiteJarrah 6 months ago
@WhiteJarrah Hubble does cancel out the atmospheric distortion though, right?
yesiamawizardjonny 6 months ago
I don't see stars in the Space Station video. Do you? So, .....
huskyjerk 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Armstrong the Faker said he never saw stars in space
NASA IS A JOKE
DeadJesus100 8 months ago
its like when we discovered america,but just stay at the beach,never borther to explore the inland....and return to europe with tales of a small beach...now that would be considered as a missed opportunity...now these man were explorers,so its logical to explore....what is nasa? nuthing to do with exploring,so i wonder what is there 'plan'.......wanna see vegas?ok but keep ur eyes on the sidewalk.....?
SpectralForm 2 years ago
Jarrah White: Master of Deception
aka: LIAR!!!
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
TremorHellborn: Master of the Ad Hominem attack
aka: Douche :)
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago
Here is a good video that explains that stupid "no stars" argument.
Actually, in some pictures the brightest stars are visible, but with brightness/contrast enhanced, we can see more. See and believe!
watch?v=76gn3Z2CCU4
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
I've seen that video and read the comments. I've noticed that various pro-NASA guys commenting have claimed those stars are negative pin-holes or cosmic rays.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Sure... and somehow they fit positions of the stars. Coincidence? No. The stars are there, on the edge of dynamic range of the film.
Some stars are visible without brightness/contrast enhanced. Check this out for example: AS14-66-9232HR and believe, whitejarrah.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
So, according to Buzz Aldrin, you CAN see a lot of stars if you are looking into space with the sun in your back...
Simboiss 2 years ago
Also, a long exposure would have "streaked" the stars would it not?
nasascam 2 years ago
@ 3.33 the lady on the vid ask's where did the money go.
Carroll Shelby (of gt 350 mustang fame)
Had something to do with building the moon rover, so there is a start for her..
hypobusa 2 years ago
judging by the size of the landing modules that were taken.....i seriously doubt that ANY telescope that could have been smuggled aboard would have held any value to photos taken from earths observatories....multi million dollar telescopes used for research vs.teeny little scope on the moon....really? im also only guessing that nasa based their modules with necessity in mind and something like taking pics of stars was probably not high priority for a MOON EXPLORATION trip.
destin325 2 years ago
The entire Apollo project brought us thousands of photos. They could have taken at least a few photographs of the stars, or an object and the stars visible in it...
Simboiss 2 years ago
So Michael Collins can not see stars & Buzz Aldrin saw UFOs????
This is so credible how can anyone dought these to astroNOTs.
Why do the NASA propagandist argue with plausible reasons why Moon missions were faked. Tey they are silent when it comes to the(present) UFO claims sighted during Apollo?
Note how they are given prime TV coverage(Larry King Live/ with no insults nor macking) Where are the Mythbuster on the Apollo UFOs claims???
foxxx2001 3 years ago
These videos just never stop coming.
It's getting harder and harder for people to dismiss them. Someone needs to show some of this footage to the mythbuster guys.
joerogandotnet 3 years ago
"Someone needs to show some of this footage to the mythbuster guys."
If we're talking about the Mythbusters, one of their lies are discussed
Here: watch ? v = 1rvmBEsTcoU
And here: watch ? v = zCD4lY13D1E
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
JOE ROGANNNNNNnnnnnnnnNNNNNNNNNnnnnnn
sorry
@whitejarrah: Even if they did go to the moon how come they dont go back? Wouldnt that shut up armstrong.
GLeNss 3 years ago
The usual argument to that question is that, well, there's nothing else to see on the Moon. Mars is more exciting...
Simboiss 2 years ago
What we should have heard from anyone travelling to the moon, would have been. "Jesus Christ Houston, we are puking our guts out into the command module. We keep seeing stars shooting all around, even though our eyes are fucking closed. For fucks sake Houston, why didn't you tell us about the radiation!" At some point we would have heard nothing as the instruments would have failed, Astronots would have died, and the CM drifted into space, an eternal resting place for three dead heros.
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
un4g1v3n1, you claim that men have never been out of LEO, yet you seem to have a precise knowledge of exactly what it SHOULD look like. That's not science! You're putting the cart before the horse.
And...you're ignoring my simple question: "Were Shuttle observations made during earth daylight or night time?" At least a simple yes, no or I don't know would be constructive.
LunarTuner 3 years ago
Watch the videos...Find out for yourself..I'm not going to waste my time if you are either unwilling or incapable of finding out for yourself. Jarrah, GM and I, as well as many others don't spend our time making videos to enlighten people you try to mindfuck to go provide information you are either already aware of, too lazy to look at, or too ignorant to understand!!!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
You're not willing to waste time on perhaps the most critical point of the argument you and WJ have? Then why am I here? This video is hollow without the critical answer to the question: Do Shuttle astronauts see stars in daylight?
Soon, I will have no choice but to conclude you either don't know or don't want to say because it will crush your premise. The credibility of this video hangs on this question.
LunarTuner 3 years ago
Did you see the first quote in Jarrah's video? There is no crushing Except the space between your ears which will eventually collapse if you don't stop acting as if you are too stupid to understand very simple concepts..Such as NO ATMOSPHERE equaling, unobstructed view of STARS! Now, how f*cking simple are you? Are you so dense as to not understand that...If so, go to watch?v=aisdh5sdrgk Listen to a canadian astronaut explain very simply to a little girl how atmosphere obstructs view of stars!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
As far as why you are here! We both know that answer! And anyone paying attention to your lame ass excuses can see...You try to fling shit on very simple explanation which out NASA and it's NAZI beginnings! We know what you are doing here LT! It is all very obvious.. What I want to know...Is when do you plan on regaining your conscience, and stop trying to lie to the young minds of the world. How f*cking big is the cooking your NASA taskmasters give you for your efforts?
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
:)
Congratulations, un4g1v3n1, you're getting better at name-calling & insulting. If this clip was about me, that would be interesting, but it's not about me, is it?
Now, if only you & WJ were as good at answering simple requests:
Were the Shuttle astronaut observations made in daylight or not?
What are the lighting condition of the various shots selected for this video?
What were the shutter/aperture settings for the shaky video segment showing the star?
Answers would help our dialog.
LunarTuner 3 years ago
If the name fits svector...wear it!
They could have changed aperture settings...YES? Or would you like to lie about that?
Answer would prove you are serious about dialog...
Melvilles mind-blowing view of the stars were on the daylight side...WATCH THE VIDEO!
You waste valuable time with your inane babbling svinctor...er..svector! We both know your true nature...it's clearly pointed out in Radioactive Anomoly pt 1.
Fly your true colors and quit pretending!!!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
uh, I'm not svector.
Melville's statement is not that "the stars are mind-blowing" but that SEEING them in daylight "is mind-blowing." He wasn't suggesting that the sky was painted with a Star Trek-like mural of color-drenched celestial bodies.
I have never refuted that they can be seen during daylight. Cernan noted them while on the moon. Apollo has acknowledged that. With effort, the brightest stars can be seen. It's not that Armstrong COULDN'T. He just DIDN'T.
LunarTuner 3 years ago
My question was not about changing aperture settings, but WHAT setting WJ used to capture the bright star in the "shaky star" segment. Also, has he zoomed in? That could change matters.
I'm not being unreasonable. I'm just asking questions. Why do you find that so offensive?
LunarTuner 3 years ago
Why waste a mission to the moon to study stars when that can be done much more cheaply from LEO? If the Far UV wasn't a photographic telescope, what was it? You want a telescopic camera and when one is provided, you say it wasn't! The Jeep comparison is nonsense! The LRVs were not assembly line produced and far more complex! You want
LunarTuner 3 years ago
Waste a mission to the moon? You are truly moronic! Like bringing along a photographic telescope would have been a big deal or waste. Your excuses grow more pathetic you know that! You should really try debunking something you can sound less stupid about! Waste of a mission? Reading your comments could very well lead to those unaware to losing valuable IQ points!!!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
un4g1v3n1, Happy Holidays. I see you're keeping your insults an namecalling in good shape, I only wish you engaged the question.
No other agency in the world but NASA has done as much to study the stars--including sending a photographic observatory to the moon on Apollo 16. It was done! The rest of Apollo focused on THE MOON! Is it hard to imagine that most of our moon trips were for the purpose of studying the moon?
LunarTuner 3 years ago
Hmm...glad you like them...Happy holidays to you too...I would be glad to retract the moron statement if you could come up with comments free of moronic blathering! As of yet, you have proven incapable of such!
Just like using sunglasses, or bowls to simulate Apollo space helmet face shields...
It seems you prefer using moronic statements in lieu of actual, accurate, believable research!
Rightfully so, since once one does the necessary research, one can only surmise Apollo as Fantasy!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
Shuttle astronauts go into space to do experiments and such that have nothing to do with stars...And yet at least four that have been mentioned in my videos and Jarrahs, have found the view of the stars so breathtaking, that they actually mention them. Yet all those Apollonots, on very long missions, just conveniently forgot to even mention the stars. And to you that isn't odd? Which proves you to be free of critical thinking, as well as common sense!!!!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
Be precise. Are they seeing the stars on the daylight side of earth or from inside the brightly lit Shuttle or during EVAs? Don't you think these are legitimate questions that reflect critical thinking?
Apollo astronauts walked during daylight hours from a brightly lit surface. Despite this, at least 1 astronaut (Cernan) says that with effort, he WAS able to see stars. I suspect stars from dark locations and without atmosphere are quite wonderful to see, but how wonderful is subjective.
LunarTuner 3 years ago
Cernan is a joke. 30 years after the fact. LOL! Not a word during the missions though. Your assessment is rather moot. And since they had plenty of time, in the darkness of space between the moon and Earth to comment, it's rather odd they didn't mention them....But again, you don't see odd..You don't use critical thinking..You just make excuses...Did you miss MoonFaker: Dude, Where's My Star? You can go to my channel, click on the first playlist and educate yourself.
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
un4g1v3n1, nope. immediately, in his mission debrief:
"It was also generally true that, when you were on the surface in the LM's shadow, there were too many bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible. But I remember that I wanted to see whether I could see stars, and there were times out on the surface when I found that, if you allowed yourself to just focus and maybe even just shielded your eyes to some degree, even outside the LM shadow you could see stars in the sky."
LunarTuner 3 years ago
MISSION DEBRIEF? Not worthy of mentioning to the masses eagerly awaiting to hear what space looks like! Who payed combined, billions in taxes...Yet he failed to mention them as he travelled there....Hmmm....again, odd factor level 1000000000000million...and you are unable to see that....You are not blind, stupid or lack critical skills..You are worse...NASA lackey, shill excuse maker...
Wear your badge with pride LT! Has NASA made you shills one yet?
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
un4g1v3n1, Apollo was not about site-seeing and stars. Apollo was a mission to get a man on the moon and study THE MOON. Despite those mission objectives, astronauts DID make observations and shared them. In fact, Apollo 16 DID take photos of stars, but not to your liking.
You wrongly assumed Cernan made his comments years later. You were wrong.
Now, care to answer whether Shuttle astronauts saw stars in daylight or not? Your silence on this speaks volumes.
LunarTuner 3 years ago
And when you drive to work...Do you not pay attention to the f*cking red lights...or the blonde on the back of the motorcycle with her thong showing? No, you have to get to work to quickly troll and spam the videos attempting to awaken the world to NASA's f*cking big ass lie! Okay...So your blind on the way to your destination...and you refuse to acknowledge or talk about anything remarkable. I forgot...you are a simpleton!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
I thought you watched Lunarcy: Reach for the stars...It seems that more recent astronauts make very extreme comments about the magical, wonderful site of the stars. Or the MIND-BLOWING view of the stars as is mentioned by Melville. But I suppose that was too subjective eh? Taxpayers pay 30 billion dollars for their supposed trip to the moon, and they don't feel any obligation to describe the amazing sight of the stars. Fucking unbelievable, just like your excuses for them!!!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
un4g1v3n1, stay on point. First, what are the answer to these questions: Are these Shuttle observations during earth daylight? Are these observations from a fully lit cabin or with lights off?
Plenty of time to follow these other rabbit trails later, but why can't you or Jarrah make distinctions between stars during day or night? Let's deal with first things first.
LunarTuner 3 years ago
Your excuses are lame!
Like you!
Educate yourself... It's your mind, waste it in ignorance if you like. But you can't pull the wool over the eyes of the educated, researchers of the Apollo Fairy Tale! I thought you would have learned that by now!!!
Your delusions of Apollo Granduer, remain delusions!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
un4g1v3n1, a question is not an excuse.
If anything, your cascade of insults is side-stepping a constructive dialogue on the matter.
LunarTuner 3 years ago
The questions abound.
How was the overhead shot of the shuttle lit? Daylight? Daylight reflected off the earth? The video of across the back of the cargo bay is obviously dusk or dawn, but the is the photo at night or day? What WAS the exposure setting? These circumstances all appear to be different. How can we compare them if we don't know the exposure settings that would be needed?
LunarTuner 3 years ago
Melvill's quote regarded the "blue sky turning pitch-black" as he passed into night. No one argues that seeing stars at night is quite possible! I'd imagine they're quite vivid above atmosphere.
Armstrong never looked for stars. His EVA was short and very busy. Cernan later confirmed that in the shadow off the LM he could see a few stars if he shaded his eyes. Not easy, but possible. This is reasonable and consistent with the physical laws we know.
LunarTuner 3 years ago
Here's the info on the NASA shuttle image, if anyone wants to look at it:
NASA Photo ID: STS006-08-362 File Name: 10061078.jpg
Film Type: 35mm CN Date Taken: 04/09/83
Title: Overall view of PLB and OMS / RCS engine thrusting
satweavers 3 years ago
Let us know where a high res of this image can be found. I am unable to see any stars in this image.
satweavers 3 years ago
THE KEYWORD IS "OR"!!!!
Hahahahahaha!!!!!
satweavers 3 years ago
"The UV camera is not a photographic telescope."
It is an observatory, and it is photographic, and it does enlarge the image telescopically.
How is that not a "photographic telescope"? And if it's not? What does it matter? You're just being nitpicking semantics.
The observatory is what it is. And what it is very hard to deny proof that someone was on the moon taking photos of the stars at a very specific date and time, a date and time they just happened to claim to have been on the moon.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
Italiano... You may be Googling "potical parameters" to try to figure out what I was talking about there. That was supposed to be "optical".
satweavers 3 years ago
Jarrah... THE star that you are imaging in that one jiggly shot, is NOT being imaged on FILM as you claim. That's a modern CCD video camera, isn't it? Thats hardly a a side-by-side comparison of like technologies.
satweavers 3 years ago
"Jarrah... THE star that you are imaging in that one jiggly shot, is NOT being imaged on FILM as you claim. That's a modern CCD video camera, isn't it? Thats hardly a a side-by-side comparison of like technologies."
If you're gonna complain about my Panasonic footage, what about Jay Windley comparing Hasselblad star photography with his own CCD photo of Mars?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
You are dodging my question, Jarrah.
Also... that single, zoomed-in shot of a star does not compare with an attempt to image stars with brightly lit terrain in the frame WITH the star. Try THAT and show us your star. Better yet, try doing it with ASA 60 Ektachrome photographic film. Then you'll be doing some significant comparrisons.
satweavers 3 years ago
"You are dodging my question, Jarrah."
No I ain't. If you are gonna criticize my equipment then what about Windley's? Furthermore, I've already shown a daylight image of a brightly lit shuttle clearly showing stars among other examples.
watch?v=i3MTsJwAp-A
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Jarrah: On tha video I see a lot of people saying that under thus and such a condition, you could photograph stars. There's a few unqualified, exerpted statements saying stars should be visible, blah, blah, blah...
Put this issue to rest, Jarrah. Stick some ASA60 Ektachrome in your SLR, stick it on a tripod, go out tonight to a brightly lit parking lot, Shoot the night sky while including the brightly lit surroundings in the picture... show us the stars. Enough of all this pedantic dogma.
satweavers 3 years ago
"Jarrah: On tha video I see a lot of people saying that under thus and such a condition, you could photograph stars. There's a few unqualified, exerpted statements saying stars should be visible, blah, blah, blah..."
If you bothered to watch the video the whole way through, you would have noticed the brightly lit shuttle photo from STS-6 showing stars in the background.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
I see A THING in the background. Might be a star... could be Jupiter... could be a gob of frozen pee pee drifting about.
Do your own experiment. Show us some imperical evidence rather than more of this long-winded alligation.
satweavers 3 years ago
I suppose we could always go through the trouble of trying to match the stars up. Though as we have seen stars and celestial bodies only match up when they are convenient to Jarrah's conclusions. When they are inconvenient to his conclusions they mysteriously fail to match up, even when other people have managed to do just that.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"Put this issue to rest, Jarrah. Stick some ASA60 Ektachrome in your SLR, stick it on a tripod, go out tonight to a brightly lit parking lot, Shoot the night sky while including the brightly lit surroundings in the picture... show us the stars. Enough of all this pedantic dogma."
That would be even easier than shooting objects in the brightly lit sunlight of the moon too. should be a wee bit easier.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
Qualify that, Italiano. What were the potical parameters of that UV telescope that fall short of YOUR expert standard of what is and is not a telescope?
satweavers 3 years ago
Italiano... The Hubble is the size of a School Bus!!! They could have only taken incredible Hubble-like pictures... if they HAD a Hubble Space Telescope! How obvious is THAT?
satweavers 3 years ago
A compact 600 pound astronomical telescope? They would not have had time to set it up, calibrate and align it and do any significant astronomical work, and that process would have consumed the precious opportunity to devote time to their ACTUAL mission... exploration of the MOON! They DID NOT GO TO THE MOON FOR ASTRONOMICAL PURPOSES!
satweavers 3 years ago
"Funny how the LEM taking off from the moon, the rocket engine thrust can't be seen, yet the space shutlle thrusters are easily seen."
Funny how this has been explained hundreds of times but you can't manage to understand it (no I'm not explaining it again.)
zakabog 3 years ago
"They would of had incredible Hubble-like pictures back then that would of blown people away."
No, they wouldn't. Did you not notice the picture posted from the UV Telescope? They didn't have the technology to send up anything able to take near the quality of photos of an earth based observatory. They didn't blow anyone away except possibly some astronomers that wanted to see what the earth looked like in the UV spectrum.
zakabog 3 years ago
Uh.....
They did take an Observatory to the moon on Apollo 16...
and they took pictures of the stars..
Seriously, do you people not research this stuff before you make your vacant claims?
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
3 BUGGIES $6O MILLION DOLLARS each, someone was making a lot of money. There is no way this figure covers labour costs and time etc.
The Americans have been ripped of by their alrady rich elite contractors . Every American should ask for a breakdown and explanation in detail of these costings etc.
nbm34 3 years ago
"There is no way this figure covers labour costs and time etc."
Yeah, if only there were other things they had to pay for. I mean why would they have to do any research or experiments, surely they could have just downloaded the plans for the buggies off the internet like everyone else.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"Every American should ask for a breakdown and explanation in detail of these costings etc."
Funny you should say that as anyone who cares to do that can.
Not that you would understand what it takes to develop something designed to work in an entirely unknown and very hostile environment.
zakabog 3 years ago
yeah, at 2:18 he claims they ended up with one "dim, somewhat blurred photo", when, as your video shows quite well, there plenty more than that. He seems to be claiming they didn't take the opportunity to bring an observatory equipped with film, when it's quite obvious that they did. And that observatory *did* take magnificent photographs of not only the stars, but also the earth, and those photos revealed new information that had never been available before.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"he claims they ended up with one "dim, somewhat blurred photo", when, as your video shows quite well, there plenty more than that."
Fine, 178 dim and blurred UV photos. Hardly magnificent! I've seen more spectacular views of stellar bodies from the Hubble or even ground-based telescopes. Why was no attempt made to bring better photographic equipment to the moon when to this day scientists have long wanted to bring a wide variety of telescopes to the moon, (Steve Cook being a recent example).
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Second question: knowing Kaysing was aware of the UV photos, why did Windley totally misrepresented his argument regarding the UV photos?
And while you're at it, there obviously was a big demand for star photography: so why didn't they even supply a tripod for the Hassies knowing full well that they could have increased their exposures for star pictures? Or go to the lengths of providing more advanced telecopes, which is exactly what Steve Cook proposes for Orion?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"there obviously was a big demand for star photography"
I'm not aware of anyone at the time calling for standard photos of the stars from the moon. What would a standard photo of the stars from the moon reveal that a photo taken from earth wouldn't?
I can't speak for Windley, but I will say this. Kaysing may have been aware of the UV photos, but the significance of the photos was obviously lost on him. There is nothing to his argument, there's nothing there other than a mention.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
Have you seen "Apollo 16: Nothing So Hidden"? I included a relevant portion from it in Part 3.
As Kaysing states: "There was not atmosphere to restrict or diffuse their light." The vacuum of space is a great advantage for the Hubble, which photographs the stars in the visible, infrared, and UV spectrum. I'm sure you can imagine how gutted astronomers were to learn its successor would photographing only one spectrum.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"The vacuum of space is a great advantage for the Hubble, which photographs the stars in the visible, infrared, and UV spectrum. I'm sure you can imagine how gutted astronomers were to learn its successor would photographing only one spectrum."
The advantages that Hubble presents to is is partly due to it's size. Apollo could have taken a small observatory (which they did). But to drag along a telescope on the size of Hubble, something weighing several tonnes would have been prohibitive.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"Hardly magnificent! I've seen more spectacular views of stellar bodies from the Hubble or even ground-based telescopes."
They are magnificent because they revealed new information. A point you have yet to refute. I don't see how the UV photography failed, nor do I see how it is insignificant. They didn't bring better equipment because what they brought did the job just fine.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"A point you have yet to refute."
I beg to differ: I've already proven you wrong regarding UV photos from orbit and satellites carrying camera film into space.
"They didn't bring better equipment because what they brought did the job just fine."
Then why to this day is there a large demand to bring better equipment to the moon on Orion?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Your friends hype that there is nothing special to gain from the moon that could not have been obtained better from earth orbit, so why does Steve Cook propose the placement of not one, but multiple telescopes on the moon?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Your friends hype that there is nothing special to gain from the moon that could not have been obtained better from earth orbit, so why does Steve Cook propose the placement of not one, but multiple telescopes on the moon?"
Because now we're getting around to establishing a permanent base on the moon so it's much more feasible to send up a large permanent telescope.
zakabog 3 years ago
"I beg to differ: I've already proven you wrong regarding UV photos from orbit and satellites carrying camera film into space."
You seem to think that by proving some of the photos could have been taken in orbit, that you have proven that all of them could have. But you know better.
"Then why to this day is there a large demand to bring better equipment to the moon on Orion?"
Is there a large demand?
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago 2
"Is there a large demand?"
didn't think so... Only in your fantasy.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"I've seen more spectacular views of stellar bodies from the Hubble or even ground-based telescopes."
The Hubble weighs 75% of what the Lunar lander did. Bringing a telescope large enough to take better pictures than Earth-based observatories would have been impossible.
There was already a space telescope in orbit when Apollo 11 went up, by the way, it was called the OAO-2.
Persuter 3 years ago
I wonder if you might elaborate on the claim that the photos could have been faked by superimposing an image of the earth over an image of the stars? Where did they get the image of the earth? Why is the shadow of the earth oriented exactly as it should. More importantly, why are the Arctic and tropical airglow bands (two different features seen at two different wavelengths) oriented exactly as they ought to be?
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
Not gonna' touch this one, eh?
As usual, can't even back up a claim of "they could have", much less any claim of "they did".
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
As usual your arguments are resigned to the "could" and not "did", but unfortunately even here you fail, for not all of the UV photography on the Apollo 16 mission "could" have been done in LEO because the photography covered such a wide range of the UV spectrum, including the range in which it would have been obscured by the geocorona.
This must have been why you omited the photo I used in my video, the one that shows the geocorona shining very brightly indeed. ;)
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"This must have been why you omited the photo I used in my video, the one that shows the geocorona shining very brightly indeed. ;)"
You mean the way you omitted the Gemini 10 UV image so you could falsely claim the photos couldn't have been taken from earth orbit?
You can't come back here and tell me the geocorona would have spoiled UV photography when Michael Collins supposedly took such photos on Gemini 10, without the geocorona obscuring the ultraviolet light.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Now I'm gonna ask you again. Why did you neglect to mention the Gemini 10 UV photos, and why did you not mention that Kaysing had built his argument partly on those Apollo 16 photos you hyped about?
You are either a poor researcher or a liar like Windley, I'm here to find out which.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
The same reason I didn't mention many of the other UV experiments that have taken place over the years, for brevity. Though I have considered making a follow up video that does cover the history of UV measurement and photography in space.
Whatever I said or didn't say and however you want to interpret that, the fact still stands: The Apollo 16 UV photos includes information that couldn't have been obtained in LEO, though it does contain some information that could have been.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"You can't come back here and tell me the geocorona would have spoiled UV photography when Michael Collins supposedly took such photos on Gemini 10, without the geocorona obscuring the ultraviolet light."
I won't, but I will say it would ruin *some* of the UV photography that was seen in the results of the Apollo 16. Again, the UV spectrum is very wide, nor it's characteristics uniform. Do you deny this?
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"Do you deny this?"
Do you deny that Collins was supposedly able to photograph the UV star field without the geocorona ruining his shots?
And do you deny that Kaysing had built his argument on those photos? You seem to deny it in your film.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Do you deny that Collins was supposedly able to photograph the UV star field without the geocorona ruining his shots?"
No, but I'm not claiming he was capturing light in a wavelength that would be obscured by a glowing geocorona, which would happen at other wavelengths within the UV spectrum, as quite evidenced by the Apollo 16 UV photos themselves.
"And do you deny that Kaysing had built his argument on those photos? You seem to deny it in your film."
I'm was not familiar with his argument.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"but I'm not claiming he was capturing light in a wavelength that would be obscured by a glowing geocorona"
That's not what you claimed in your film: 'the vail of which shines brightly in the ultraviolet light from our own sun, this hydrogen wholly obscures observation from earth' You specifically stated that taking UV photos from orbit would have been impossible because of the geocorona.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"I'm was not familiar with his [Kaysing's] argument."
Then I guess that makes you a poor researcher, I suggest doing your research some where other than Clavius.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but what argument are you talking about? The one claim of Bill Kaysing's that you cite, that they *didn't* take a photographic observatory along, is simply wrong, since they *did* take one along. Please post something of Kaysing's where he specifically mentions the UV camera.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"That's not what you claimed in your film: 'the vail of which shines brightly in the ultraviolet light from our own sun, this hydrogen wholly obscures observation from earth' You specifically stated that taking UV photos from orbit would have been impossible because of the geocorona."
Then I mis-spoke, but nevertheless the truth remains the same and you're still back at square one: Not all the photos could have been taken in LEO.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"Then I mis-spoke,"
Or lied. So far you have demonstrated that you made these UV photos your trump card against Kaysing's argument, an argument that you clearly didn't fully research before jumping the gun. And ironically enough you tried to attack an argument that was partly built upon your so-called trump card. Why should an audience trust a video whose creator attacks a subject discussed in a book he never read? That's sloppy research.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
I didn't mention this in my video, but I'll bring it up here. In your film you claim that it was prohibited that satellites carry camera film.
Do you even know how the US designed their space satellites during the Cold War? Usually their cameras would record images on film and then jettison them to earth to be retrieved by the military.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Do you even know how the US designed their space satellites during the Cold War?"
Typo, by space satellites, I of course mean "Spy satellites."
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
I said it was "prohibitive", I didn't say it was impossible. A spy satellite and a lunar observatory are two very different things. Unless you can actually prove your claim that the photos could have been faked, you have nothing to stand on. Even if you could prove that they could have been faked, you still would have a long way to go they actually were faked.
The photos were taken on the moon.
I wonder, what do you suppose compelled Dr. Carruthers to sell out and risk his career on a hoax?
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"I said it was "prohibitive", I didn't say it was impossible"
Nor did you say it was possible, but any casual viewer watching your film would come to the conclusion that it was the exact opposite. So why did you neglect to mention that film could have been used, as spy satellites routinely recorded reconnaissance images on film and returned them to earth? And knowing this how can you allege that there was 'no garantee' that the film returned safely?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"I wonder, what do you suppose compelled Dr. Carruthers to sell out and risk his career on a hoax?"
I never said he was involved in the hoax. Maybe he was duped by fake images.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"I never said he was involved in the hoax. Maybe he was duped by fake images."
How could it not be implied? he led the field and he built the camera. Are you even going to attempt to explore the absurd idea that he was "duped"? How did they create the fakes without the expertise of someone like Dr. Carruthers? Did they have super sectet scientists faking all of the scientific experiments on Apollo, duping all of the real scientists who aparently don't hang out with the evil scientists...?
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
I'll leave it up to you to explain it to me how anything Kaysing says contradicts what I claim the UV photos prove and reveal. I'm not seeing it. You may hold up Kaysing's book as the holy bible of the moon hoax, but that doesn't mean everyone else has. I've read plenty of the arguements and I haven't found one that is convincing enough. Indeed, I have found plenty that can be used to prove they *did* go. But let's talk specifics, what did Kaysing say?
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"what did Kaysing say?"
Exactly how much of my film did you see? Go to 2:18. So, how can you allege that the 'no stars' argument is "ironic and dishonest" and that conspiracy theorists deny the existence of these photos, when in fact Bill Kaysing thoroughly and openly discussed them in his book?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Jarrah, you bring up an interesting question concerning the UV photo taken in earth orbit. I recognize the website you got the Apollo 16 UV photos, so I know you have visited it. Did you not read in-depth enough to see that they took photos using a variety of filters to capture different wavelengths within the UV spectrum? This is why in some photos the geocorona does not glow, and in others it does.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
There are only three ways to "know" something. To witness it with one's own senses, to accept the account of a trusted observer or reference source, or to acquire the information by divine revelation.
Of these three, which do you think will be acceptable to you?
There is nothing so tight as a closed mind.
wspaceport 3 years ago
"There is nothing so tight as a closed mind."
You should know all about closed minds, seeing as all you ever post are typical, redundant, and overly used propaganda to promote your pro Apollo claims.
You sound as though you've been programed by Jay Windley.
Why not try some original disinformation for a change?
straydog02 3 years ago
Since the majority of society accepts the Apollo moon landings, what evidence would you need to see to be convinced of it?
Wild Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene, Bart Sibrel, Aron Ranens, David Percy, Jarrah White, GreenMagoos straydog02 and other minor players, opportunists or hucksters have attempted to show it was supposedly impossible to land American astronauts on the moon during the Apollo program. But is there anything that would prove to these MHBs (Moon Hoax Believers) that we did go?
wspaceport 3 years ago
'Since the majority of society accepts the Apollo moon landings, what evidence would you need to see to be convinced of it?'
So Neil Armstrongs claim that he couldn't see stars from the lunar surface knocks Phil Plait 'EXPERT' opinion that you would 'indeed see stars from the Moon- even during the day'.
Of course Plait wouldn't have been aware that Armstrong had said that when he published his Bad Astronomy moon hoax de-bunking page.
As Homer Simpson would say-
DOH!
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Nice try at misdirection and obfuscation. How about answering the question:
'Since the majority of society accepts the Apollo moon landings, what evidence would you need to see to be convinced of it?'
wspaceport 3 years ago
Nice try at misdirection and obfuscation. How about answering the question:
'Since the majority of society accepts the Apollo moon landings, what evidence would you need to see to be convinced of it?'
Eh?
How about a base on the Moon seeing as we are supposed to have landed men there 40 years ago and some sort of transportation that can take men further than a few hundred miles away from the Earth for starters.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
greenmagoos states:"How about a base on the Moon seeing as we are supposed to have landed men there 40 years ago."
--You *do* realize there's no *base* on the moon, just the LM descent stages and Apollo 11,12,14-17 science stations, plus a few LM ascent stages deliberately crashed into the moon for seismic calibrations.
GM:"and some sort of transportation that can take men further than a few hundred miles away from the Earth."
--There's three Saturn Vs you can look at for yourself.
wspaceport 3 years ago
Since the majority of society accepts the Apollo moon landings, what evidence would you need to see to be convinced of it?
Wild Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene, Bart Sibrel, Aron Ranens, David Percy, Jarrah White, GreenMagoos straydog02 and other minor players, opportunists or hucksters have attempted to show it was supposedly impossible to land American astronauts on the moon during the Apollo program. But is there anything that would prove to these MHBs (Moon Hoax Believers) that we did go?
wspaceport 3 years ago
good job we can put this puppy to bed.
freepress666 3 years ago
"where was this money going?"
To Israel probably...
Aldrin is crazy as hell.
AzraelEngel2 3 years ago
My last debate on U-Tube was about the A16 UV camera and the silly looking Hassie photos taken of it.. In the stills it's lit up as if it were standing in a spotlight, while right in the middle of a pitch dark shadow.. Your video shows that the TV footage doesn't match the Hassie still photos taken of the UV camera, and that the camera really is as dark as the shadow it's standing in.
It appears that a secondary light source was set up for the still photos but not for the TV images.
straydog02 3 years ago
LOL! You can't get anything right can you smelly dog!
That old law, angle of incidence gets you once again. The really funny part is you don't even understand this very simple principal. Instead you ramble on like a typical tubetard.
It appears you have mush for brains!
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"LOL! You can't get anything right can you smelly dog!"
I got this one right and that's why you can't refute it, except with your typical immature insults, which mean nothing.
"It appears you have mush for brains!"
And it appears that you're running out of material.
Here's the bottom line "MRphotogod" ..THE A16 DAC FOOTAGE DOES NOT MATCH THE HASSIE STILL PHOTOS OF THE SAME SCENE.
Which means that both you and NASA have been caught in your lies.
straydog02 3 years ago
I replied to your stuid claim s on this in the part 1 comments.
Simply put you know nothing about camera angles nor reflections and as such you don't understand WHY the UV camera SHOULD be dark in the dac footage. Its your old friend angle of incidence again coming back to bite you on your azz,
I've been "caught" at nothing. You on the other hand have once again been caught being an idiot. Good job tubetard.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"Simply put you know nothing about camera angles nor reflections and as such you don't understand WHY the UV camera SHOULD be dark in the dac footage."
You have now contradicted your first claim and your silly truck photo "experiment" of why the UV camera was so lit up in the still photo of the same scene.. So the angle of incidence means that the camera is pitch dark in the video footage but brightly lit up in the still photo !??! LOL
You really are delusional.
straydog02 3 years ago
Yes, thats it, you finally have it. In the still frame the angle of incidence means that the bright lunar surface shows in the side of the camera. In the DAC frame the angle of incidence means the dark side of the LM shows in the side of the camera. Both are totally consistant and proper and match exactly what my truck experiment shows.
Or are you still too stupid to understand all of this?
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"Yes, thats it, you finally have it. In the still frame the angle of incidence means that the bright lunar surface shows in the side of the camera. In the DAC frame the angle of incidence means the dark side of the LM shows in the side of the camera. Both are totally consistant and proper and match exactly what my truck experiment shows."
What a load of crap!. If your angle of incidence excuse was correct, the DAC and the still photos would be a match and both would show the UV camera lit up.
straydog02 3 years ago
No it would not. The UV camera is nearly square which meand it reflectes in a direct line based on the angle of incidence. If the face of the camera "sees" the dark side of the LM, it is going to be dark. Thats the case wiht the dac footage. This is not rocket science smelly dog, even someone wiht your limited mental ability SHOULD be able to figure this one out. SHeesh.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"No it would not. The UV camera is nearly square which meand it reflectes in a direct line based on the angle of incidence. If the face of the camera "sees" the dark side of the LM, it is going to be dark. Thats the case wiht the dac footage."
THE STILL PHOTOS WERE TAKEN IN THE SAME EXACT SHADOW POSITION THAT THE DAC WAS.. THE DAC SHOWS A PITCH DARK UV CAMERA AND THE STILL PHOTOS SHOWS A BRIGHTLY LIT UP UV CAMERA, WHICH MEANS THE PHOTOS ARE FAKE AND YOUR ANGLE OF INCIDENCE IS A PATHETIC LIE.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Or are you still too stupid to understand all of this?"
What you are obviously too stupid to understand is that the UV camera is standing in the middle of a pitch dark shadow, no where near the "bright lunar surface".
The DAC footage shows the correct image for the conditions .. The Hassie still photo does not.
Which mean that you are a lying shill who worked for NASA on their ALSJ and can not be trusted to tell the truth about this subject.
straydog02 3 years ago
Given the shape of the side of the UV camera, angle of incidence demands that for the side of the camera to "see" the shadow below it, the camera MUST quite a distance ABOVE the UV camera...quite a large distance. That is not the case, The hassy is near level with the UV camera. AOI DEMANDS that the lunar surface not the shadow be reflected.
Both the DAC and the Hassey images show EXACTLY what they should.
You can't be trusted to understand a simple principal like angle of incidence,
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"The hassy is near level with the UV camera. AOI DEMANDS that the lunar surface not the shadow be reflected."
The DAC is also level with the UV camera and some of the still photos were taken from the same position that the DAC was .. So your silly explaination is not worth a crap.
straydog02 3 years ago
I'm still waiting for you to provide proof. Images please, with numbers. And while you are at it, a timestamp for the dac footage.
Just a reminder, ther eis one more ace up my sleeve thats going to put you in the dumpster, where you belong....for good.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"I'm still waiting for you to provide proof. Images please, with numbers."
AS16-114-18436 and AS16-114-18435.
And while you are at it, a timestamp for the dac footage.
I'll check it out when I have the time.
"Just a reminder, ther eis one more ace up my sleeve thats going to put you in the dumpster, where you belong....for good."
Lying psychos like you always have one more ace up their sleeve.. That's one of the things that shows how cunning and evil they really are.
straydog02 3 years ago