Author Topic: What becomes of old 'friends'..  (Read 479112 times)

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #915 on: February 19, 2015, 04:25:10 PM »
Translation:  If I can't find the images, they don't exist.  If I can find them, they're fake.

Exactly the same argument that Blunder and his friends used when directed towards the UV images many years ago, 'Oh, but NASA faked them afterwards.'

One thing they forget to mention is that the positions of the UV stars have been confirmed since Apollo as being in the correct position from where they were taken: the surface of the moon. More precisely, from where Apollo 16 was based -  The CTs goalposts are built on shifting sands.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1637
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #916 on: February 19, 2015, 04:46:50 PM »
Not to mention that, if NASA can fake stars showing the right location, why didn't they fake them in the short exposure Hasselblad photos if they should be there as alleged?

Offline frenat

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #917 on: February 19, 2015, 04:48:53 PM »
Not to mention that, if NASA can fake stars showing the right location, why didn't they fake them in the short exposure Hasselblad photos if they should be there as alleged?

I saw a slightly different version of this recently on GLP.  Supposedly the stars DID show up but they had to black them out because it would show the pics were really taken in the desert.
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
 -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
 -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #918 on: February 19, 2015, 04:51:26 PM »
Not to mention that, if NASA can fake stars showing the right location, why didn't they fake them in the short exposure Hasselblad photos if they should be there as alleged?


Because the sky should be full of stars, millions of them, so it was better not to fake them as it would have been obvious to any astronomer if they had gotten it wrong. Isn't that Bill Kaysing's argument? Yet, they faked the UV stars. Hang on, wouldn't that also be obvious to any astronomer too???

No, I don't get their contradictions either. I'll  get my shill glasses and keep doing my work.  8)
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #919 on: February 19, 2015, 04:54:17 PM »
I saw a slightly different version of this recently on GLP.  Supposedly the stars DID show up but they had to black them out because it would show the pics were really taken in the desert.

Didn't Jay go into the desert for the Zig-Zag productions and show this wasn't the case. Did Jay also use a Hasselblad with the same Ektachrome? What will it take them to believe, or do they just live next left in cloud Cuckoo land and a sharp right at Lala-ville?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1637
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #920 on: February 19, 2015, 04:56:02 PM »
 One might argue since Hard UV images of stars hadn't been taken like this before, they might get lucky for a couple years since this was new data, but it certainly would not be a long term thing, and  they did take visible light photos of stars using longer exposures.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #921 on: February 19, 2015, 05:10:34 PM »
Didn't Jay go into the desert for the Zig-Zag productions and show this wasn't the case. Did Jay also use a Hasselblad with the same Ektachrome?

Correct.  E-6 at ISO 160 did not show stars.  The longest exposure I used was f/5.6 1/60, for the studio light.  Coincidentally that night was the brightest Mars in years, but it took f/2.8 1/4, ISO 800 on the other camera I brought for it to show up.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #922 on: February 19, 2015, 09:54:31 PM »
Not to mention that, if NASA can fake stars showing the right location, why didn't they fake them in the short exposure Hasselblad photos if they should be there as alleged?

I saw a slightly different version of this recently on GLP.  Supposedly the stars DID show up but they had to black them out because it would show the pics were really taken in the desert.

Which just shows how ignorant they are. The distances to the stars are measured in trillions of kilometres (42 trillion to the nearest one) The distance between the earth and the moon is less than 400,000 kilometres, therefore, the parallax is undetectable; the positions of the stars in the Lunar sky are the same as when viewed from the earth.

Importantly, if there were stars in the lunar sky in Apollo photos, then people like me, with many years of experience in photography, would find that highly suspicious!!
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Allan F

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1007
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #923 on: February 19, 2015, 11:59:47 PM »
Recently, I calculated how much the nearest star would shift in relation to a distant star. It came out several orders of magnitudes lower than the theoretical resolution of the film.

It simply would not be measurable with the equipment they used.

I even showed my calculations, but "they would have been able to measure it".
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #924 on: February 20, 2015, 03:55:22 AM »
Correct.  E-6 at ISO 160 did not show stars.  The longest exposure I used was f/5.6 1/60, for the studio light.  Coincidentally that night was the brightest Mars in years, but it took f/2.8 1/4, ISO 800 on the other camera I brought for it to show up.


Oh, is that when Mars was as big as the full Moon?

[ducks]
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #925 on: February 20, 2015, 09:01:18 AM »
One might argue since Hard UV images of stars hadn't been taken like this before, they might get lucky for a couple years since this was new data, but it certainly would not be a long term thing, and  they did take visible light photos of stars using longer exposures.

They did indeed - and two of my favourite finds on the analysis I did are this one from Apollo 16:



Which shows Venus, Mars and Saturn (the latter is a little washed out by the CSM window frame) exactly where they should be for the date and time they were taken, and also this one:



Which shows 3 images taken in lunar orbit by Apollo 17 over 51 hours superimposed on a Stellarium projection from the same times :)

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #926 on: February 20, 2015, 12:10:41 PM »
Not to mention that, if NASA can fake stars showing the right location, why didn't they fake them in the short exposure Hasselblad photos if they should be there as alleged?

I saw a slightly different version of this recently on GLP.  Supposedly the stars DID show up but they had to black them out because it would show the pics were really taken in the desert.

Which just shows how ignorant they are. The distances to the stars are measured in trillions of kilometres (42 trillion to the nearest one) The distance between the earth and the moon is less than 400,000 kilometres, therefore, the parallax is undetectable; the positions of the stars in the Lunar sky are the same as when viewed from the earth.

Importantly, if there were stars in the lunar sky in Apollo photos, then people like me, with many years of experience in photography, would find that highly suspicious!!

I remember that years ago, I calculated that at the very most, the parallax difference between the earth and the moon is equivalent to the earth moving four hours in its orbit. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) I don't think that you could measure four hours worth of stellar parallax with Hubble, much less a Hasselblad.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2015, 02:09:45 PM by AtomicDog »
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #927 on: February 20, 2015, 01:16:01 PM »
Worse, parallax of which stars?

Out of the top 20 or 30 brightest stars, only four manage to sneak in under 12 LY.  Or taking it the other way, out of the first 50 nearest stars, only a half-dozen are in the low single digits for apparent magnitude.

And I'd think if, say, Alpha Centauri was three pixels to the left but everything else is undetectably different, that would be an easy fix.

Of course, the hoaxies start in all of their "no stars" discussions with a mental image of a star drop from Star Wars or similar; brilliant jewels (even brightly-colored ones, in some earlier flicks) on black velvet. This spectacle is behind the reason why they can never accept that the astronauts wouldn't spend half their surface hours looking up like someone at a fireworks show, going "ooh, ahh."

But even then...in their hazy simulation of thinking, they probably are going "millions of stars, way too many for anyone to edit in a picture." Far from. There's about 5,000 stars of visual magnitude, total, and you are going to have less than half of those visible at any given moment.

And as far as all the stars we are usually familiar with, and the ability of technical people to place them accurately in the sky relative to each other and appropriate for the time and location....have they ever even HEARD of planetariums?  (Or planet-terrium, if you must). Which, until not all that long ago, had all of these precision placement done with hand tools.

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #928 on: February 20, 2015, 02:15:29 PM »
Using parallax to measure the distance to stars is incredibly difficult and wasn't even proven possible until 1853. The measurements are tiny, a fraction of an arcsecond. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec. This angle is approximately that subtended by an object 2 centimeters in diameter located 5.3 kilometers away.   And thats using measurements from opposite sides of the Earth's orbit, a baseline of 186 million miles. The idea that parallax could be used to show that the Lunar photographs were taken on Earth is completely ludicrous as the baseline would only be some 245,000 miles.  I doubt that it would even be possible with a professional observatory taking the measurements from the Lunar surface, much less a hand-held film camera.

It just shows the ridiculousness of the HB claims, and just how little they know. And their cretinous inability to do even a modicum of research.  ::)
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: What becomes of old 'friends'..
« Reply #929 on: February 20, 2015, 03:17:44 PM »
One might argue since Hard UV images of stars hadn't been taken like this before, they might get lucky for a couple years since this was new data, but it certainly would not be a long term thing, and  they did take visible light photos of stars using longer exposures.

They did indeed - and two of my favourite finds on the analysis I did are this one from Apollo 16:



Which shows Venus, Mars and Saturn (the latter is a little washed out by the CSM window frame) exactly where they should be for the date and time they were taken, and also this one:



Which shows 3 images taken in lunar orbit by Apollo 17 over 51 hours superimposed on a Stellarium projection from the same times :)


Mate, with the stuff you do lining up Apollo photographs with reality, you are a genuine asset to this community.
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.