| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Doc Smartass" |
| Date: |
11 Oct 2006 03:55:27 AM |
| Object: |
Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
So I'm over in sci.space.history and who do I find?
Pastor freakin' frank:
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote in
news:43bb07db$0$10246$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com:
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TYYsf.63408$vl2.1222@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hello, I have spoken to Neil Armstrong in person just after his
return from the moon in 1969 at the Government establishment where I
worked. He saw lights flashing on the horizon, we decided they were
stars being occulted as the moon wobbled. The stars near the horizon
just vanish as the moon rotates, there is no warning, if the mountain
is in shadow it cannot be seen. New stars come in to view all the
time on the other horizon and it is quite disturbing, it is best not
to look at the sky. The stars and the sun are visible at the same
time
That's the more remarkable, as not a single picture of theirs contains
any stars. Without atmosphere on the moon to obscure their light,
stars should be bright enough to register on film. The photographic
absence of stars in pictures taken supposedly on the moon's surface is
one more reason to suspect fraud.
His arguments there aren't any better than his arguments here--though
there was a post in s.s.h. that likens the moon hoaxers' mentality to
that of religious devouts, and so incapable of being reasoned with. So
there'd be no good reason to show him this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the
people who must use the words. - Philip K. *****
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
11 Oct 2006 05:50:00 AM |
|
|
Doc Smartass wrote:
So I'm over in sci.space.history and who do I find?
Pastor freakin' frank:
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote in
news:43bb07db$0$10246$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com:
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TYYsf.63408$vl2.1222@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hello, I have spoken to Neil Armstrong in person just after his
return from the moon in 1969 at the Government establishment where I
worked. He saw lights flashing on the horizon, we decided they were
stars being occulted as the moon wobbled. The stars near the horizon
just vanish as the moon rotates, there is no warning, if the mountain
is in shadow it cannot be seen. New stars come in to view all the
time on the other horizon and it is quite disturbing, it is best not
to look at the sky. The stars and the sun are visible at the same
time
That's the more remarkable, as not a single picture of theirs contains
any stars. Without atmosphere on the moon to obscure their light,
stars should be bright enough to register on film. The photographic
absence of stars in pictures taken supposedly on the moon's surface is
one more reason to suspect fraud.
His arguments there aren't any better than his arguments here--though
there was a post in s.s.h. that likens the moon hoaxers' mentality to
that of religious devouts, and so incapable of being reasoned with. So
there'd be no good reason to show him this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
ROFL! Frank's stopped tilting at our windmill, and found a new one. You
don't have to know anything about space to know why there's no stars in
the pictures...just a little about *photography*. Sheesh, I'll bet they
had to run the apertures down to the size of pinholes to get anything
recognizable at all.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A1hr&tag=
Note the properly exposed photo at the bottom.
"Ohmygawd! Only three people came to their wedding!"
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
11 Oct 2006 09:57:50 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1160545800.185958.20140
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Doc Smartass wrote:
So I'm over in sci.space.history and who do I find?
Pastor freakin' frank:
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote in
news:43bb07db$0$10246$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com:
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TYYsf.63408$vl2.1222@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hello, I have spoken to Neil Armstrong in person just after his
return from the moon in 1969 at the Government establishment where
I
worked. He saw lights flashing on the horizon, we decided they
were
stars being occulted as the moon wobbled. The stars near the
horizon
just vanish as the moon rotates, there is no warning, if the
mountain
is in shadow it cannot be seen. New stars come in to view all the
time on the other horizon and it is quite disturbing, it is best
not
to look at the sky. The stars and the sun are visible at the same
time
That's the more remarkable, as not a single picture of theirs
contains
any stars. Without atmosphere on the moon to obscure their light,
stars should be bright enough to register on film. The photographic
absence of stars in pictures taken supposedly on the moon's surface
is
one more reason to suspect fraud.
His arguments there aren't any better than his arguments here--though
there was a post in s.s.h. that likens the moon hoaxers' mentality to
that of religious devouts, and so incapable of being reasoned with. So
there'd be no good reason to show him this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
ROFL! Frank's stopped tilting at our windmill, and found a new one. You
He only tilted once; the s.s.h. folks lit his ***** up and jettisoned him
*bahahaha*
don't have to know anything about space to know why there's no stars in
the pictures...just a little about *photography*. Sheesh, I'll bet they
had to run the apertures down to the size of pinholes to get anything
recognizable at all.
No doubt. Of course, you found the info that refutes him--so you're Part
Of The Conspiracy now!
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A1hr&tag=
Note the properly exposed photo at the bottom.
"Ohmygawd! Only three people came to their wedding!"
The bride's got a "Who invited the photographer?" look on her mug.
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the
people who must use the words. - Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
12 Oct 2006 07:20:28 AM |
|
|
Doc Smartass wrote:
panamfloyd@hotmail.com wrote in news:1160545800.185958.20140
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Doc Smartass wrote:
So I'm over in sci.space.history and who do I find?
Pastor freakin' frank:
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote in
news:43bb07db$0$10246$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com:
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TYYsf.63408$vl2.1222@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hello, I have spoken to Neil Armstrong in person just after his
return from the moon in 1969 at the Government establishment where
I
worked. He saw lights flashing on the horizon, we decided they
were
stars being occulted as the moon wobbled. The stars near the
horizon
just vanish as the moon rotates, there is no warning, if the
mountain
is in shadow it cannot be seen. New stars come in to view all the
time on the other horizon and it is quite disturbing, it is best
not
to look at the sky. The stars and the sun are visible at the same
time
That's the more remarkable, as not a single picture of theirs
contains
any stars. Without atmosphere on the moon to obscure their light,
stars should be bright enough to register on film. The photographic
absence of stars in pictures taken supposedly on the moon's surface
is
one more reason to suspect fraud.
His arguments there aren't any better than his arguments here--though
there was a post in s.s.h. that likens the moon hoaxers' mentality to
that of religious devouts, and so incapable of being reasoned with. So
there'd be no good reason to show him this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
ROFL! Frank's stopped tilting at our windmill, and found a new one. You
He only tilted once; the s.s.h. folks lit his ***** up and jettisoned him
*bahahaha*
I'll bet they did. <g> I don't know why I've never read s.s.h. before.
Seems like it'd be right up my alley!
don't have to know anything about space to know why there's no stars in
the pictures...just a little about *photography*. Sheesh, I'll bet they
had to run the apertures down to the size of pinholes to get anything
recognizable at all.
No doubt. Of course, you found the info that refutes him--so you're Part
Of The Conspiracy now!
/Clint Eastwood voice
"Punk, I've *always* been part of The Conspiracy."
\CE voice
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A1hr&tag=
Note the properly exposed photo at the bottom.
"Ohmygawd! Only three people came to their wedding!"
The bride's got a "Who invited the photographer?" look on her mug.
Y'know, I didn't even notice until you mentioned it. It was just the
first photo I found with the over/proper exposure side by side. Did she
really think she was going to get a private moment after daddy spent 20
grand? <g>
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man Sept 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
15 Oct 2006 06:04:18 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1160637628.635859.83670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Doc Smartass wrote:
wrote in news:1160545800.185958.20140
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Doc Smartass wrote:
So I'm over in sci.space.history and who do I find?
Pastor freakin' frank:
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote in
news:43bb07db$0$10246$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com:
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TYYsf.63408$vl2.1222@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hello, I have spoken to Neil Armstrong in person just after his
return from the moon in 1969 at the Government establishment
where
I
worked. He saw lights flashing on the horizon, we decided they
were
stars being occulted as the moon wobbled. The stars near the
horizon
just vanish as the moon rotates, there is no warning, if the
mountain
is in shadow it cannot be seen. New stars come in to view all
the time on the other horizon and it is quite disturbing, it is
best
not
to look at the sky. The stars and the sun are visible at the
same time
That's the more remarkable, as not a single picture of theirs
contains
any stars. Without atmosphere on the moon to obscure their
light, stars should be bright enough to register on film. The
photographic absence of stars in pictures taken supposedly on
the moon's surface
is
one more reason to suspect fraud.
His arguments there aren't any better than his arguments
here--though there was a post in s.s.h. that likens the moon
hoaxers' mentality to that of religious devouts, and so incapable
of being reasoned with. So there'd be no good reason to show him
this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
ROFL! Frank's stopped tilting at our windmill, and found a new one.
You
He only tilted once; the s.s.h. folks lit his ***** up and jettisoned
him *bahahaha*
I'll bet they did. <g> I don't know why I've never read s.s.h. before.
Seems like it'd be right up my alley!
Have you seen the new Ares system in mock-up?
16-mb MS Word Document with CEV model drawings
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/118283-SOL-001-002.doc
** this one is basically a set of drawings of models, with some
dimensions and notes on NASA requirements for the model, not so much
about the Ares/Apollo-II systems. But it does have pictures. I'm not so
wild about the new Lunar Module design--it's not as funky looking as the
original.
CEV Pics:
http://www.andrews-space.com/content-main.php?subsection=MTk4
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the
people who must use the words. - Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
12 Oct 2006 04:24:22 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1160637628.635859.83670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Doc Smartass wrote:
wrote in news:1160545800.185958.20140
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Doc Smartass wrote:
So I'm over in sci.space.history and who do I find?
Pastor freakin' frank:
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote in
news:43bb07db$0$10246$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com:
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TYYsf.63408$vl2.1222@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hello, I have spoken to Neil Armstrong in person just after his
return from the moon in 1969 at the Government establishment
where
I
worked. He saw lights flashing on the horizon, we decided they
were
stars being occulted as the moon wobbled. The stars near the
horizon
just vanish as the moon rotates, there is no warning, if the
mountain
is in shadow it cannot be seen. New stars come in to view all
the time on the other horizon and it is quite disturbing, it is
best
not
to look at the sky. The stars and the sun are visible at the
same time
That's the more remarkable, as not a single picture of theirs
contains
any stars. Without atmosphere on the moon to obscure their
light, stars should be bright enough to register on film. The
photographic absence of stars in pictures taken supposedly on
the moon's surface
is
one more reason to suspect fraud.
His arguments there aren't any better than his arguments
here--though there was a post in s.s.h. that likens the moon
hoaxers' mentality to that of religious devouts, and so incapable
of being reasoned with. So there'd be no good reason to show him
this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
ROFL! Frank's stopped tilting at our windmill, and found a new one.
You
He only tilted once; the s.s.h. folks lit his ***** up and jettisoned
him *bahahaha*
I'll bet they did. <g> I don't know why I've never read s.s.h. before.
Seems like it'd be right up my alley!
One of the regulars is Sy Liebergot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Liebergot
....and another is Jim Oberg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Oberg
Damn cool, interacting with people who Were There (though I've only been
reading about a week, working my way through some 30,000 posts, and
haven't posted anything myself).
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the
people who must use the words. - Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
13 Oct 2006 12:13:54 AM |
|
|
Doc Smartass wrote:
panamfloyd@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1160637628.635859.83670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Doc Smartass wrote:
panamfloyd@hotmail.com wrote in news:1160545800.185958.20140
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Doc Smartass wrote:
So I'm over in sci.space.history and who do I find?
Pastor freakin' frank:
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote in
news:43bb07db$0$10246$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com:
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TYYsf.63408$vl2.1222@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hello, I have spoken to Neil Armstrong in person just after his
return from the moon in 1969 at the Government establishment
where
I
worked. He saw lights flashing on the horizon, we decided they
were
stars being occulted as the moon wobbled. The stars near the
horizon
just vanish as the moon rotates, there is no warning, if the
mountain
is in shadow it cannot be seen. New stars come in to view all
the time on the other horizon and it is quite disturbing, it is
best
not
to look at the sky. The stars and the sun are visible at the
same time
That's the more remarkable, as not a single picture of theirs
contains
any stars. Without atmosphere on the moon to obscure their
light, stars should be bright enough to register on film. The
photographic absence of stars in pictures taken supposedly on
the moon's surface
is
one more reason to suspect fraud.
His arguments there aren't any better than his arguments
here--though there was a post in s.s.h. that likens the moon
hoaxers' mentality to that of religious devouts, and so incapable
of being reasoned with. So there'd be no good reason to show him
this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
ROFL! Frank's stopped tilting at our windmill, and found a new one.
You
He only tilted once; the s.s.h. folks lit his ***** up and jettisoned
him *bahahaha*
I'll bet they did. <g> I don't know why I've never read s.s.h. before.
Seems like it'd be right up my alley!
One of the regulars is Sy Liebergot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Liebergot
...and another is Jim Oberg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Oberg
Wow. Oberg, I've heard of. The man's work is legendary.
Damn cool, interacting with people who Were There (though I've only been
reading about a week, working my way through some 30,000 posts, and
haven't posted anything myself).
Yeah, I wish I had been a little older back then. I find that I really
appreciate their acheivements much more as I research them as an adult
than I *ever* did while it was happening.
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
13 Oct 2006 03:57:24 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1160698434.204718.232910
@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Doc Smartass wrote:
wrote in
news:1160637628.635859.83670@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Doc Smartass wrote:
wrote in news:1160545800.185958.20140
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Doc Smartass wrote:
So I'm over in sci.space.history and who do I find?
Pastor freakin' frank:
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote in
news:43bb07db$0$10246$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com:
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TYYsf.63408$vl2.1222@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hello, I have spoken to Neil Armstrong in person just after
his
return from the moon in 1969 at the Government establishment
where
I
worked. He saw lights flashing on the horizon, we decided
they
were
stars being occulted as the moon wobbled. The stars near the
horizon
just vanish as the moon rotates, there is no warning, if the
mountain
is in shadow it cannot be seen. New stars come in to view all
the time on the other horizon and it is quite disturbing, it
is
best
not
to look at the sky. The stars and the sun are visible at the
same time
That's the more remarkable, as not a single picture of theirs
contains
any stars. Without atmosphere on the moon to obscure their
light, stars should be bright enough to register on film. The
photographic absence of stars in pictures taken supposedly on
the moon's surface
is
one more reason to suspect fraud.
His arguments there aren't any better than his arguments
here--though there was a post in s.s.h. that likens the moon
hoaxers' mentality to that of religious devouts, and so
incapable
of being reasoned with. So there'd be no good reason to show him
this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
ROFL! Frank's stopped tilting at our windmill, and found a new
one.
You
He only tilted once; the s.s.h. folks lit his ***** up and jettisoned
him *bahahaha*
I'll bet they did. <g> I don't know why I've never read s.s.h.
before.
Seems like it'd be right up my alley!
One of the regulars is Sy Liebergot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Liebergot
...and another is Jim Oberg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Oberg
Wow. Oberg, I've heard of. The man's work is legendary.
Damn cool, interacting with people who Were There (though I've only
been
reading about a week, working my way through some 30,000 posts, and
haven't posted anything myself).
Yeah, I wish I had been a little older back then. I find that I really
appreciate their acheivements much more as I research them as an adult
than I *ever* did while it was happening.
Yup. I was nearly 2 when Apollo 11 landed. The only space ship I really
remember is the Shuttles.
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the
people who must use the words. - Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
11 Oct 2006 02:56:26 PM |
|
|
On 10 Oct 2006 22:50:00 -0700, wrote:
ROFL! Frank's stopped tilting at our windmill, and found a new one. You
don't have to know anything about space to know why there's no stars in
the pictures...just a little about *photography*. Sheesh, I'll bet they
had to run the apertures down to the size of pinholes to get anything
recognizable at all.
If they were using wet cardboard for film. Lessee - direct sunlight
with no intervening atmosphere ... ASA 64 ... 1/500 ... about f256?
I'm just guessing, I don't have an exposure meter handy, but what's
the setting if you aim one at a #2 flood from 2"? Or would you need
an ND64 just to get the needle off the peg?
Maybe we could use Frankie's brain for film - at f1.4, we'd probably
need an exposure of a week to have any effect.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
11 Oct 2006 10:32:06 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:u81qi259q92btq10gs2blm44aqvilc1u6h@4ax.com:
On 10 Oct 2006 22:50:00 -0700, wrote:
ROFL! Frank's stopped tilting at our windmill, and found a new one. You
don't have to know anything about space to know why there's no stars in
the pictures...just a little about *photography*. Sheesh, I'll bet they
had to run the apertures down to the size of pinholes to get anything
recognizable at all.
If they were using wet cardboard for film. Lessee - direct sunlight
with no intervening atmosphere ... ASA 64 ... 1/500 ... about f256?
I'm just guessing, I don't have an exposure meter handy, but what's
the setting if you aim one at a #2 flood from 2"? Or would you need
an ND64 just to get the needle off the peg?
Maybe we could use Frankie's brain for film - at f1.4, we'd probably
need an exposure of a week to have any effect.
Gotta use IR film--he generates more heat than light.
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the
people who must use the words. - Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
12 Oct 2006 03:31:14 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:32:06 GMT, Doc Smartass
<gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
Gotta use IR film--he generates more heat than light.
Concrete is photosensitive if the heat is great enough. I'm not sure
exactly what kind of rock his head is made of, though.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
12 Oct 2006 05:10:45 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:imdri2pbb9ep9gfp57vfndqjlr55stl49k@4ax.com:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:32:06 GMT, Doc Smartass
<gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
Gotta use IR film--he generates more heat than light.
Concrete is photosensitive if the heat is great enough. I'm not sure
exactly what kind of rock his head is made of, though.
Schist.
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people
who must use the words. - Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
12 Oct 2006 07:57:08 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 22:50:00 -0700, wrote:
ROFL! Frank's stopped tilting at our windmill, and found a new one. You
don't have to know anything about space to know why there's no stars in
the pictures...just a little about *photography*. Sheesh, I'll bet they
had to run the apertures down to the size of pinholes to get anything
recognizable at all.
If they were using wet cardboard for film. Lessee - direct sunlight
with no intervening atmosphere ... ASA 64 ... 1/500 ... about f256?
I'm just guessing, I don't have an exposure meter handy, but what's
the setting if you aim one at a #2 flood from 2"? Or would you need
an ND64 just to get the needle off the peg?
I looked (but not for long), but couldn't really find what settings
they used. I did find a neat piece from NASA PAO on the equipment:
http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html
And a tasty find over at the Lunar Surface Journal-a link to the full
magazines of the Hasselblads they used!
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
Maybe we could use Frankie's brain for film - at f1.4, we'd probably
need an exposure of a week to have any effect.
No sweat. You think you still photographers know candlepower? Over here
in TV, we can set things on fire. <g>
http://www.tvstudiohistory.co.uk/images/Limehouse%20lighting%20rig%20studio1.JPG
http://www.airstar-light.us/images/TubesHMIAmsterdam.jpg
http://www.kyoritz.co.jp/tv/tvlighting.jpg
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man Sept 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
11 Oct 2006 05:44:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:55:27 GMT, Doc Smartass
<gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
So I'm over in sci.space.history and who do I find?
Pastor freakin' frank:
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote in
news:43bb07db$0$10246$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com:
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TYYsf.63408$vl2.1222@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hello, I have spoken to Neil Armstrong in person just after his
return from the moon in 1969 at the Government establishment where I
worked. He saw lights flashing on the horizon, we decided they were
stars being occulted as the moon wobbled. The stars near the horizon
just vanish as the moon rotates, there is no warning, if the mountain
is in shadow it cannot be seen. New stars come in to view all the
time on the other horizon and it is quite disturbing, it is best not
to look at the sky. The stars and the sun are visible at the same
time
That's the more remarkable, as not a single picture of theirs contains
any stars. Without atmosphere on the moon to obscure their light,
stars should be bright enough to register on film. The photographic
absence of stars in pictures taken supposedly on the moon's surface is
one more reason to suspect fraud.
His arguments there aren't any better than his arguments here--though
there was a post in s.s.h. that likens the moon hoaxers' mentality to
that of religious devouts, and so incapable of being reasoned with. So
there'd be no good reason to show him this:
Frank is apparently as clueless about photography as he is about
everything else. <G>
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Frank, Moon Hoaxer |
11 Oct 2006 10:33:03 PM |
|
|
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in
news:eabqi2dpr8rva2e19kv283l2udo1iltc1g@4ax.com:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:55:27 GMT, Doc Smartass
<gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
So I'm over in sci.space.history and who do I find?
Pastor freakin' frank:
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.edu> wrote in
news:43bb07db$0$10246$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com:
"Chris" <nimbo@(no-spam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TYYsf.63408$vl2.1222@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Hello, I have spoken to Neil Armstrong in person just after his
return from the moon in 1969 at the Government establishment where I
worked. He saw lights flashing on the horizon, we decided they were
stars being occulted as the moon wobbled. The stars near the
horizon
just vanish as the moon rotates, there is no warning, if the
mountain
is in shadow it cannot be seen. New stars come in to view all the
time on the other horizon and it is quite disturbing, it is best not
to look at the sky. The stars and the sun are visible at the same
time
That's the more remarkable, as not a single picture of theirs
contains
any stars. Without atmosphere on the moon to obscure their light,
stars should be bright enough to register on film. The photographic
absence of stars in pictures taken supposedly on the moon's surface
is
one more reason to suspect fraud.
His arguments there aren't any better than his arguments here--though
there was a post in s.s.h. that likens the moon hoaxers' mentality to
that of religious devouts, and so incapable of being reasoned with. So
there'd be no good reason to show him this:
Frank is apparently as clueless about photography as he is about
everything else. <G>
Sad thing is, people like him are PROUD of their ignorance.
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the
people who must use the words. - Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
