Quote:
Originally Posted by peter J.
...notice the top of the first image you will see some of the spotlight and lighting supports as I had mentioned previously.
|
Peter J: It has already been explained that what you imagine are "spotlight and lighting supports," are actually notations on the film at the edge of the picture. For more information about them, see the following thread,
Apollohoax question, of August 2004, where we went into the subject in depth.
Note that the answer came about because of my experience doing exactly the same thing back in the 1970s, and JayUtah's own experience backed up the answer.
I have to ask you,
Peter J, what is it about blobs of ink on a duplicate negative that look like, to you, a spotlight and lighting supports? You don't seem to be at all familiar with photography which means you can hardly be a competent photo analyst, going no further than the usual hoax-believer stance of "It looks like... to me, so it must be."
It's amazing that you seem to think there (note, it's not "their") should be stars in the lunar surface photos. Do you not know that the exposure for stars is anything from about 30,000 times to 130,000 times more than that for sunlit objects:
Fox Special rescreening in NZ -- 24 June 2003. Read the post above that one for a brief rebuttal of points made in the Fox TV Special "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"
Are you also unfamiliar with logical fallacies? That's what you've committed whenever someone states "straw man", "poisoning the well," and "begging the question" (as JayUtah did in post 115) and in doing so you completely negate -- or completely ruin -- your argument. It might pay to learn a little about logical fallacies -- I also didn't know much about them before I came here.
In post 96 I wrote
Quote:
Now that you've "met" JayUtah (post 93), you may like to spend many hours doing research on his web site and gaining some idea of his knowledge of photography and Apollo:
http://www.clavius.org
You might find answers at Clavius to some of the questions your research raised, and Jay is most likely very keen to hear about anywhere you found him wrong at Clavius.
|
JayUtah and others have also suggested you spend time at Clavius. Please do. You might save a lot of time in the long run.
You can learn more about the
Apollo Guidance Computer here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/index.html
and here:
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
Also, if you acquire the
Spacecraft Films' 2-DVD set "Mission to the Moon" you can watch a 29-minute documentary from the mid-1960s about how the AGC was made and what it did. The programme has some fascinating information, such as:
Quote:
0:14:23 Poundstone: Every part is put through an electrical test and then a series of environmental stresses. Now, as an example, this girl is placing the micrologic units into a fixture that will be used in this centrifuge.
0:14:37 Poundstone: Here the fixture is spun at a very high speed and 20,000 g's of force is placed on each component.
0:14:43 Fitch: That's a lot more than it will ever experience, isn't it?
0:14:45 Poundstone: Yes, that's true, but we put more forces on, more stresses than we really expect, to ensure the high reliability.
0:14:51 Fitch: So this is really sort of a torture chamber.
0:14:53 Poundstone: That's right. In addition, we run all the parts through a leak test, to make sure there is no leaks in the can. The part is put into a high-pressure helium tank, and if there is a leak, the helium will be forced into the can.
0:15:08 Poundstone: Then we put it in a vacuum chamber and evacuate and test for the amount of helium coming out.
0:15:14 Poundstone: In the final phase of the screening and burning process, the girl puts the parts, as she's doing here, into a test socket. Then those parts are placed on this burning rack.
0:15:28 Poundstone: Here they will be operated for almost a week at a over-voltage stress condition.
0:15:34 Fitch: You actually are operating them.
0:15:35 Poundstone: Yes, we are operating the parts. Now any failure, any significant failure of any of our tests is cause for rejection of the entire lot of 5,000 parts.
|
I have done a typescript like this of everything said in the programme and anyone is welcome to a copy -- send me a PM if so.