Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[zooterkin]

Their Peel session was ace

Shame they suffered from second album syndrome.

 

[EHocking]

There's simply no other possible explanation for how a world-famous director could have had friends in the camera-making industry.

Fingers point at Kubrick as being the director of the “hoaxed” movies on the moon.

If that were the case, Armstrong would have got his line right : “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”

(on about take 27 or so, given Kubrick’s reputation)

 

[Ranb]

There were 5,771 photos taken over a total of 4,834 minutes, over all six missions (excl. Rover photos) or one every 50 secs, according to Marcus Allen. The Hasselblad shutter speed is 1.5 sec, for the shutter to open and shut and auto-wind on to the next frame. Apollo 11 took 123 surface pics in 151 minutes does the maths work?

If you look at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, you will see lots of poorly framed and out of focus photos. Pete Conrad took a set of panoramic photos that were all out of focus. These panoramas were click, turn, click, turn, in rapid succession. The amount of time spent taking photos during the EVA's are significant, but not entirely time consuming https://www.apollojournals.org/alsj/main.html

 

[theprestige]

NASA: Take as many photos as you can. Don't get stuck on quality. Just do your best.

Vixen: The amount of photos per mission hour is suspicious.

 

[junkshop]

Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

A place to discuss alternative interpretations, theories and explanations of historical and current events.

internationalskeptics.com

NASA: Take as many photos as you can. Don't get stuck on quality. Just do your best.

Vixen: The amount of photos per mission hour is suspicious.

Be fair now, it was Marcus Allen that found that suspicious: Vixen is just asking perfectly innocent (yet very clever) questions. If you think you read insinuations in those questions; well that's a you thing.




Because you can read.

 

[theprestige]

Be fair now, it was Marcus Allen that found that suspicious: Vixen is just asking perfectly innocent (yet very clever) questions. If you think you read insinuations in those questions; well that's a you thing.




Because you can read.

You botched your quote tags. And also maybe your sarcasm?

 

[Vixen]

Galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) or "cosmic rays" do not fog film. Film is fogged by electromagnetic radiation such as x-rays and gamma rays. GCR is particles. As such, when they interact with film, they produce pinpoints of interaction, such as we see in the Apollo 12 photography. Percy made this same mistake when he tried to prove how cosmic radiation would fog film by putting it in an x-ray machine and blasting it with thousands of times more EM radiation than actually exists in space.

GCR occurs at fluxes roughy five orders of magnitude lower than you get from ordinary solar protons. They're essentially negligible for a 10-day mission or a 3-day EVA. As for ordinary solar protons, etc., the magazines are sufficient shielding. Most laypeople vastly overestimate how much radiation there is in space.

The point being made was that the gelatin layer being organic was subject to GCR damage.

 

[a_unique_person]

NASA: Take as many photos as you can. Don't get stuck on quality. Just do your best.

Vixen: The amount of photos per mission hour is suspicious.

That's the secret of my photography skills. With digital cameras there's no limit.

 

[Vixen]

NASA: Take as many photos as you can. Don't get stuck on quality. Just do your best.

Vixen: The amount of photos per mission hour is suspicious.

You'd think all three'd be given a camera then. Give Collins something to do whilst orbiting the Moon thirty times.

 

[Vixen]

Fun fact: Apollo 11 travelled 953,054 miles over 8 days 3 hrs.

Artemis II only did 695,081 miles over 10 days. But they did break the record with their 252,757 miles in their 'fly by'.

 

[BazBear]

Most people will a. not believe and/or b. not understand the explanation that the moon appears to be “upside down” when viewed in the S.hemisphere compared to when viewed in the northern.

So yeah, I can see how a slight shift in star position would warp their fragile little minds.

I experienced that when I visited Australia in 2000. I looked up at the moon and thought "why does it look wrong?", and after a brief moment of thought it dawned on me why.

 

[JayUtah]

The point being made was that the gelatin layer being organic was subject to GCR damage.

No. The photographic emulsion was not somehow magically more susceptible to the light drizzle of cosmic rays.

You'd think all three'd be given a camera then. Give Collins something to do whilst orbiting the Moon thirty times.

Collins had a camera and took quite a few photographs from orbit. Why didn't you actually look that up?

Why haven't you told us your camera settings for your nighttime photography?

 

[Axxman300]

Fun fact: Apollo 11 travelled 953,054 miles over 8 days 3 hrs.

Artemis II only did 695,081 miles over 10 days. But they did break the record with their 252,757 miles in their 'fly by'.

And?

Apollo 11 circled the moon 31 times.

Apollo 8 logged 579,606.9 in six day, and circled the moon 10 times.

Not sure how any of this is relevant, unless you're going to try to convert this to nautical miles...again...

 

[Axxman300]

That's the secret of my photography skills. With digital cameras there's no limit.

Took 28 shots to get this one. Without digital I'd go broke. (This is from my office window).

 

[a_unique_person]

I experienced that when I visited Australia in 2000. I looked up at the moon and thought "why does it look wrong?", and after a brief moment of thought it dawned on me why.

No Man in the Moon down here.

 

[EHocking]

I experienced that when I visited Australia in 2000. I looked up at the moon and thought "why does it look wrong?", and after a brief moment of thought it dawned on me why.

And at the equator you see both orientations in one night.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Why didn't you actually look that up?

This appears to neatly encapsulate the entire thread.

 

[Helen]

This appears to neatly encapsulate the entire thread.

I am still really grateful for this thread, and others like it; I learn a lot!

Which I then mostly forget a little later, of course, but at least I remember that I did learn something

 

[Vixen]

No. The photographic emulsion was not somehow magically more susceptible to the light drizzle of cosmic rays.

Radiation certainly does affect the gelatin in a film.

IJCS-20-82_Shaheen.pdf https://share.google/oE2oiBpKxwlE4WwXQ


It's a perfectly valid point for Allen to make. There is nothing 'busted' about it.

 

[zooterkin]

Radiation certainly does affect the gelatin in a film.

IJCS-20-82_Shaheen.pdf https://share.google/oE2oiBpKxwlE4WwXQ


It's a perfectly valid point for Allen to make. There is nothing 'busted' about it.

How about actually engaging with the rest of the contributors to the thread, rather than Gish Galloping when your latest 'point' has been answered (as, in fact, all of them were, decades ago)?

With the known camera settings, would you expect to see stars in your photos in daylight?