Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
It shows one of Jupiter's satellites alongside Jupiter. In any case, if Collins [IIRC] can call Venus a star it's okay to refer to heavenly bodies as 'stars' colloquially.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk
- Thread starter Vixen
- Start date
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
What shutter speed, aperture, and film/sensor ISO settings did you use? Why are there also no stars in the photo?
Photographing sunlit objects is not the same as photographing stars. Venus appears faintly in some Apollo photos, as does the sunlit Earth.
Then you should know what information we're asking for when you say you can photograph both stars and sunlit people together.
You're not being insulted. You're being asked for the information that supports your claim. You refuse to provide it.
Apollo hoax claimants invariably claim to be conversant with photography and photographic analysis. Very few can actually substantiate those claims when challenged. Which one will you be?
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
No, 'rooster tails' is an effect of wind.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The aggregate effect will not be a single parabola.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It shows two sunlit objects in the night sky and no stars, although stars were present. You can also see that in Apollo photography. While it may be okay to call planets stars colloquially, this is science, not the coffee klatch. You either know the science of what it takes to photograph stars or you do not.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No. You can have a rooster tail in complete still air.
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
And also notice how blown out Jupiter is. What would objects on the lunar surface have looked like in the same frame?
Thermal
August Member
Exactly this. The buggy is literally showing exactly what would be expected where there is no atmosphere, ie no clouds of dust hanging behind. The dust gets kicked up, and lacking any air to get suspended in, follows the arc right back on down.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I see you've given up the pretense of believing the Apollo missions really happened as described.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,394
I rather think it's more adopted the pretence of thinking some of the the hoax claims may not have been comprehensively demolished.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The notion that you can only get a rooster tail on Earth when there is wind is a "submarine tracks" level of dumb.
The professor who served as my graduate studies committee advisor in engineering was an old Apollo engineer. He worked on the probe side of the CM docking mechanism. One of the classes he taught was automated mechanical fixturing (holding parts in place while you machine them). The first assignment was brake discs for Baja cars, and part of the assignment was to try various disc designs on actual Baja cars out in the actual desert. Don't think that being an engineer in Utah means just sitting around in buildings.
"Rooster tail" is a broad enough category of ejecta in Earth terminology. This video contains most variations.
That is in dry sand. Dry desert dust is much finer and much more amenable to aerosolization. Here are things to note:
Persistent aerosolization. The aerosol cloud sticks around for several seconds and is governed by local turbulence. You can see absolutely none of that in the Apollo film. Wind is actually the enemy of a good rooster tail because (duh) the wind blows the cloud away.
Asymmetry. Parabolas are symmetrical, but the path of a projectile in air is not a symmetrical parabola. You see the front half of a rooster tail because it hasn't been affected yet much by air. You see the back half of a rooster tail as a cloud because air has taken over. In the lunar Grand Prix footage you see a completely different kind of dispersal. You see the pattern simply lose density until it can no longer be seen as a cloud, all the while dropping straight down. This happens over a very few seconds.
Vertical banding. Heavier particles resist becoming aerosols for longer. When you are able to see them in the ejecta on Earth, they tend to form mostly vertical bands. This happens when the wheel momentarily digs in a little more aggressively and ejects many particles at once. Because heavier particles predominate under this regime, it is similar in air to the kind of aggregation and coherence we would expect to see more of in an airless environment. And beginning at about 1:12 in this video...
...there is a perfect example. That combination of (a) coherent banding and (b) ballistic-only dispersal without aerosolization can only occur in an airless environment. The pattern remains coherent until it simply becomes too dispersed to be opaque anymore. Other examples include 1:05 (although far away). The specific curl of the pattern is what you get from pure ballistics when the departure conditions are roughly similar in velocity but differ in departure angle. In air the pattern will simply not remain coherent for that long. As the particles lose ballistic velocity the aerosolization forces then prevail. The cloud stays there, but the particles are no longer following ballistic trajectories. That particular pattern depends on ballistic-only behavior for the entire life of the visible pattern.
At 2:00 you can see the ejected cloud falling back to the lunar surface in ballistic time (i.e., the time it would take particles to fall simply by gravity). It is clearly a cloud and not clumps of wet dirt that would tend to fall even in air rather than aerosolize. There is absolutely no aerosolization.
At 2:32 you get more of the vertical-band swirls. They are smaller but there are more of them.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
As if she never was going to go full conspiracy on this? She "celebrated" a successful Artemis II mission ("current affair") by posting a long-debunked conspiracy theory about different missions presented from a 20-year-old video. And now, obviously, it's an exercise in seeing how many pages of attention she can get by her usual tactics.
Last edited:
Helen
Implicitly explicit
Circum frticem mori, maybe?
SteveAitch
Master Poster
Naah, it should be: <sfx>The wheels on the bus go round and round...
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
I do wonder sometimes if we are in the presence of a form of performance art and are all unwitting participants in someone else's art work.
I'd best ask Bro-In-Law#2, as he has a fine art degree and so Knows These Things...
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
*Turns f-stop ring one click to the right*
We already discussed ulltraviolet. @Vixen gave us the irrelevant results of a frantic web search and then declared the subject closed without addressing the rebuttal.
Solar x-rays might possibly be a problem if there had been many. When the sun has certain kinds of events, the result is a massive increase in x-ray radiation. However, there are x-rays and then there are x-rays. Back in the day, we were all warned to take our film out of the carry-on luggage at the airport, lest the x-ray machine fog it. Toward that end, David Percy and a friend who claimed to be a physicist showed that if you put ISO 160 film in an x-ray machine and blasted it with 8 MeV x-rays, it would indeed fog the film. But that begs the question that this is what intensity and energy of x-rays come from the sun. A physicist would have known that, or at least known to go look it up since the study of physics includes understanding that photons come in vastly different energies.
The most energetic solar x-rays during solar events are in the 100 keV range. Most solar x-ray radiation is in the 100 eV to 10 keV range. Energy determines how far into material a particle penetrates and how much damage that particle does when it's absorbed. The most powerful x-rays from the sun are orders of magnitude less energetic than a diagnostic x-ray and don't bother ISO 160 film.
A physicist would know flux density too. That is, the energy of a single photon is one thing. That's the electron-volt measurement. How many photons of that energy per unit area per unit time you're dealing with is the other prong of the exposure question. Airport x-ray scanners go up to 100 W/m2. The peak density during an X-class solar flare at Earth-Moon distance is about 10-3 W/m2, or around four orders of magnitude less intense than a diagnostic x-ray. So no, I don't trust Percy's "physicist." Even at their worst, solar x-rays aren't enough to penetrate the magazine or fog the film. And the worst didn't happen during the missions.
Gamma energies are naturally much higher. That's what makes them gamma rays. However, the flux density even during an X-class event is again on the order of negative exponents per square meter. And the rub is that the gamma rays we would have to worry about are produced in the atmosphere by the collision of solar protons with air molecules. Paradoxically you're much safer from gamma rays on the lunar surface than you would be in low Earth orbit due to the lack of atmosphere in which to generate gamma rays. Yes, we do use photographic film in dosimeters to detect gamma rays. But they have to be behind several layers of absorptive and attenuative materials in order to catch them.
That's it for the EM spectrum. As for particles—solar electrons and solar protons—we have evidence consistent with heavy particle absorption in the Apollo photography. Modern space imaging gives us many more examples of what that looks like in much more sensitive sensors. We probably don't have any evidence specifically of low-mass particle interaction, such as from electrons, because those would be absorbed in the magazine and lens. The reseau plate was partially silvered and would likely absorb all electrons passing into the lens. There is no reason to suppose they would ever reach the film. This is also true for protons, but to a lesser extent since protons are more massive. But since conspiracy theorists don't understand what a particle interaction with film would look like, they don't know that they're looking right at stuff they say should be there but isn't. You should be looking for dots or short, sharp track lines that preferentially affect the blue-absorbing layers.
Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Re
Not only do you not need wind to make a rooster tail, you don't even need dirt.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The answer to that hasn't been clear for years?
As for participation, yes we all like to slow down and look at the carnage of the road accident that is the typical Vixen presentation on topics she clearly can't understand and won't be educated on. We can all choose to ignore her if we wish, so we're neither unwitting nor unwilling. Apollo history is a topic I have found interesting enough to become a recognized expert on, so I'll talk about it in any context. But when that context is the mindless, fingers-in-ears repetition of claims made by obvious grifters, I'm less likely to accommodate the "curiosity" of that kind of "student." I'm more likely to adopt the role of examiner.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Most people overexpose celestial objects when they photograph them. That's why that photo is just a featureless white disk. And yet there are still no stars in the photo.
When the astronauts were photographing the Earth from the Moon, they were getting features on the Earth in the same frame as features in sunlit objects.
This is obviously because they're both sunlit objects of comparable albedo. It's why you can still make out features on the Moon when it's up during the daytime and you're also looking at other daylit objects. A real photographer would instantly realize you should be using "sunlit object" settings to photograph sunlit objects also in the night sky if you want detail and not just a comically overexposed white blob. For the Moon you want something like ISO 200, 1/125-1/250 s, f/8-f/11 with the usual adjustments for focal length. These are also what I would use to photograph a subject on Earth on a sunny day, with the same adjustments for focal length. A real photographer would intuitively understand that the camera settings are very similar for photographing the lunar surface from 10 meters away as from 300,000,000 meters away.
As I said, we can sometimes see Venus faintly in Apollo photographs. That's because Venus is something like 15 times brighter in the night sky than Sirius, the brightest non-Sun star you can see from Earth or the Moon. Jupiter is about 2-3 times brighter than Sirius. You can put Venus and Sirius together in the night sky on Earth and see them both with the naked eye because the overall field of view is dark and pinpricks of light don't trigger your eyes to adjust. But also because your eye has a far higher dynamic range than photographic film. If you want to photograph Venus and Sirius together, you have to accept either that Venus will be overexposed or Sirius will be invisible in the photo. Stars are dramatically less bright in the night sky than the Moon or bright planets.
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Depends, is this an African rooster?