Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[JesseCuster]

The argument is that the shutter speed of the cameras used means they must have been churning out a photo every Xth of a unit of time.

That’s not an argument.

First of all, this is especially laughable given that you’ve just boasted about knowing how to use a “sophisticated camera” (who even uses a phrase like that?). And you’ve again used “shutter speed” incorrectly. The shutter speed of the cameras was (I believe) able to be set to either 1/125 or 1/250s. The 1.5s figure you’re using is not shutter speed.

And the 1.5 second figure that it takes to take a picture and auto wind to the next frame doesn’t tell you how often they were “churning out” photos. It tells you nothing of the sort, how would it?

There were ~120 photos taken in about 150 minutes of EVA. That works out to a photo every 75 seconds. The 1.5 second time to operate the camera doesn’t factor into this calculation.

How can you call yourself a numbers person and be this confused about what you’re arguing here?

Show me your math. What is your argument here? What is the math what shows that 1.5 second to take a photo and wind the camera is some problematic when it comes to taking a photo on average avery 75 seconds?

Where is your maths and argument?

 

[JayUtah]

Yeah, let's all pretend I'm the stupid one.

You cannot demonstrate competence in basic middle-school physics. This is simply an observable fact. Your challenges to the authenticity of Apollo based on these fundamental misunderstandings do not somehow still hold water just because you don't like having your ignorance called out.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I never had any problem understanding the difference.

not in evidence

 

[JayUtah]

The 1.5s figure you’re using is not shutter speed.

That's a camera's cycle time.

 

[Vixen]

The camera that you know how to use, despite being unable to tell us the settings you used to "easily" photograph stars in a way that the Apollo crews should have been able to do?

And stop trying to characterize opposition to your inept arguments an issue with your gender. It's not. You're just trying to play the victim to distract from your ignorance and errors.

I am not 'playing the victim'. I am simply correcting your ridiculous and patronising assumptions. I know it is safer for you to assume I am an idiot (and you are quite welcome to call me an idiot); what I am doing is pointing out your defence mechanisms: by asserting I am an idiot you are just protecting your own fear of addressing the issue that Marcus Allen has a point.

 

[Vixen]

Irrelevant. You have absolutely no discernible competence in physics. You are stumbling over elementary concepts—the kind literally taught to children. In any case, professional engineering is far harder than O-Level physics. I am qualified in that and you are not.

I was addressing Wollery and his pompous claim his 13-year-old pupils know better.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I don't think hero-worship is at all useful.

Any, and I mean any excuse to avoid admitting the fact that your pretense of expertise is countered by a massive worldwide scientific consensus among people who learned to divide 150 by 3 when they were around 7 or 8 years old.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I was addressing Wollery and his pompous claim his 13-year-old pupils know better.

Perhaps they do.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not 'playing the victim'.

And then you go on to explain how you're a victim.

...by asserting I am an idiot you are just protecting your own fear of addressing the issue that Marcus Allen has a point.

No one has called you an idiot.

Marcus Allen does not have a point. Marcus Allen's claims have been thoroughly debunked many times, with evidence. Your claim to have independently verified Allen's claims is your point to support with evidence. You could not, and you could not address the evidence others provided that your claim cannot be true.

You doubled down, lost, and now you're trying to make it sound like everyone's picking on you.

 

[JesseCuster]

I am not 'playing the victim'. I am simply correcting your ridiculous and patronising assumptions. I know it is safer for you to assume I am an idiot (and you are quite welcome to call me an idiot); what I am doing is pointing out your defence mechanisms: by asserting I am an idiot you are just protecting your own fear of addressing the issue that Marcus Allen has a point.

And what is his point? Can you provide an argument as to why there should be stars in the photos, given what you understand about photography and knowing the camera, film and settings used?

What’s your actual argument? Again, I don’t think youre capable of articulating any argument about stars in photos. you have not demonstrated any knowledge or understanding at all about the subject and have actually no offered anything resembling a coherent argument about why exactly we should be seeing stars.

 

[Foster Zygote]

O-Level Physics was far harder than anything people do today.

Is this your way of trying to imply that you mastered physics without acting claiming as much?

 

[JayUtah]

I was addressing Wollery and his pompous claim his 13-year-old pupils know better.

The claim is not pompous. You cannot display a competency in physics that would be expected from a young teenage student. I taught physics. I taught engineering at the college level. I am perfectly competent to assess a student's demonstrated degree of proficiency. You are not at all competent in physics, and this is why your arguments alluding to physics inconsistencies in the Apollo record fail. That is not an insult. That is a serious assessment of your knowledge level coming from an expert. I would seriously imagine that a 13-14 year old who has passed the program of physics prescribed for that age group will be better able to grasp the physics alluded to in the Apollo record than you have demonstrated here.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It was an anecdote..? And of course, Armstrong's belongings found in a cupboard after his death by his second wife WERE put on display in a space museum (excluding the rumoured Hasselblad), things he was supposed to have left on the Moon, so there is a grain of substance to that urban myth.

Nothing in that collection was supposed to have been left on the moon. The camera wasn't even a Hasselblad 500, it was a 16mm Maurer movie camera. And all the Apollo astronauts were issued both types and encouraged to practice with them in their spare time.

 

[Trebuchet]

Welcome back Vixen. Do you any response to my explanation of weight vs mass, and why the asttronauts' legs were just as strong on the moon?

 

[zooterkin]

Are those cracking knuckles I hear? Your argument be like said kids in a classroom who attack the older kid for casually hypothesising Father Christmas was likely an abstract concept based on ancient folklore, and quite unwittingly - for no disrespect of the other kids' faith was intended nor hurting of feelings - causing immense fury in the younger ones, who launch themselves at the latter, kicking his or her shins, calling him or her horrible names, and they outnumber the latter, see? so they are right!!! "Mum-meeee! That person said Father Christmas wasn't real!!!" The other kid: "NO! I simply said it was likely an abstract concept...oh never mind". <fx: backs out of the room slowly>

There you go again.

Now, please tell us what settings you'd use on a camera to take photos of stars in daylight?

 

[Vixen]

@Vixen, my eight year old daughter could carry me like a baby in the pool, but couldn't lift the weight of one of my legs on dry land.
Not a perfect analogy, but hopefully easy enough for even you to grasp the point.

As I pointed out, buoyancy is not the same as gravity but never mind,

 

[JayUtah]

As I pointed out, buoyancy is not the same as gravity but never mind,

It was never claimed the buoyancy is the same as gravity. You can't demonstrate a correct understanding of either buoyancy or gravity, so you missed the point that was being made. The effect of buoyancy is similar to the effect of diminished gravity. The buoyancy effect has proven useful not only in conveying the subjective experience of diminished gravity accurately to those who cannot travel to where gravity is less, it has proven to be an effective tool for training people who must learn to work in diminished gravity.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As I pointed out, buoyancy is not the same as gravity but never mind,

What point did you imagine you were making by pointing that out?

Perhaps you have a better suggestion for a method of simulating a reduction in gravity. Perhaps you don't.

 

[Mojo]

For example, your obvious belief I must be a bimbo and have no idea how to use a sophisticated camera.

What film speed, aperture and shutter speed did you use to photograph stars in the night sky?

 

[Foster Zygote]

The argument is that the shutter speed of the cameras used means they must have been churning out a photo every Xth of a unit of time.

So the "shutter" speed means they must have taken photos as fast as was mechanically possible the entire duration of the EVA? Since the shutter speed was as fast as 1/250 sec., then they must have taken 2,250,000 photos?

Again, the term you're looking for, since you don't really know anything useful about photography, is the camera's advance rate. How fast can it advance the film and reset the shutter for the next shot. Since the motor drive on the 500-EL took 1.5 seconds to do that, then the real question is could a camera with a 1.5 second frame advance time take 120 photos in the space of 9,000 seconds? And the answer is a painfully obvious YES!!!