Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Steve]

IIRC she insisted it was Cockney Rhyming Slang for 'savvy?' or some other nonsense, and would not be corrected.

Vixen will never be corrected. On any topic. Ever. Vixen is the foremost authority on any topic that has ever been thought of. And every single one of those topics is a conspiracy that only Vixen can explain in full.

 

[catsmate]

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

No-one claimed it was. You're indulging in puerile strawmannery again.

 

[Mojo]

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

I can see that you might think it was difficult, but it really wasn't that hard.

 

[catsmate]

No IIRC the Hasselblad shutter speed, including winding onto the next frame, was 1.5 secs.

Oh good grief this is just idiotic.

 

[Steve]

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

How would you know? You display no evidence of ever being exposed to it. And I suspect there may be university physics courses that prove more difficult than a course intended for 14 to 16 year olds.

 

[Darat]

How would you know? You display no evidence of ever being exposed to it. And I suspect there may be university physics courses that prove more difficult than a course intended for 14 to 16 year olds.

And it wasn't - it was different than the current GCSE.

 

[Darat]

I can see that you might think it was difficult, but it really wasn't that hard.

Ouch!

 

[JesseCuster]

I wouldn't begrudge Vixen having just O-level physics, if she had actually learned, understood, remembered or applied any of it. My secondary school physics (and what I've learned since then) is useful for understanding a topic like this.

But she comes out with howlers like "Dearie me. The Moon being 1/6th gravity of Earth does not mean a weight on your back is any less lighter." I'm not sure what's going on in her head even rises to the level of a lack of education of lack of understanding . I'm not sure there's any coherent model in her head for how something like lower gravity on the moon actually works.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I wouldn't begrudge Vixen having just O-level physics, if she had actually learned, understood, remembered or applied any of it. My secondary school physics (and what I've learned since then) is useful for understanding a topic like this.

But she comes out with howlers like "Dearie me. The Moon being 1/6th gravity of Earth does not mean a weight on your back is any less lighter." I'm not sure what's going on in her head even rises to the level of a lack of education of lack of understanding . I'm not sure there's any coherent model in her head for how something like lower gravity on the moon actually works.

I think that her O-levels have stiffened in the cold Finnish weather, no longer function as intended, and are now dangerous to use.

 

[Vixen]

There you go again.

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

This is an interesting question. On the one hand there is a pitch black sky, no clouds (=there is no rain or water on the Moon for there to be any), unlike in England where the sky is blue, white or grey during the day (and bright sunshine is rare [ha ha]). On the other hand, there is the bright light of a low sun. So, first thing to consider is what type of film? I'd go for low speed 200 black and white. Slow shutter speed. Polarised filter on the zoom lens to deal with the glare and perhaps some kind of umbrella to block out the sun's rays. There must literally have been millions of stars, with nothing to obscure the view other than the low sun.

 

[Vixen]

I wouldn't begrudge Vixen having just O-level physics, if she had actually learned, understood, remembered or applied any of it. My secondary school physics (and what I've learned since then) is useful for understanding a topic like this.

But she comes out with howlers like "Dearie me. The Moon being 1/6th gravity of Earth does not mean a weight on your back is any less lighter." I'm not sure what's going on in her head even rises to the level of a lack of education of lack of understanding . I'm not sure there's any coherent model in her head for how something like lower gravity on the moon actually works.

I was better at things that move (Biology) and things that explode (Chemistry).

 

[Andy_Ross]

This is an interesting question. On the one hand there is a pitch black sky, no clouds (=there is no rain or water on the Moon for there to be any), unlike in England where the sky is blue, white or grey during the day (and bright sunshine is rare [ha ha]). On the other hand, there is the bright light of a low sun. So, first thing to consider is what type of film? I'd go for low speed 200 black and white. Slow shutter speed. Polarised filter on the zoom lens to deal with the glare and perhaps some kind of umbrella to block out the sun's rays. There must literally have been millions of stars, with nothing to obscure the view other than the low sun.

Why black and white?

200 ASA isn't slow

What aperture and shutter speed would you use?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I was better at things that move (Biology) and things that explode (Chemistry).

Rockets do both.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This is an interesting question. On the one hand there is a pitch black sky, no clouds (=there is no rain or water on the Moon for there to be any), unlike in England where the sky is blue, white or grey during the day (and bright sunshine is rare [ha ha]). On the other hand, there is the bright light of a low sun. So, first thing to consider is what type of film? I'd go for low speed 200 black and white. Slow shutter speed. Polarised filter on the zoom lens to deal with the glare and perhaps some kind of umbrella to block out the sun's rays. There must literally have been millions of stars, with nothing to obscure the view other than the low sun.

This is hilariously sad. In attempting to come off as a knowledgeable photographer, you inadvertently show us that you don't know anything about it.

First, I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed that you said what you would do, not what you did. You said you've already done this. But we know you lied.

Why a zoom lens? What does that have to do with it?

What about aperture?

How are you going to compensate for camera movement with your slow shutter speed? And how slow?

How are you going to shoot objects in bright sunlight and stars in the same frame without the sunlight terrain/objects being severely overexposed? It's not the sun that's "obscuing" the stars, it's the fact that the camera's weren't set up to photograph stars.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I was better at things that move (Biology) and things that explode (Chemistry).

I'd say you couldn't possibly be worse at anything than you are at physics.

 

[steenkh]

This is an interesting question. On the one hand there is a pitch black sky, no clouds (=there is no rain or water on the Moon for there to be any), unlike in England where the sky is blue, white or grey during the day (and bright sunshine is rare [ha ha]). On the other hand, there is the bright light of a low sun. So, first thing to consider is what type of film? I'd go for low speed 200 black and white. Slow shutter speed. Polarised filter on the zoom lens to deal with the glare and perhaps some kind of umbrella to block out the sun's rays. There must literally have been millions of stars, with nothing to obscure the view other than the low sun.

There is no doubt you are able to photograph stars on the Moon by blocking its light. The question is: can you photograph stars at the same time as you are photographing something on the Moon that is lit by bright sunlight?

 

[Mojo]

This is an interesting question. On the one hand there is a pitch black sky, no clouds (=there is no rain or water on the Moon for there to be any), unlike in England where the sky is blue, white or grey during the day

Why does the sky being blue prevent you photographing the stars?

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is no doubt you are able to photograph stars on the Moon by blocking its light. The question is: can you photograph stars at the same time as you are photographing something on the Moon that is lit by bright sunlight?

Even if she waited until lunar midnight and pointed the camera at the sky with the same settings used for photography in bright sunlight, she'd still end up with nothing but black in the images.

 

[Steve]

This is an interesting question. On the one hand there is a pitch black sky, no clouds (=there is no rain or water on the Moon for there to be any), unlike in England where the sky is blue, white or grey during the day (and bright sunshine is rare [ha ha]). On the other hand, there is the bright light of a low sun. So, first thing to consider is what type of film? I'd go for low speed 200 black and white. Slow shutter speed. Polarised filter on the zoom lens to deal with the glare and perhaps some kind of umbrella to block out the sun's rays. There must literally have been millions of stars, with nothing to obscure the view other than the low sun.

Been googling again, eh Vixen. Posting stuff you have found but do not comprehend does not work in your favor.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why does the sky being blue prevent you photographing the stars?

Look, it's a simple matter of weight ratios.