Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Mojo]

I didn't claim 'expertise'...

You do realise that we can still see what you have posted in the thread, don't you?

 

[Mojo]

Given these were astronauts primed by precise astronomical detail, it could be said filming the stars would be of keen interest, so the fact the skies appear blacked over and the crew of three avoiding the question, is understandably seen by those interested, as a deliberate policy, to avoid star-spotters from identifying exactly where the photography was taken. So I am curious to understand this, too.

What film speed and camera settings were the astronauts using to photograph the Moon's surface? What film speed and camera settings did you use to photograph stars?

 

[Vixen]

You do realise that we can still see what you have posted in the thread, don't you?

I never said I was a professional photographer. I was a keen hobbyist, contrary to Foster Zygote's obvious assumption only macho guys knew anything about the specifics.

 

[Vixen]

What film speed and camera settings were the astronauts using to photograph the Moon's surface? What film speed and camera settings did you use to photograph stars?

You aren't really interested in this; you are simply being vexatious so I shall pass.

 

[Mojo]

I never said I was a professional photographer. I was a keen hobbyist, contrary to Foster Zygote's obvious assumption only macho guys knew anything about the specifics.

What film speed and aperture/shutter settings did you use to photograph stars (you claim that you have done this, remember)?

Have you tried using the same settings to take photos in daylight?

Have you tried using settings appropriate to daylight photography to photograph the night sky?

 

[Mojo]

You aren't really interested in this; you are simply being vexatious so I shall pass.

You are passing on this because it's fatal to your, for want of a better word, argument.

 

[Vixen]

What film speed and aperture/shutter settings did you use to photograph stars (you claim that you have done this, remember)?

Have you tried using the same settings to take photos in daylight?

Have you tried using settings appropriate to daylight photography to photograph the night sky?

Sorry, are you assuming daylight on Earth is the same as daylight on the Moon? Oh dear.

 

[Vixen]

You are passing on this because it's fatal to your, for want of a better word, argument.

Why is it fatal? All the information you need is on Google, so even if I could remember exactly what settings I used to use for night photos, I am not sure how it is relevant one way or another.

 

[catsmate]

This is an interesting question.

Yet you cannot answer it.

 

[zooterkin]

Sorry, are you assuming daylight on Earth is the same as daylight on the Moon? Oh dear.

Would you care to enlighten we lesser mortals about the difference? *fx adopts listening pose"

 

[zooterkin]

Why is it fatal? All the information you need is on Google, so even if I could remember exactly what settings I used to use for night photos, I am not sure how it is relevant one way or another.

What relevance do night photos have to the question? It was daytime on the moon.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You haven't grasped that daylight on Earth is different from daylight on the Moon.

What "glare" would your polarising filter be needed for on the moon?

 

[Mojo]

Sorry, are you assuming daylight on Earth is the same as daylight on the Moon? Oh dear.

I'm assuming that both are illuminated by the same sun at approximately the same distance, yes.

 

[wollery]

That doesn't mean your claim that your 13-year-olds have a better understanding of Physics than myself is the slightest bit accurate. I just sneaked a look at my school report for that age (these were all people who passed the 11+ [so top 20 percentile of all the pupils in that age group and then top 25 percentile in the academic stream = top 5% overall). So, I was first in English and French, second in Biology. Chemistry, Physics and Music; third in German. Top six in everything else. So your claim my understanding falls short of your 13-year-old's is just a cheap insult. I would guess that this is because you haven't grasped the point being made.

I am assessing your current understanding, based on your extensive posting history over several years, and in particular the posts in this thread. What you achieved 50 years ago is irrelevant.

And it isn’t an insult to say that your understanding is deficient, it’s a statement of fact.

You get basic facts of physics wrong, including, but not limited to:
The effects and dangers of radioactivity, with specific reference to the Van Allen belts,
Gravity, mass and weight, the difference between them and how they affect movement,
Moments and how that relates to weight and biomechanics,
Light intensity, with particular reference to the relative brightness of different objects,
Laws of reflection.

That’s just the things I can recall in the moment, without looking back through the thread.

I’m happy to be corrected, but I don’t actually remember you getting any point of physics right.

And to reiterate, that isn’t an insult, there are a huge number of people that are ignorant of physics. Ignorance is entirely understandable, forgivable, and easy to correct, if you are willing. I’m ignorant about a great many subjects, including photography, which is why I haven’t weighed in on that issue in this thread.

There’s nothing bad or shameful about ignorance, but when you claim expertise in a subject, and then demonstrate beyond any doubt that you actually know almost nothing about it, you should expect to have that ignorance called out, particularly on a forum such as this.

To then argue that you are better informed and more knowledgeable than actually qualified experts in that subject is simply asking to be ridiculed.

You are not being insulted, you are being called out.

 

[zooterkin]

I didn't claim 'expertise', ...

Ahem.

...
I was into photography once. I had all the gear, different lenses, flash bulbs, filters, trendy Ilford black & white film, ultra-violet, infra-red, etc. I even won a section in an annual photography competition in the Camden New Journal once.

No, I didn't need to do 'a post hoc search for "how to photograph stars"'. How insulting.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I never said I was a professional photographer. I was a keen hobbyist, contrary to Foster Zygote's obvious assumption only macho guys knew anything about the specifics.

Most photographers are hobbyists. Does your amateur knowledge give you any insight into whether a shutter speed of, say, 1/125 second and aperture of f5.6 would allow you to photograph stars in the night* sky using 160 ASA film?

My hobbyist view is that it would not.

* Or of course the sunlit but black sky outside earth's atmosphere.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Given these were astronauts primed by precise astronomical detail, it could be said filming the stars would be of keen interest...

Could it? You can see the stars from Earth any old time. They were on the moon.

Why would they take a "keen interest" in things they had already seen countless times, instead of the brief, once in their lifetime chance to photograph their moon landing?

It's among your dumber arguments, don't you think?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Sorry, are you assuming daylight on Earth is the same as daylight on the Moon? Oh dear.

I believe sunlight on the moon is about as bright as sunlight on earth, though less diffuse. How about you?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...I am not sure how it is relevant one way or another.

I find that unlikely.

 

[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 (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.

What do you think "obscures" the view of the stars in daylight on Earth?