Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

You claimed you photographed stars with an SLR. You're being asked what camera settings you used. You suddenly can't remember. This is important because Allen's claim (and now yours) relies on those same settings being compatible with also photographing objects lit by the sun. And true to form, you're claiming there's magically something different about daylit objects on the Moon that makes this possible.

You absolutely did not photograph stars with a film SLR using settings compatible with also photographing daylit objects.

I nowhere said daylight photography was the same as night photography.

 

[JayUtah]

Er, the sun rays on the horizon causing glare..?

As I explained many pages ago when you were confused about UV, that kind of glare only occurs in an atmosphere because it is the atmosphere that creates it.

 

[JayUtah]

I nowhere said daylight photography was the same as night photography.

You claimed you photographed stars with a film SLR. What shutter speed did you use? If you can't recall, then tell us from your experience what the ballpark shutter speed would have been?

 

[JayUtah]

Managing such meetings is difficult.

Amen.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Er, the sun rays on the horizon causing glare..?

What does the horizon have to do with it?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Er, the sun rays on the horizon causing glare..?

Can you see glare on the horizons in the Apollo moon photos? Nor can I. What would the glare be coming from?

I can see glare effects in some of the photos, where the sun shone directly on the lens, but what use would a polarising filter be in that case?

 

[Vixen]

But everyone except you knows that your claim cannot be true. There is no amount of doubling down that will fix it.

You wrongly thought Marcus Allen wouldn't lead you astray. So you tried to look smart and say that you had duplicated the results he said you should get. You were wrong, and now you're desperate not to get caught.

Like most people I assumed the Moon landings were a given. Idly watching the video in the OP and the so-called 'debunking' I couldn't help but be sceptical of several of the 'debunks'. It actually had the opposite effect and made me wonder why Marcus Allen's reasonable assertions were brushed off with the ludicrous idea you can take decent pics with a camera strapped to your chest with no means of adjusting focal length, shutter speed or changing the lens or filter.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I nowhere said daylight photography was the same as night photography.

Are you prepared to say that you do realise the Apollo moon photos are day photography and not night photography?

 

[Vixen]

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

Oh please.

 

[Vixen]

What does the horizon have to do with it?

Low sun. Only time of day it is neither boiling hot nor freezing cold.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I nowhere said daylight photography was the same as night photography.

You seem to be assuming that because your eyes can see stars at night, that it's just as simple a matter for a camera to image stars at night, without understanding the changes you're eyes make to be able to perceive stars at night vs daytime vision.

 

[Vixen]

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

Erm no. Earth is protected the Moon is not.

 

[JayUtah]

It actually had the opposite effect and made me wonder why Marcus Allen's reasonable assertions were brushed off with the ludicrous idea you can take decent pics with a camera strapped to your chest with no means of adjusting focal length, shutter speed or changing the lens or filter.

Good grief, Vixen, we went through all that in great detail already.

When Allen suggested that there should have been stars in the photos, you agreed with him and went on to say that you had taken pictures of stars with an SLR and could confirm his expectations. That is the claim we're focused on today (pun intended). What you're claiming you did is something we experienced photographers know to be impossible using settings compatible with daylight photography. Yet you're claiming you did it. You're being invited to explain in detail how you did it. But you refuse to do so, which leads us to think you just lately figured out how impossible it is to have done what you claimed you did.

What shutter speed did you use to photograph stars with your SLR?

 

[Vixen]

You seem to be assuming that because your eyes can see stars at night, that it's just as simple a matter for a camera to image stars at night, without understanding the changes you're eyes make to be able to perceive stars at night vs daytime vision.

I fully understand rods and cones in one's eyes are very different from the effects on a camera film.

 

[JayUtah]

Erm no. Earth is protected the Moon is not.

How much brighter is sunlight on the Moon than it is on the Earth's surface on a cloudless midday? What would that translate to in terms of camera settings for ISO 160 film? Please supply actual numbers, not vague handwaving.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Low sun. Only time of day it is neither boiling hot nor freezing cold.

What does that have to do with glare, unless the sunlight is directly striking the lens?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I fully understand rods and cones in one's eyes are very different from the effects on a camera film.

It's not the rods and cones that change. What other thing about your eye changes between light and dark?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Like most people I assumed the Moon landings were a given. Idly watching the video in the OP and the so-called 'debunking' I couldn't help but be sceptical of several of the 'debunks'. It actually had the opposite effect and made me wonder why Marcus Allen's reasonable assertions were brushed off with the ludicrous idea you can take decent pics with a camera strapped to your chest with no means of adjusting focal length, shutter speed or changing the lens or filter.

You still appear to be blustering.

Simply pointing the camera was the technique they had practiced and was entirely adequate given the wide view of the lens they were using.
"Focal length" is not focus, which you seem to be grasping for. They had a simple zone focus system set up and practiced.
Shutter speed selection was limited, quite deliberately, and suited to the narrow range of daylight conditions expected.
Changing lenses would have introduced pointless complication. Filters were not required.

All of this has been discussed already.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Erm no. Earth is protected the Moon is not.

Protected? How much brighter would you expect sunlight on the moon to be, compared to 'protected' daylight here on earth?

(Or is moon sunlight dimmer than protected sunlight?) Just your estimate to the nearest number of f-stops would be fine.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Erm no. Earth is protected the Moon is not.

As I previously mentioned at least twice, at sea level, the earth's atmosphere blocks only about 2% of visible light.