Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

Do accountants also frequently say 250,000 when they mean 250? If so, you don't get to do my company's payroll.

Typo

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Even as you write that, you demonstrate why you're too ignorant to understand why Allen's observations are not reasonable.

Honestly, if anyone was genuinely incapable of pointing a lens with a 45° field of view mounted to a chest harness at something, and successfully getting it in frame within a few degrees of center, I'd have to conclude that said person was a complete idiot.

Focal length doesn't need to be adjusted at all if you're photographing anything farther away than two or three steps from you as long as you have a lens with a long depth of field with the focus set at ∞.

Shutter speed was adjustable. They adjusted between 1/125 and 1/250 second. Are you pretending you didn't learn that or are you so averse to admitting error that you construct your own reality in which you pretend facts you don't like don't exist.

And they did change lenses. They had dedicated camera bodies with a 500 mm telephoto lens that they could use in place of the 70 mm photogrammetry lens. When you keep saying they didn't do something that they did do, it just demonstrates how inept you are at this.

 

[JayUtah]

What is the difference in brightness?

Absent clouds, clear air absorbs roughly 25% of direct visible light reckoned at sea level. For rough engineering we use 1 kW/m² at sea level and 1.3 kWm² outside the atmosphere. These are pleasantly easy numbers because we can trivially determine the intensity ratio: 1.3. The f-stop scale is not linear. Each stop either doubles or halves the intensity. So that's a logarithm problem. log₂(1.3) ≈ 0.379. So to compensate for the brighter sunlight on the lunar surface you would stop down your lens roughly a third of a stop from Earth daylight settings.

 

[JayUtah]

Typo

My accountants aren't allowed to make those kinds of "typos" and keep their jobs. "Numbers people" don't make those kinds of mistakes. That's why they're "numbers people."

As long as we're quibbling over orders of magnitude, what would happen if you tried to photograph a daylight scene on ISO 160 film using a shutter speed of 15 seconds? What would the picture come out looking like?

 

[Vixen]

The stars would be exactly the same.
Plus it would be bright sunlight, you wouldn't see them.
Plus you are there for a limited time with specific jobs to do.

No, they would not be at the same point on the Moon as they are as seen from Earth. You seem to believe the sun remains in the same spot relative to rotation. Please do look up how long one Moon day lasts and come back to us with your answer.

 

[JayUtah]

Honestly, if anyone was genuinely incapable of pointing a lens with a 45° field of view mounted to a chest harness at something, and successfully getting it in frame within a few degrees of center, I'd have to conclude that said person was a complete idiot.

Agreed. It's not hard. And as we belabored many times, the photos weren't typically shot with the camera on the chest mount. That was just a convenient way to carry the camera.

Focal length doesn't need to be adjusted at all if you're photographing anything farther away than two or three steps from you as long as you have a lens with a long depth of field with the focus set at ∞.

Vixen doesn't understand the difference between focus and focal length. The focal length of their lenses was fixed because they were prime lenses. Zone focusing accounts for the focus adjustment.

Shutter speed was adjustable. They adjusted between 1/125 and 1/250 second. Are you pretending you didn't learn that or are you so averse to admitting error that you construct your own reality in which you pretend facts you don't like don't exist.

I went into great detail about the actual lens controls. She doesn't care.

 

[Steve]

No, they would not be at the same point on the Moon as they are as seen from Earth. You seem to believe the sun remains in the same spot relative to rotation. Please do look up how long one Moon day lasts and come back to us with your answer.

Do you have any concept at all of how far away stars are? The change in viewing angle between the Earth and the Moon would be undetectable.

 

[Darat]

Absent clouds, clear air absorbs roughly 25% of direct visible light reckoned at sea level. For rough engineering we use 1 kW/m² at sea level and 1.3 kWm² outside the atmosphere. These are pleasantly easy numbers because we can trivially determine the intensity ratio: 1.3. The f-stop scale is not linear. Each stop either doubles or halves the intensity. So that's a logarithm problem. log₂(1.3) ≈ 0.379. So to compensate for the brighter sunlight on the lunar surface you would stop down your lens roughly a third of a stop from Earth daylight settings.

You and your figures.

Why you think your years of expertise can school someone who was first in physics in their secondary school and took photos of stars a few years back is beyond me.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No, they would not be at the same point on the Moon as they are as seen from Earth. You seem to believe the sun remains in the same spot relative to rotation. Please do look up how long one Moon day lasts and come back to us with your answer.

Have you ever thought about how the stars we can see depend on which side of the sun we are on, and that six months later we'll be on the opposite side and be able to see some different stars?

It really doesn't sound like it.

 

[Vixen]

My accountants aren't allowed to make those kinds of "typos" and keep their jobs. "Numbers people" don't make those kinds of mistakes. That's why they're "numbers people."

As long as we're quibbling over orders of magnitude, what would happen if you tried to photograph a daylight scene on ISO 160 film using a shutter speed of 15 seconds? What would the picture come out looking like?

Everybody is allowed to make a mistake. It doesn't strike me as fair if you'd sack someone because they made a mistake.

It'd be overexposed.

 

[JayUtah]

No, they would not be at the same point on the Moon as they are as seen from Earth.

The general star field doesn't change. But you will see different parts of it from different planetary surfaces depending on which direction that surface faces, assuming the lighting conditions allow you to see them at all.

You seem to believe the sun remains in the same spot relative to rotation.

It doesn't, but the parallax baseline is very short. With the Moon in waxing crescent during the missions, Earth, Moon, and Sun were roughly in a straight line. The position of the Sun relative to the star field would not be very different as seen from the Moon's surface versus the Earth's surface.

Please do look up how long one Moon day lasts and come back to us with your answer.

Lunar day length is irrelevant. Phase angle is all that matters.

 

[Vixen]

Have you ever thought about how the stars we can see depend on which side of the sun we are on, and that six months later we'll be on the opposite side and be able to see some different stars?

It really doesn't sound like it.

This is exactly the issue. If you remember Jupiter and its satellites could be seen in conjunction with the Moon 8 Oct 2022 in presumably the Northern hemisphere; then on seeing such a pic, you can calculate when and where it was taken. Thus, it seems convenient there are no stars in the Apollo photos, so the claim is the sky was blacked out to avoid ID.

 

[JayUtah]

Everybody is allowed to make a mistake.

Not when they're trying to lecture their betters.

It'd be overexposed.

Correct. How much overexposed?

 

[JayUtah]

...you can calculate when and where it was taken. Thus, it seems convenient there are no stars in the Apollo photos, so the claim is the sky was blacked out to avoid ID.

This is just the same logical paradox. If they can compute where celestial objects are supposed to be in order to determine whether they are correctly placed in a photo, then they can compute where they're supposed to be in order to place them correctly in the photo.

The reason you can't see stars in photos is, after 77 pages, finally beginning to dawn on you. The notion that they were omitted when hoax claimants say they should be expected is just daft on its face.

 

[Mojo]

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

Oh please.

Oh please answer the question.

You claimed that, on the Moon, there is "nothing to obscure the view [of the stars] other than the low sun", thus implying that on Earth in daylight the stars are invisible because there is something "to obscure the view" of them.

What obscures the view?

 

[Vixen]

You and your figures.

Why you think your years of expertise can school someone who was first in physics in their secondary school and took photos of stars a few years back is beyond me.

You could say the same about Allen and Percy. Okay, so JayUtah's take is that these are a pair of 'sensationalist' CT-ers. They would say he was a NASA 'shill'. How to get to the truth..?

 

[Vixen]

Oh please answer the question.

You claimed that, on the Moon, there is "nothing to obscure the view [of the stars] other than the low sun", thus implying that on Earth in daylight the stars are invisible because there is something "to obscure the view" of them.

What obscures the view?

You can get all this on wiki or Google.

 

[Mojo]

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

Yes, you did, when you said that daylight photography on the Moon is the same as night photography on Earth.

 

[Vixen]

Not when they're trying to lecture their betters.


Correct. How much overexposed?

In the daytime? Quite a lot.

 

[JayUtah]

Okay, so JayUtah's take is that these are a pair of 'sensationalist' CT-ers. They would say he was a NASA 'shill'. How to get to the truth..?

By demonstrating, as I did, what really happens as opposed to what some people say they think should happen. Literally all the provable, demonstrable facts are on one side of the question.

Allen never addressed any of the debunking of his claims. He just kept publishing the same old crap. Percy was invited to defend his claims, but declined and shut down all the ways anyone could challenge him directly. He won't even answer emails anymore.