• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

Vixen said:
It's kind of sweet Venus is the only 'star' mentioned!
Click to expand...
Venus is not a star. It is a nearby planet and very much brighter than stars. The astronauts did not report seeing Venus from the lunar surface. And in fact it is only very faint in the photographs.

You have correctly said that a photo of sunlit objects using ISO 160 film and a shutter speed of 15 seconds (sufficient to faintly expose stars) would result in overexposure. Would that overexposure be more than any found in the Apollo photographic record?

Additionally, would a 15-second shutter speed with a handheld camera result in usable pictures, even if the exposure were correct? Would the frame remain still enough? Would any movement of the subject result in motion blur?
 
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...
Excellent reply but I was asking Vixen.
Now she knows
 
Foster Zygote said:
No, Vixen. That's utter ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. You could be camping at Ayres Rock and be inside a caravan with bright lights turned on, and then step out into the darkest and clearest of moonlit nights and you wouldn't see any stars, or much of anything else, for several minutes. You won't reach full dark adaptation for at least half an hour.

More ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. This is a straw man you've constructed to avoid addressing the real facts that show how ignorant you are. Haven't you noticed by now that this is an international forum? People interested in space exploration come from all over the world.


Oh, FFS! That's BP-1227. It's a "boilerplate" test article. Not an actual spacecraft, but with the shape, mass and CG of an actual Apollo Command Module. That one was delivered to the U.S. Navy for the purpose of practicing recovery operations. The Navy isn't as transparent with its records as NASA, so, even if there are records that still exist that would explain it, exactly how it ended up in Soviet hands is unclear. Speculation is that it was lost during a training exercise and sank. In international waters, Navy operations were frequently shadowed by Russian "fishing trawlers". It seems that the Russians later recovered it to learn just what was going on, and discovered that it was nothing more than an inert steel can. In 1970 they returned it to the U.S. Navy when an icebreaker picked it up in a Soviet port.
View attachment 72235

The item on display in Grand Rapids, Michigan is clearly not a functional Command Module.
View attachment 72234
The museum in Grand Rapids decided to turn this moderately interesting Apollo artifact into a time capsule, to be opened in 2076 for the U.S. tricentennial, at which time it is scheduled to be returned to Smithsonian NASM in Washington D.C., which still owns it.

As to why no "one is allowed inside", my guess would be that some basement-dwelling conspiracy theorist had his mom drive him there so he could demand to examine it, and was told that museums generally aren't in the habit of letting just anyone crawl around inside their exhibits, and decided to interpret this as his breakthrough, National Treasure moment.

And seriously, Vixen, what do you think is in there? Alien corpses? The contracts with Stanley Kubrick to fake the landings? The locations of every dead body of every engineer in the world who wouldn't agree to hide the "real" physics proving the hoax? And they decided to hide something suspicious, maybe even incriminating, in a big white cone in front of a museum in Grand Rapids? 😆
Click to expand...
It's 'classified'. This is official.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Excellent reply but I was asking Vixen.
Now she knows
Click to expand...
She was asked several times and chose not to answer.

Now she knows that the difference in brightness amounts to only a slight change in the photographic settings—and in a direction disfavorable to her claims. Now she has real numbers to contend with instead of the vague handwaving she uses to perpetuate the argument. Any rebuttal she might wish to offer must content with stated facts.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is completely wrong, What does the length of the moon day have to do with it?
 
JayUtah said:
Venus is not a star. It is a nearby planet and very much brighter than stars. The astronauts did not report seeing Venus from the lunar surface. And in fact it is only very faint in the photographs.

You have correctly said that a photo of sunlit objects using ISO 160 film and a shutter speed of 15 seconds (sufficient to faintly expose stars) would result in overexposure. Would that overexposure be more than any found in the Apollo photographic record?

Additionally, would a 15-second shutter speed with a handheld camera result in usable pictures, even if the exposure were correct? Would the frame remain still enough? Would any movement of the subject result in motion blur?
Click to expand...
I put 'star' in quotation marks because that is how Collins described it.

As for usable photos it's all a moot question as the gelatin in the film would almost certainly have been damaged by radiation.
 
Vixen said:
As for usable photos it's all a moot question as the gelatin in the film would almost certainly have been damaged by radiation.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. I'm asking about simple exposure on Earth and you're deliberately trying to change the subject to avoid having to answer.

If you take a picture of a sunlit scene using a 15-second shutter speed on ISO 160 film, to what degree would the photo be overexposed?

If you use a 15-second shutter speed in any context, would a handheld shot contain any useful photography? Would there be camera blur and motion blur?
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Irrelevant. I'm asking about simple exposure on Earth and you're deliberately trying to change the subject to avoid having to answer.

If you take a picture of a sunlit scene using a 15-second shutter speed on ISO 160 film, to what degree would the photo be overexposed?

If you use a 15-second shutter speed in any context, would a handheld shot contain any useful photography? Would there be camera blur and motion blur?
Click to expand...
Of course there'd be shake and blur.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Asked and answered. It affects the temperature of the lunar surface but it does not affect the brightness of the sun for photographic purposes.
Click to expand...
The angle does because when the sun is high in the sky, that is different from when it is glaring directly into your lens. If it can glare into your lens, you can turn your back to block it.
 
JayUtah said:
Is there any such shake and blur in the Apollo photographs, or are they generally consistent with being shot at a shutter speed of 1/125 or 1/250 second?

If I use a 15-second exposure on a sunlit scene, to what degree will the photo be overexposed?
Click to expand...
The photos are staggeringly perfect.
 
Vixen said:
The angle does because when the sun is high in the sky, that is different from when it is glaring directly into your lens. If it can glare into your lens, you can turn your back to block it.
Click to expand...
That's not the question. The question is whether the light from the sun is shining as brightly on objects in a lunar scene as it is on objects in an Earth scene, such that similar photographic settings would be required.

"Glare" is irrelevant. Temperature is irrelevant.
 
Vixen said:
The photos are staggeringly perfect.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the question. The question is whether they are consistent with being shot at a high shutter speed, such as 1/125 second. Do they exhibit motion blur that would be expected in a 15-second exposure?

If I use a 15-second exposure on a sunlit scene, to what degree will the photo be overexposed? I grow tired of asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom