Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

I thought it had only risen to chest height over the edge of the moon.

I was referring to the sun rays as an example of causing glare in the camera lens.

 

[Vixen]

To you, being shown that you're wrong is to be insulted.

Not at all. I have no problem with people having a different opinion from myself.

 

[Vixen]

The temperature of the light, presumably.

When the weather man says it'll be 18°C today at 9:00am, what do you think it means?

 

[steenkh]

When the weather man says it'll be 18°C today at 9:00am, what do you think it means?

It means that the air temperature will be 18°C today.

 

[Steve]

Not at all. I have no problem with people having a different opinion from myself.

Fortunate considering an overwhelming number do. In fact your opinion on this thread, and other threads you post on here, could be described as singular.

 

[zooterkin]

I was referring to the sun rays as an example of causing glare in the camera lens.

Glare is irrelevant to the question of the settings for taking photos of things in full daylight.

 

[zooterkin]

When the weather man says it'll be 18°C today at 9:00am, what do you think it means?

What effect does that have on your camera settings?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes, and they lean heavily forward.

Do they?

 

[Mojo]

What effect does that have on your camera settings?

According to Vixen, "It is not 'harsh' at 27°F", but it isn't clear whether it would be more or less 'harsh' at 18°C.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I have at no point disrespected you. Can you confirm it is not possible to photograph stars from the Moon?

Wait until night

 

[bknight]

To be fair, I never found out exactly what the pressure was in René's homemade vacuum chamber. It looks fairly slipshod, which means it's probably not very airtight. I wasn't there when he did the experiment and the filmmakers didn't ask what the pressure was or see any pressure gauge. René simply referred to it as a "vacuum chamber." René lived in New Jersey, not far above sea level and the experiment was done at his home. So the maximum pressure difference he could have had would have been around 14 psig. But it was likely lower due to likely leaks in his apparatus. However I doubt it was merely 3.7 psig, the actual pressure difference in an Apollo suit.

Jay, you may be right, but I was attempting to point out the large difference in Rene's experiment versus the real pressure differential.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No.

The Sun elevation was 15º. That's fully risen. Objects in the photographs were being lit by the full sun. Answer the questions.

Just to help Vixen out, the angular size of the sun as seen from the earth or moon is about 0.5°. So when it's at an elevation of 15° (or, to use terms more common to Euclidean geometry, about 'shoulder height') above the horizon, it's 30x its own angular diameter above it. If you draw a 1cm circle to represent the sun, and a line to represent the horizon, the circle will be 30cm above the line, equivalent to an hour after sunrise on earth.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the soft light quality we experience on earth at dawn or sunset is caused by the sunlight having to pass through much more atmosphere to reach us. It's why we can look directly at a sunrise or sunset without blinding ourselves. We even experience light when the sun is just below the horizon as it illuminates the air above us, which scatters the light in all directions. The moon, however has no atmosphere. So there is no difference in illumination between morning and midday. In fact, the only difference in illumination will occur from the moment the sun's limb first appears until the moment its disk is fully visible, which takes about an hour on the moon. So the conditions Vixen is claiming are informing her decisions about camera settings don't exist on the moon. The angle of incidence will determine how much solar energy the surface is exposed to, but the amount of light will remain the same for two weeks.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Vixen, are you evading the question as to how one would see stars in a photo and determine whether they were photographed on the earth or moon, or even a specific location, like the Arizona desert?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Not at all. I have no problem with people having a different opinion from myself.

Photographing stars with a camera set to f-5.6, 1/125, using ISO 160 film isn't a matter of opinion.

"Weight ratios" having nothing to do with your muscles strength on the moon isn't a matter of opinion.

Don't try to pass off your many completely wrong claims as differences of opinion.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's not relevant what settings I used X years ago.

Do you think they will have changed over the years?

 

[bknight]

Here is one of the panoramas taken directly in the sun, see the details?
\https://apollojournals.org/alsj/a12/a12pan1183310HR.jpg

 

[Andy_Ross]

Mojo started conflating UK day sky with the Moon day sky, hence the need to compare and contrast lunar day sky with UK night sky in respect of camera settings (not that the two conditions are identical).

No, one of them is at night with no sun in the sky, the other is daytime with the sun in the sky.

 

[Mojo]

Photographing stars with a camera set to f-5.6, 1/125, using ISO 160 film isn't a matter of opinion.

"Weight ratios" having nothing to do with your muscles strength on the moon isn't a matter of opinion.

Don't try to pass off your many completely wrong claims as differences of opinion.

Oh dear, I expect you're being insulting again.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, I clearly said you could avoid the early morning lunar glare from a very low lying sun by....turning your lens away from the source of the glare.

And I demonstrated that even with the sun in the image the rest of the picture was ok

 

[Andy_Ross]

You know all this. You know their cameras were set up for this. You know you cannot photograph stars with these settings.

But you will not say so.

That would mean admitting error.