Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Andy_Ross]

Did you miss where we discussed the early lunar angle of the sun and the black shadows concomitant with semi-darkness?

What seni darkness is that?

 

[Mojo]

You implied it when you suggested that photos taken in daylight on the moon should show stars in the sky.

She clearly didn't understand the implications.

 

[LondonJohn]

What seni darkness is that?

Vixen obviously still doesn't understand that there's no such thing on the Moon as the lower light associated with the Sun hanging near to the horizon. That's because there's no atmosphere on the Moon. The sunlight is as strong and bright when the sun is at, say, a 10° angle to the horizon (ie very low in the sky), than when it is directly overhead. Incapable of being educated, it would appear.

 

[Mojo]

What seni darkness is that?

The "pitch-black" semi-darkness.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The "pitch-black" semi-darkness.

Which is obviously just a figure of speech. She clearly doesn't mean that the moon's surface is a soccer field made of pitch. Or that the darkness is caused by large commercial trucks.

 

[Vixen]

You implied it when you suggested that photos taken in daylight on the moon should show stars in the sky.

No, that was Mojo's claim. He kept claiming Moon daylight was the same as the earth, all other things excepted. His argument was you can't take pics of stars during daytime on Earth and applied it to the Moon, failing to realise the completely different circumstances,

 

[LondonJohn]

Which is obviously just a figure of speech. She clearly doesn't mean that the moon's surface is a soccer field made of pitch. Or that the darkness is caused by large commercial trucks.

"They paved paradise the Sea of Tranquillity, and put up a parking lot"

 

[zooterkin]

No, that was Mojo's claim. He kept claiming Moon daylight was the same as the earth, all other things excepted. His argument was you can't take pics of stars during daytime on Earth and applied it to the Moon, failing to realise the completely different circumstances,

Are you backtracking now, and claiming that stars should be visible in the photos the astronauts took on the Moon?

And it absolutely was your claim.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen obviously still doesn't understand that there's no such thing on the Moon as the lower light associated with the Sun hanging near to the horizon. That's because there's no atmosphere on the Moon. The sunlight is as strong and bright when the sun is at, say, a 10° angle to the horizon (ie very low in the sky), than when it is directly overhead. Incapable of being educated, it would appear.

You haven't followed the thread as I have never claimed the Moon had an atmosphere; quite the opposite as I have pointed out many times. BUT when the sun on the Moon is very low in the sky, it casts pitch black shadows (if you can find a black wall of rock blocking these rays, in theory, you have a perfect dark room for star photography using anti-UV filters). It is a fact that as soon as you step into a shadow on the Moon you are in pitch blackness.

 

[JayUtah]

We can discuss the effects of sunlight on Apollo missions at length.

For the purpose of star photography, the sun is momentarily irrelevant. If you want to photograph the stars against a black sky—however you achieve that black sky—you need to reckon your exposure according to the brightness of starlight alone. We know that for the type of film used on Apollo, it would take tens of seconds for starlight to produce an image of the stars on film.

@Vixen concedes this.

The Apollo photographs portray scenes frozen in motion, not blurry. We know therefore that those photographs were taken with shutter speeds on the order of small fractions of a second.

Vixen concedes this as well, albeit indirectly: she conceded that pictures taken with long shutter speeds would show signs of camera shake and subject motion blur.

If it takes tens of seconds to expose stars against a black sky, it takes tens of seconds to expose stars no matter where you're standing (or floating) or what's going on around you outside your camera's field of view.

Marcus Allen claims stars should be visible in the Apollo photos. The photos he's talking about were obviously taken at a short shutter speed, on the order of a fraction of a second, because there's no blur. He's obviously wrong. I want to know why Vixen considered that claim reasonable, given her understanding of the exposure requirements for stellar photography.

Vixen?

 

[Vixen]

Which is obviously just a figure of speech. She clearly doesn't mean that the moon's surface is a soccer field made of pitch. Or that the darkness is caused by large commercial trucks.

The shadows can be pitch black yet the quality of daylight semi-darkness.

 

[JayUtah]

It is a fact that as soon as you step into a shadow on the Moon you are in pitch blackness.

Irrelevant. It still takes tens of seconds to expose stars, because that parameter is based solely on the brightness of the starlight, not whether the surface you're standing on is in shadow or sunlight.

If it takes tens of seconds to expose starlight, why would you think Marcus Allen is being reasonable when he expects to see stars in photos taken with shutter speeds only a small fraction of a second?

 

[JayUtah]

The shadows can be pitch black yet the quality of daylight semi-darkness.

Ignore all of that for the moment.

Assume you're photographing stars against a black sky. Ignore the circumstances that are making the sky black. If it takes tens of seconds to expose stars against a black sky, why would you think Marcus Allen is being reasonable when he wants to see stars in photos taken with very short shutter speeds, so as not to produce camera shake or motion blur?

 

[GlennB]

Irrelevant. It still takes tens of seconds to expose stars, because that parameter is based solely on the brightness of the starlight, not whether the surface you're standing on is in shadow or sunlight.

If it takes tens of seconds to expose starlight, why would you think Marcus Allen is being reasonable when he expects to see stars in photos taken with shutter speeds only a small fraction of a second?

You'll never get an answer to this question.

 

[LondonJohn]

You haven't followed the thread as I have never claimed the Moon had an atmosphere; quite the opposite as I have pointed out many times. BUT when the sun on the Moon is very low in the sky, it casts pitch black shadows (if you can find a black wall of rock blocking these rays), in theory, you have a perfect dark room for star photography using anti-UV filters. It is a fact that as soon as you step into a shadow on the Moon you are in pitch blackness.

Once again: if you were to step into a shadow on the Moon, you would still be partially illuminated by scattered light from the sunlit surface either side of and behind you. You really are incapable of being educated, aren't you?

 

[Vixen]

Are you backtracking now, and claiming that stars should be visible in the photos the astronauts took on the Moon?

And it absolutely was your claim.

If you can find a valley or trough that puts you in pitch black darkness with a very early morning sun with day having barely broken I don't see why they wouldn't be visible. The sun is blazing away here and yet I can see a waxing gibbous [corr.] Moon in the sky very clearly.

 

[zooterkin]

If you can find a valley or trough that puts you in pitch black darkness with a very early morning sun with day having barely broken I don't see why they wouldn't be visible.

Visible in photos taken with the settings possible on the cameras the Apollo 11 astronauts had?

The sun is blazing away here and yet I can see a crescent Moon in the sky very clearly.

D'oh! That's because the sun is blazing away.

 

[LondonJohn]

The shadows can be pitch black yet the quality of daylight semi-darkness.

Once again: there's no such thing as "semi-darkness" on the Moon. The sun is exactly the same brightness from the moment it rises to the moment it sets (discounting, of course, the very small period of time at sunrise and sunset when the sun is only partially visible over the horizon). You really are incapable of being educated.

 

[JayUtah]

If you can find a valley or trough that puts you in pitch black darkness with a very early morning sun with day having barely broken I don't see why they wouldn't be visible. The sun is blazing away here and yet I can see a crescent Moon in the sky very clearly.

It doesn't take tens of seconds to expose the sunlit Moon. The Moon is very much brighter than stars on the absolute scale. That's not the question.

Nor is the question whether the stars are "visible" according to some vague definition. If the sky is black—for whatever reason—and you want to take pictures of the stars with Apollo-style film, it will take you tens of seconds of shutter speed to do so. Why is Marcus Allen reasonable when he suggests they should also be visible with very short shutter speeds?

 

[LondonJohn]

If you can find a valley or trough that puts you in pitch black darkness with a very early morning sun with day having barely broken I don't see why they wouldn't be visible. The sun is blazing away here and yet I can see a crescent Moon in the sky very clearly.

This is utter nonsense, and demonstrates your ignorance concisely. Quite apart from the rubbish about "very early morning sun with the day having barely broken", there's also - as you've been corrected on several times already - the ignorant bollocks about whether standing in "pitch black darkness" (more bollocks) has any impact upon your ability to photograph stars from the lunar surface.