Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

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?

But why would you do that? That works for touristy-type holiday snaps, where you want pics of Aldrin posing in his spacesuit. But you can take such a picture on Earth. If you were on the Moon you would very much want a pic of the starry skies. Obviously it wouldn't be a fast shutter speed of guys posing in bright sunlight.

You'd find a nice dark spot, select a long shutter speed, perhaps trying out different ranges. Sure some won't come out but what's stopping you from even trying?

Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[JayUtah]

But why would you do that?

You're ignoring the question.

Why do you think it was reasonable for Marcus Allen to expect stars in those photos when you know it takes tens of seconds to expose stars against a black sky?

Hint: maybe it was unreasonable of him?

 

[threadworm]

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.

There is no atmospheric attenuation. The sun is either up or it is not. Time of lunar day is irrelevant.

 

[threadworm]

But why would you do that? That works for touristy-type holiday snaps, where you want pics of Aldrin posing in his spacesuit. But you can take such a picture on Earth. If you were on the Moon you would very much want a pic of the starry skies. Obviously it wouldn't be a fast shutter speed of guys posing in bright sunlight.

You'd find a nice dark spot, select a long shutter speed, perhaps trying out different ranges. Sure some won't come out but what's stopping you from even trying?

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Your zoo management handbook obviously does not have a section on exposing film properly.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... 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.

What are the "anti-UV filters" for? Does solar UV somehow penetrate your black wall of solid rock? Please explain the anti-UV filters.

It is a fact that as soon as you step into a shadow on the earth, you are in pitch blackness except for the scattered sunlight from your surroundings.
It is also a fact that as soon as you step into a shadow on the moon, you are in pitch blackness except for the scattered sunlight from your surroundings.

Now the shadow on the moon will be darker, since you don't have the contribution from the bright blue sky, only from the waning earth and a tiny bit of starlight, but the light from your closer surroundings will be similar to earth. While you stand in your shadow and look out over the lit lunar landscape, it's scattered light shines back on you, so you are not in "pitch blackness".

 

[LondonJohn]

It is a fact that as soon as you step into a shadow on the earth, you are in pitch blackness except for the scattered sunlight from your surroundings.
It is also a fact that as soon as you step into a shadow on the moon, you are in pitch blackness except for the scattered sunlight from your surroundings.

Now the shadow on the moon will be darker, since you don't have the contribution from the bright blue sky, only from the waning earth and a tiny bit of starlight, but the light from your closer surroundings will be similar to earth. While you stand in your shadow and look out over the lit lunar landscape, it's scattered light shines back on you, so you are not in "pitch blackness".

It would seem that everyone in the thread knows this fact about scattered sunlight on the lunar surface. Everyone except one person, that is. A person who apparently refuses to be educated.

 

[sackett]

Is necessity is the mother of invention? Maybe. But she's a sorry slouch compared to credulity..

 

[LondonJohn]

You'd find a nice dark spot, select a long shutter speed, perhaps trying out different ranges. Sure some won't come out but what's stopping you from even trying?

Why would you need to "find a nice dark spot"? (hint: you wouldn't need to)

What type of aperture settings would you use? (hint: aperture settings are as important as shutter speed when determining total exposure, yet you seem curiously ignorant of this area of photography)

 

[Vixen]

There is no atmospheric attenuation. The sun is either up or it is not. Time of lunar day is irrelevant.

You have landscape: craters, rocks, mountains (and thus, valleys between). You have pitch black shadow, enough to block sun rise from the opposite direction.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

But why would you do that? That works for touristy-type holiday snaps, where you want pics of Aldrin posing in his spacesuit. But you can take such a picture on Earth. If you were on the Moon you would very much want a pic of the starry skies. Obviously it wouldn't be a fast shutter speed of guys posing in bright sunlight.

You'd find a nice dark spot, select a long shutter speed, perhaps trying out different ranges. Sure some won't come out but what's stopping you from even trying?

If you were an Apollo 11 astronaut, your cameras would stop you from trying. As has been explained to you, repeatedly:

Were the cameras used on the Moon's surface actually capable of settings that would have allowed photographing stars?

Given the film speed, probably only if the astronauts were able to select the bulb setting to hold the shutter open for several seconds. And then they'd also. need a tripod.

The stock Zeiss Biogon lens had a bulb setting. The Apollo-modified 60 mm Zeiss Biogon did not. Zeiss removed all the slow shutter speeds and the bulb mechanism to save on mechanical complexity and eliminate the possibility of operator error. NASA did not expect the Hasselblad 500 EL to be used for stellar photography.

So you could not take pictures of stars even if you wanted to.

But the point at issue is not whether you wanted to, or could if you wanted to, but whether the Apollo 11 pictures that showed astronauts on the moon should also show stars.

Marcus Allen thinks they should, but he is wrong. Everyone who knows anything at all about photography is aware that a camera set to photograph astronauts on the surface of the moon, in full sunlight, would be using shutter speeds that are far too fast to capture stars within those same pictures.

With one exception, every contributor to this thread knows Marcus Allen is wrong. There is only one person in this thread whose knowledge of photography is so inadequate as to give credence to Marcus Allen's claim.

And that person has demonstrated an amazing determination to preserve both her ignorance of photography and her wholly unjustified faith in the conspiracy theories she promotes here.

 

[LondonJohn]

You have landscape: craters, rocks, mountains (and thus, valleys between). You have pitch black shadow, enough to block sun rise from the opposite direction.

Why do you keep refraining this "pitch-black shadow" rubbish? You've now been told several times that you're ignorant and incorrect on this matter.

And why is the depth of shadow even relevant or important to the matter in hand? (Hint: it entirely isn't)

 

[Vixen]

What are the "anti-UV filters" for? Does solar UV somehow penetrate your black wall of solid rock? Please explain the anti-UV filters.

It is a fact that as soon as you step into a shadow on the earth, you are in pitch blackness except for the scattered sunlight from your surroundings.
It is also a fact that as soon as you step into a shadow on the moon, you are in pitch blackness except for the scattered sunlight from your surroundings.

Now the shadow on the moon will be darker, since you don't have the contribution from the bright blue sky, only from the waning earth and a tiny bit of starlight, but the light from your closer surroundings will be similar to earth. While you stand in your shadow and look out over the lit lunar landscape, it's scattered light shines back on you, so you are not in "pitch blackness".

No, no you are not. A Moon shadow is not the same as being in shade on Earth.

At the Earth's Equator at full sun midpoint there is no shadow at all. Conversely, at dawn and dusk there are very long shadows. This principle is similar on the Moon.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, no you are not. A Moon shadow is not the same as being in shade on Earth.

At the Earth's Equator at full sun midpoint there is no shadow at all. Conversely, at dawn and dusk there are very long shadows. This principle is similar on the Moon.

*sigh* Beyond help.

 

[Pixel42]

But why would you do that? That works for touristy-type holiday snaps, where you want pics of Aldrin posing in his spacesuit. But you can take such a picture on Earth.

You can't take a photo of Aldrin in his spacesuit on the moon's surface on the earth. You can only take it on the moon. So of course you would want to do that.

If you were on the Moon you would very much want a pic of the starry skies.

You can take a pic of the starry skies on earth, and at any time during the weeks it takes you to get to the moon. They look no different from the moon's surface. So why would you do that when you're on the moon, and have so many more interesting things to photograph in a relatively short time?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

But why would you do that? That works for touristy-type holiday snaps, where you want pics of Aldrin posing in his spacesuit. But you can take such a picture on Earth. If you were on the Moon you would very much want a pic of the starry skies.

You cannot take photos of Aldrin on the moon while you are on Earth.

Why would you want a pic of the starry skies?

If you had read this thread with any care you would know about the far ultraviolet camera, which could take photographs of the Earth and stars that can't be taken from Earth due to our atmosphere. Those were star photographs which were worth taking from the moon. So they did.

 

[steenkh]

I haven't reached a conclusion except filtering out the obvious fluff.

It is quite obvious that you are looking for fluff, not to filter it out.

You now claim that the Russians were too stupid to see through the deception, or alternatively they were too timid to call it out. You seem to know very little about the Soviet Union.

What is your answer to the fact that the deception has not been exposed in best-sellers by retired NASA employees telling us how the U.S. fooled the Soviets, and the rest of the world, the U.S. included. Thousands have been part of this. No death-bed confessions?

 

[JayUtah]

@Vixen, was it reasonable for Marcus Allen to expect stars in photos taken with short shutter speeds, given what you know about what it takes to expose stars on film?

 

[LondonJohn]

You can't take a photo of Aldrin in his spacesuit on the moon's surface on the earth. You can only take it on the moon. So of course you would want to do that.



You can take a pic of the starry skies on earth, and at any time during the weeks it takes you to get to the moon. They look no different from the moon's surface. So why would you do that when you're on the moon, and have so many more interesting things to photograph in a relatively short time?

Vixen doesn't understand that the sole purpose of the photography on the Apollo 11 Moon landing was......to document the landing itself, and the historic event of putting the first humans onto the Moon's surface. Any photography of the stars from the lunar surface on that mission was quite rightly determined to be entirely superfluous and irrelevant. So, quite rightly, they didn't do it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No, no you are not. A Moon shadow is not the same as being in shade on Earth.

At the Earth's Equator at full sun midpoint there is no shadow at all. Conversely, at dawn and dusk there are very long shadows. This principle is similar on the Moon.

Are you okay? You just told us a moon shadow is not the same then explained ways it is the same.

Anyway, what are the "anti-UV filters" for?

 

[Lithrael]

But why would you do that? That works for touristy-type holiday snaps, where you want pics of Aldrin posing in his spacesuit. But you can take such a picture on Earth. If you were on the Moon you would very much want a pic of the starry skies. Obviously it wouldn't be a fast shutter speed of guys posing in bright sunlight.

You'd find a nice dark spot, select a long shutter speed, perhaps trying out different ranges.

YAY! You are holding the argument from the correct end!

The answer is, the cameras they were using to photograph things on the moon's surface were specifically made to that purpose and could not be set to keep the shutter open long enough to photograph the stars.

And the answer to why they wouldn't bother to bring a camera that could, is that a normal visible light photo of the stars does not become more remarkable if you take it while you are standing on the moon. A far UV photo would be more remarkable, and they did take a camera set up to do that.

If you had read this thread with any care you would know about the far ultraviolet camera, which could take photographs of the Earth and stars that can't be taken from Earth due to our atmosphere. Those were star photographs which were worth taking from the moon. So they did.