Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[SuperMurrio]

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.

To use your own analogy about (faking) going to Australia, this would be like not taking any photos of Sydney Opera House or Uluru or kangaroos, but instead taking photos of the starry night sky.

(Ironically, your friends would then ask, why did you bother taking pics of the night sky which looks just the same as from here, and why are there no photos of Sydney Opera House or Uluru or kangaroos?)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I suppose that depends where home is, as the constellations visible in Australia are significantly different from those I can see.

 

[SuperMurrio]

For those interested in Marcus Allen's views, here's an interview with The Moore Show. (Skip to 3:00 to avoid the blurb.)

If you genuinely believe, after 144 pages of whatever this is, that there is anyone here 'interested in Marcus Allen's views', then you're on the wrong forum. Seriously, read the room.

 

[Helen]

The conspiracy goes all the way to the top! (The moon is at the top)

And Vixen's going to get to the bottom of it! Or is already there.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

No, it isn't. You clearly didn't read it, but I already told you that you can photograph stars from the moon's surface in direct sunlight as long as you block light from entering the front element of the lens. All you would need is a conical shade that blocked light from the sun and any surrounding terrain or objects.

But even then, eliminating all but the starlight from entering the lens doesn't mean you won't still need a tripod, a cable release to open and close the shutter for a long exposure without shaking the camera, and the camera itself set to a wide open aperture, and the shutter set to 'bulb'.

And you also clearly didn't read about the Far Ultraviolet Camera Spectrograph used by Apollo 16, which was set up in (the not pitch blackness of) the LMs shadow only for thermal control reasons. If it hadn't been for the need to keep the electrographic components in a certain temperature range, it could have been set up in direct sunlight.

 

[Foster Zygote]

And Vixen's going to get to the bottom of it! Or is already there.

She's gonna dig her way out of the hole.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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)

"Aperture" is one of those terms she only knows is associated with photography, so she can shoehorn it into a post to appear knowledgeable.

 

[SuperMurrio]

"Aperture" is one of those terms she only knows is associated with photography, so she can shoehorn it into a post to appear knowledgeable.

Even better, apertura, in itallics because it's Latin.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

You're still wrong. But the wrongest thing you're still wrong about is you're belief that a shadow is even necessary to photograph stars on the daylight side of the moon. You could do it at lunar noon, as long as you shield the lens from the sun and reflective terrain/objects.

At the Earth's Equator at full sun midpoint there is no shadow at all.

Sorry, what? By "full sun midpoint" do you mean local noon, or do you mean the equinox? And either way, if the sun is at the zenith, there are still shadows.

Conversely, at dawn and dusk there are very long shadows. This principle is similar on the Moon.

And has nothing to do with being able to photograph stars on the lunar surface.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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?

They're afraid the Reptiloids from the Draco constellation will feed them you their young?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

That's why they had photogrammetry lenses and used the reseau plates to get the fiduciary markers on the images, so they could use the photographs to physically document the landing sites. That's why they did panoramas and stereo separations at each geology station. The planners didn't at first consider photography, but once they realized how valuable a tool it was for the geological science end of the mission goals, they wholeheartedly embraced it.

"Holiday snaps", indeed.

 

[Steve]

That's why they had photogrammetry lenses and used the reseau plates to get the fiduciary markers on the images, so they could use the photographs to physically document the landing sites. That's why they did panoramas and stereo separations at each geology station. The planners didn't at first consider photography, but once they realized how valuable a tool it was for the geological science end of the mission goals, they wholeheartedly embraced it.

"Holiday snaps", indeed.

Someone is now frantically googling "photogrammetry" and "reseau plates". Expect them to be regurgitated in a post in the near future.

 

[Mojo]

You corrected "I can see a crescent Moon in the sky very clearly" to "I can see a waxing gibbous Moon in the sky very clearly".

A crescent Moon and a waxing gibbous Moon look extremely different from one another. No way could one confuse them.

You claimed to see the Moon in the sky very clearly.

How therefore did you confuse a crescent Moon with a waxing gibbous Moon?

Or did you perhaps change "crescent" to "waxing gibbous" in order to try to sound more knowledgeable and erudite....?

ETA: Or, most likely, did you suddenly think to look up the actual current phase of the Moon - which is indeed waxing gibbous - and then correct your statement? Which in itself leads to the question: how and why did you originally write "I can see a crescent Moon in the sky very clearly", when obviously you could in reality see no such thing, "very clearly" or otherwise?

Perhaps she had a bird's eye view of it, from somewhere other than where she was.

 

[Mojo]

...and devices to make tracks in the regolith so that future lunar orbiters would be fooled as well.

Submarines!

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why? What purpose would it serve?

The funny thing is that since Vixen has already admitted that you can't image stars with sunlit objects in frame (SHHHHH!!! Don't tell anyone!), any photos shot from the lunar surface would be indistinguishable from photos shot in the parking lot of an observatory, and would simply be dismissed by conspiracy theorists as fakes. The argument would simply rotate 180°.

 

[Spektator]

In this NASA photo, the bright crescent is the portion of the moon illuminated by the sun. The rest of the moon is illuminated by light reflected by the Earth. If one were standing in that darker area, would one be able to see the surrounding surface features at all?

 

[The Common Potato]

Do you know what 'wittering' actually means?

Near where Keef lives.

 

[Trebuchet]

View attachment 72564
In this NASA photo, the bright crescent is the portion of the moon illuminated by the sun. The rest of the moon is illuminated by light reflected by the Earth. If one were standing in that darker area, would one be able to see the surrounding surface features at all?

But it's a NASA photo, therefore fake.

I find myself 10 pages behind once again. Don't expect I've missed much.
Here's a challenge for Vixen.
Go outside on a clear, dark night, in dark surroundings. (May be a challenge in Finland this time of year.) Enjoy the stars.
Put on an LED headlamp, or get a strong LED flashlight. Illuminate a subject with the light. Which will be much less bright than the sun.
Take a picture of the subject using the LED illumination. Get one with the subject properly exposed and showing stars.
Single exposure only.
I'll wait.

 

[PSXer]

For some reason, going all the way to the Moon to take pictures of starry skies reminds me of this bit from The Office

 

[LondonJohn]

View attachment 72564
In this NASA photo, the bright crescent is the portion of the moon illuminated by the sun. The rest of the moon is illuminated by light reflected by the Earth. If one were standing in that darker area, would one be able to see the surrounding surface features at all?

But But...if it's in the sunlight's shadow, it's got to be PITCH-BLACK - right?!!