Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

Sometimes an object is observed to be so much dimmer than usual that one suspects there must be a different phenomenon at play.

 

[JayUtah]

How strange. It appears you imagine cameras adapt to the dark like human eyes and become more sensitive. Or you believe stars shine more brightly on dark places. Neither of these is true. Starlight may be slightly weakened by being seen through Earth's atmosphere but not multiple f-stops weaker.

The luminous intensity of stars as seen from the Moon's surface is the same as seen from Earth orbit. Where I live the atmospheric attenuation is about 15% on a clear night in the visible band. We have decades of experience photographing from Earth orbit, including pictures that may or may not include stars. In any case, the luminous intensity of a star field absent atmosphere is not something anyone can credibly lie about. It's not something NASA can somehow keep secret.

Something that's barely visible with a shutter speed of 10 seconds will need to be literally 1,250 times brighter to also show up with a shutter speed of 1/125 second. 10 divided by (1/125 = 0.008) = a factor of 1,250. Those are numbers even @Vixen can understand.

Sometimes an object is observed to be so much dimmer than usual that one suspects there must be a different phenomenon at play.

There's a lot of dimness on display, and I'm suspecting a different phenomenon.

 

[Mojo]

Something that's barely visible with a shutter speed of 10 seconds will need to be literally 1,250 times brighter to also show up with a shutter speed of 1/125 second. 10 divided by (1/125 = 0.008) = a factor of 1,250. Those are numbers even @Vixen can understand.

Evidence?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Better that than In the Year 2525, which that Denyer person has saddled me with

I trust you've seen this version.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Evidence?

Ah, the optimism of youth!

 

[JayUtah]

Evidence?

She can count to 9 three times.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Better that than In the Year 2525, which that Denyer person has saddled me with

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Sometimes an object is observed to be so much dimmer than usual that one suspects there must be a different phenomenon at play.

Another thread or dozen suggests uncontrolled exposure to the Bible might be a factor.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's shocking people don't know how light works.

A little switch ?

 

[SuperMurrio]

149 pages in, and we've talked at length about the exposure settings for stars and even for Venus, but not a single comment about how to expose Uranus.

 

[threadworm]

You asked about Trevor Weaver t'other day asking for his credentials:

His has a degree in Civil Engineering, and a Masters Degree in Operations Research. His early career was as a University lecturer and researcher into computer simulation at Southampton University. In 1969 he started a software company which he ran successfully for 10 years before selling it. He then moved on to Europe to work as a contract software manager on projects for the European Commission, World Bank, OECD, ESCAP, United Nations, and several European Governments. ~ Blurb

I honestly think it is a moot point talking about what shutter speed is needed.
Yes, it might take 'tens of seconds' to photograph weak starlight from UK Home Counties in the nighttime. That is not like for like for the Moon. There are parts of the Moon that have never seen sunlight. Ever. That would not be a case of 'weak starlight' and I believe a lunar South Pole PSR expedition is scheduled soon, so there's the opportunity to do so with digital equipment. Good job we have no Apollo starry skies to compare it to.

So close...

 

[Carrot Flower King]

A little switch ?

"Gerald Davies? He was so fast he could be in bed before the light had gone out!"

 

[Spektator]

"Gerald Davies? He was so fast he could be in bed before the light had gone out!"

And then he was even fast asleep!

 

[LondonJohn]

There are parts of the Moon that have never seen sunlight. Ever.

Pray tell us what the bejeezuz that has to do with the subject of the correct camera settings for photographing stars from the Moon?

You haven't the first idea what you're talking about.

 

[PSXer]

149 pages in, and we've talked at length about the exposure settings for stars and even for Venus, but not a single comment about how to expose Uranus.

The problem is that even when Uranus is fully exposed, its hard to tell if you're actually looking at it. Helpfully, arrows are often provided to make sure you can fully appreciate the view of Uranus.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

149 pages in, and we've talked at length about the exposure settings for stars and even for Venus, but not a single comment about how to expose Uranus.

Comments like that belong Oberon another thread.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The problem is that even when Uranus is fully exposed, its hard to tell if you're actually looking at it. Helpfully, arrows are often provided to make sure you can fully appreciate the view of Uranus.

"Air is expelled at the rear in a tremendous blast of energy..."t

 

[Trebuchet]

Have you tried putting the silly LED lamp on your head behind the rock blocking the low sun, with the beam either switched off or facing the rock?

It's shocking people don't know how light works.

Whut?
Goalposts: Moved. Nothing to do with what I proposed.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Shouldn't any addenda regarding Uranus be denoted with as asterisk, like so?

*

 

[Foster Zygote]

"Air is expelled at the rear in a tremendous blast of energy..."t
View attachment 72604

This is, I suppose, a 'tory about the discomfort of such craft.