) mind how you're so far ahead of me (and presumably everyone else in this thread). And at the same time, inform us of what shutter speeds and aperture stops you'd generallyneed to use to photograph stars from the surface of the Moon.
The cameras worked perfectly as designed. The astronauts performed well according to their training. The physics and chemistry of photochemical photography worked as expected.
WD Clinger already linked to it, but here you go:
Some of it got so bad that The Prestige and I were agreeing with each other, which rarely happens.
Much of it can be taken as a savage indictment of the English education system at a certain time and in a certain place. Fortunately most of the rest of us lived elsewhere in the country.
No, you're not the smartest person in the room.
Puerile strawman.
The lessons you should have learned from this include the following.
There's nowt wrong with Middlesex. We gave you the Carry On films, Thunderbirds, Elton John, Brian May, Russell Grant. [ed.]WD Clinger already linked to it, but here you go:
Some of it got so bad that The Prestige and I were agreeing with each other, which rarely happens.
Much of it can be taken as a savage indictment of the English education system at a certain time and in a certain place. Fortunately most of the rest of us lived elsewhere in the country.
NASA did indeed supply information to Stanley Kubrick, at Kubrick's request, because he was making a generation-defining space epic. A lot of it was photography from uncrewed probes to the Moon, so that Kubrick could get his visual effects right. That's perfectly natural. The notion that it was for Kubrick to fake the Apollo photography is pure imagination—an early internet joke that some people took all too seriously.
Yeah, that's undeniably amusing.
Oops.....
This
I haven't made any 'claims' at all, other than to defend myself against severe bullying. If someone keeps, say, spreading a story that one is say, 40 stone and 3' 6", then it is reasonable for that person to set the record straight. If the truth were, say, that person is actually 10 stone and 5'10" (say) then it doesn't follow they are bragging or claiming they are special or making out they are considerably better than yowww. That's how bullying operates: you can't win if you're stupid you can't win if you are clever.
"That tool was not intended for the application you are attempting."
Well, sticking to the OP topic and video, we clearly see Tony Cook making a blatantly untrue claim re Weaver's excellent point about the radiation dangers of space, that oh, they just zipped through it ultra fast using a super-safe route. He just made it up on the hoof. There was no 'safe route' through the Van Allen belt, that was just a story dreamt up by Apollo PR merchants and 'debunkers'. (See Foster Zygote's grandiose diagrams of this so called route earlier in the thread, or jump to it here at around 37:00.)
Asked and answered.
No, those are documented facts.
Asked and answered. You are not qualified to interpret that data or Cook's expert statements. Neither is Weaver.
