Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[zooterkin]

Oh come on. You are a wedding photographer or just an amateur photographer taking a pic of the smiling couple or your kid newly-born or at their graduation. You take just one pic...? Missed taking a pic of the blushing bride apart from one, when she had her back to you? There is just one pic of Armstrong by Aldrin. Really? Yet Armstrong was the first man on the Moon. And a very poor pic at that.

What makes you think there is only one photo of Armstrong by Aldrin?

 

[Steve]

SpaceX != space station. SpaceX = Company which manufactures vehicles for space exploration.

Care to try again?

Oh Vixen will definitely try again, And again. And again..... And every try will be as much of a comical failure as all the others.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It wasn't a wedding. They didn't need that perfect shot of a blushing Armstrong. They took a huge number of photographs. They had a plan and stuck to it. You got nothin'.

Sorry catch me up, is it now suspicious that they didn't take more photos of each other? I thought it was suspicious that they were taking photos of each other rather than things they couldn't photograph at home, like apparently, the stars?

 

[JayUtah]

I apprenticed with a wedding photographer. You meter the key shots, obviously. I shot the candids. I didn't use a meter. I used my skill and such rules as "sunny sixteen."

Exposure bracketing is one technique you can use if you are unsure about the exposure and you need to get it exactly right. It's neither mandatory nor the only thing available to adapt to difficult conditions. Allen is just groping for something else bad to say bad about the Apollo photography. He's not a photo expert.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Side to mean aspect is perfectly clear English, especially in relation to geographical features. In this case, the Moon's South Pole side IIRC.

There's no sport you love more than jumping through hoops to find a form of words to make yourself sound not-wrong.

But once you've done that to your own satisfaction, how about Marcus Allen's lies about stars? I see you're trying to rehabilitate him with his dumb claim about bracketing. Are you aiming for the stars next?

 

[JayUtah]

Side to mean aspect is perfectly clear English, especially in relation to geographical features.

No, in geography "pole" means a pole.

 

[Smock]

And you'll note that Marcus Allen also argued that none of the photos were 'bracketed'. This is a good point.

No that is a ridiculous point. The cameras had 2 f-stop settings and a single shutter speed. The exposure settings were basically fixed for phots in sunlight or shadow. How were they supposed to "bracket" exposures with a fixed shutter speed and 2 f-stop settings?

Is this yet another example of your knowledge of photography? Because it's a pretty good example of your knowledge of everything else you claim to have an expertise in.

 

[Steve]

Side to mean aspect is perfectly clear English, especially in relation to geographical features. In this case, the Moon's South Pole side IIRC.

"IIRC"

 

[Foster Zygote]

Side to mean aspect is perfectly clear English, especially in relation to geographical features. In this case, the Moon's South Pole side IIRC.

"Where is the Ross Ice Shelf?"

"On the side of the earth."


You didn't say "craters that have never seen sunlight". You said "ice-filled craters on the side of the Moon that has never had any sunlight". Any English teacher is going to point out that that sentence implies that it's the side of the moon that never gets sunlight, not the craters.

 

[Vixen]

There's no sport you love more than jumping through hoops to find a form of words to make yourself sound not-wrong.

But once you've done that to your own satisfaction, how about Marcus Allen's lies about stars? I see you're trying to rehabilitate him with his dumb claim about bracketing. Are you aiming for the stars next?

If the ice elements are deep in a crater in a specific area of the Moon then that is the side of the Moon that will be mined.

You are simply trying to conceal the fact you didn't know 'water' could be mined from the Moon so now you are pretending it was a booboo by me to conceal your ill-founded mockery.

End of.

 

[Vixen]

No that is a ridiculous point. The cameras had 2 f-stop settings and a single shutter speed. The exposure settings were basically fixed for phots in sunlight or shadow. How were they supposed to "bracket" exposures with a fixed shutter speed and 2 f-stop settings?

Is this yet another example of your knowledge of photography? Because it's a pretty good example of your knowledge of everything else you claim to have an expertise in.

How? Set up the same Hasselblads with the settings, accordingly.

 

[Smock]

How? Set up the same Hasselblads with the settings, accordingly.

Tell us you have no idea what "bracketing" in photography means without telling us you have no idea what "bracketing" in photography means.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I apprenticed with a wedding photographer. You meter the key shots, obviously. I shot the candids. I didn't use a meter. I used my skill and such rules as "sunny sixteen."

Exposure bracketing is one technique you can use if you are unsure about the exposure and you need to get it exactly right. It's neither mandatory nor the only thing available to adapt to difficult conditions. Allen is just groping for something else bad to say bad about the Apollo photography. He's not a photo expert.

I wasn't primarily a wedding photographer, but I did a couple for people I'd done event or corporate photography for. People don't want to stand around long for the key shots, so as you say you meter them, and in my experience multiple shots were more about Aunt Dorothy turning round to talk to someone as you said "Say Cheese".

But the great shots were the ones that you only had one chance to get.

 

[Vixen]

"Where is the Ross Ice Shelf?"

"On the side of the earth."


You didn't say "craters that have never seen sunlight". You said "ice-filled craters on the side of the Moon that has never had any sunlight". Any English teacher is going to point out that that sentence implies that it's the side of the moon that never gets sunlight, not the craters.

"ice-filled craters on the side of the Moon that has never had any sunlight" does not equate to 'Dark Side of the Moon'. If I meant dark side I would have said dark side, or far side.

Admit it, refuelling by 'water' mined from the Moon wasn't even in your consciousness. Hence, the once-again banana-skin mockery in which you were hoist by your own petard.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Water ice in polar craters has been considered a possibility for some years. Nobody actually knows whether water (rather than 'water' whatever you think that is) can practically be mined there. It's still speculative. (My own suspicion is if there was water ice there it's likely had too long to gradually sublime away to still be there in useful quantities.)

No, your accusations of everyone else just Googling stuff is not going to fly.

 

[JayUtah]

No that is a ridiculous point. The cameras had 2 f-stop settings and a single shutter speed. The exposure settings were basically fixed for phots in sunlight or shadow. How were they supposed to "bracket" exposures with a fixed shutter speed and 2 f-stop settings?

No, I know your source for this and he is not correct.

The Hasseblad cameras were modified to eliminate some of the shutter speeds (including bulb), but the surface photography used 1/125 and 1/250 second routinely. There was a paddle to switch between them. Three f-stops were routinely used: f/5.6, f/8, and f/11. Again, a paddle to switch between them.

The problem with Allen's claim is that Ektachrome has a notoriously narrow exposure latitude. If you're going to bracket, you need to bracket by half-stops. But the Zeiss Biogon lens did not offer fractional stops, nor would it have been especially easy to adjust them in space gloves. The conspiracy theorists—including Allen—tell us how impossible it would have been to operate cameras wearing space suit gloves. Then they turn around and try to tell us they should have been doing all these fine-adjustment operations to ensure good exposure.

As usual, Marcus Allen doesn't know what he's talking about. Consequently @Vixen—who continues to rely on him even knowing that he was a liar and an ignoramus—is also wrong.

 

[Smock]

If the ice elements are deep in a crater in a specific area of the Moon then that is the side of the Moon that will be mined.

You are simply trying to conceal the fact you didn't know 'water' could be mined from the Moon so now you are pretending it was a booboo by me to conceal your ill-founded mockery.

End of.

You really aren't that clever, nor are you being as opaque as you think you are. A five year old could see the waffles in this post, never mind a bunch of adults on a skeptic's site.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, we get that Armstrong was legendary and an amazing test pilot. But is landing a lunar module onto the moon's surface really just like landing a plane..?

He was also a spacecraft test pilot.

 

[JayUtah]

How? Set up the same Hasselblads with the settings, accordingly.

"Accordingly."

Why are you trusting the claimed expertise of somehow you found out was lying about it?

 

[Vixen]

I apprenticed with a wedding photographer. You meter the key shots, obviously. I shot the candids. I didn't use a meter. I used my skill and such rules as "sunny sixteen."

Ah right. That explains it.

Exposure bracketing is one technique you can use if you are unsure about the exposure and you need to get it exactly right. It's neither mandatory nor the only thing available to adapt to difficult conditions. Allen is just groping for something else bad to say bad about the Apollo photography. He's not a photo expert.