Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Mojo]

Of which I am one.

It's amusing to accountants?

 

[Mojo]

It would depend (a) where on the Moon, (b) time of day and (c) level of glare, together with the overall background brightness of the ground (or albedo).

How would any of these affect the brightness of the stars?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I already alluded to the fact that any astronomer capable of spotting stars in the "wrong" positions could have simply been hired by NASA to come up with a star chart showing them in the "right" position. I mean, money's no object for these guys, right? And they've already sworn legions of technicians and specialists to secrecy, what's a couple astronomers more?

Conspiracy theorists object that it would be too hard/impossible to determine where the positions of the moon, sun and planets would be relative to the celestial sphere at a certain time simply because they don't personally know how to do it, and the idea that anyone else knows how to competently do something that they don't is anathema to them.

 

[Mojo]

I am not sure why there is the need for crude language. I am citing HJP "Douglas" Arnold, who worked with Kodak in the UK 1966 - 74 during Apollo.

Couldn't you find anyone who worked for Ektachrome?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

No. This is grossly stupid, even by your standards.

Given the frequency with which this phrase or its variants have come up recently, we may have to rethink what those standards actually are.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Couldn't you find anyone who worked for Ektachrome?

They're all dead now. All you'd get from talking to them would be ektaplasm.

 

[Foster Zygote]

How would any of these affect the brightness of the stars?

As for (a) and (b), not at all. (c) presumes that one is trying to image both stars and surrounding terrain in the same exposure, which if on the night side of the moon will also be not at all, or if on the day side means you either select between the stars being greatly underexposed, or the sunlit terrain being greatly overexposed. Vixen still doesn't seem to understand that even on the day side, with appropriate camera settings, one can image stars just as easily as on the night side, as long as the front element of the lens is shaded from direct sunlight, or indirect sunlight from surrounding terrain/objects. Put an opaque cone of shame on the camera lens and, as far as the lens and film are concerned, it may as well be night. But she keeps vacillating between claiming that they should have gone to all the extra, time consuming effort to take star photos with zero scientific value, or claiming that there should have been stars in the existing shots showing objects and terrain.

 

[Mojo]

As for (a) and (b), not at all. (c) presumes that one is trying to image both stars and surrounding terrain in the same exposure, which if on the night side of the moon will also be not at all, or if on the day side means you either select between the stars being greatly underexposed, or the sunlit terrain being greatly overexposed. Vixen still doesn't seem to understand that even on the day side, with appropriate camera settings, one can image stars just as easily as on the night side, as long as the front element of the lens is shaded from direct sunlight, or indirect sunlight from surrounding terrain/objects. Put an opaque cone of shame on the camera lens and, as far as the lens and film are concerned, it may as well be night. But she keeps vacillating between claiming that they should have gone to all the extra, time consuming effort to take star photos with zero scientific value, or claiming that there should have been stars in the existing shots showing objects and terrain.

Yes, but (c) doesn't actually make the stars any dimmer or brighter. You would still need the same exposure to capture them in daylight, once you had adequately shaded the lens, as you would need on the night side.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Perhaps you don't recall that the search function is now working.

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...-case-reopened-part-vii.377409/#post-14664855

And there's more than that, 'cos the bit where V said I was trolling isn't in there.

Amazing how these super-special whizzy memories work, isn't it?

So, over to our correspondent for further comment...

 

[Mojo]

This reminds me of when people insisted one is not allowed to say, 'tens of hundreds' to refer to thousands.

Not actually true. You claimed that "tens of hundreds" is not thousands. And then were unable to multiply 100 by ten when asked to do so.

ETA: link.

 

[Steve]

And there's more than that, 'cos the bit where V said I was trolling isn't in there.

Amazing how these super-special whizzy memories work, isn't it?

So, over to our correspondent for further comment...

I recall that we were advised, by Vixen herself, that her memory is eidetic. So she will surely recall all these events, and many others, without so much as a gentle prompt from posters here..

 

[Foster Zygote]

Not actually true. You claimed that "tens of hundreds" is not thousands. And then were unable to multiply 100 by ten when asked to do so.

ETA: link.

There was also the openly wondering if anyone had ever "done the math" to see if it was possible to take the known value of the total number of photos recorded, within the known value of the time limits of the EVA, with a camera requiring a minimum of 1.5 seconds to advance to the next frame. That's literally the sort of word problem that would be on a kid's math quiz.

 

[Mojo]

There was also the openly wondering if anyone had ever "done the math" to see if it was possible to take the known value of the total number of photos recorded, within the known value of the time limits of the EVA, with a camera requiring a minimum of 1.5 seconds to advance to the next frame.

Ah yes, the "shutter speed".

 

[Foster Zygote]

Ah yes, the "shutter speed".

Ah yes, she also confused shutter speed, aka exposure time, with the film advance speed. It's worth noting that the "EL" in the Hasselblad 500 EL stood for "electric" in reference to the automatic electric frame advance mechanism that attached to the bottom of the camera. All the user had to do was press the shutter release and the electric motor would automatically advance the film to the next frame.

 

[Vixen]

How much brighter are they on the Moon than on the Earth?

15% - 30%.

 

[Vixen]

Well, Vixen.

Do you know how much brighter stars are from the surface of the Moon than they are from the surface of the Earth?

Can you put a number on it?

ditto

 

[Vixen]

Give me a number.

How much brighter are they in percentage terms?

Maybe you’d prefer to use apparent magnitude, or maybe optical intensity?

~ do. ~

 

[Vixen]

Let's start by assuming it is night, that the Sun is on the opposite side of the Moon and Earth, so Insolation and glare are not an issue.

Let's also assume that the sky on Earth is clear and free from clouds, and that the air is still.

- do. -

 

[Mojo]

15% - 30%.

How much would that shorten the necessary exposure time?

 

[Vixen]

It's true that you accused me of trolling. Note the actual words I have used and don't try and wriggle out by claiming that words mean something else, eh, Humpty Dumpty? (Oooooh the nasty man called me names! Oooooh!)

Now, given you claim not to be able to remember that, stop the claims of being so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ clever and having such a good memory, as both things cannot be true.

Still none the wiser.