Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Andy_Ross]

It'll likely follow the same principles of magnitude (such as decibels or learning curves), I am guessing. In any case, Earth conditions are not like for like with lunar ones. Problem is on the Moon there is that much more radiation which will mess with the contrast,

What radiation do you think will mess with the contrast?

 

[EHocking]

No, that doesn't work. Aside from the Lunar Orbiters NASA at the time had no idea just how well the photography on the Moon surface would work, short of sending up probes.

Which they did, and also...

The Apollo guys didn’t need to.

In the preceding Gemini and Mercury programs, extensive photography experiments were performed by astronauts inflight when NASA realised the full potential of the recording medium, including still and movie photography.
These formal experiments tested photographic equipment and methodology as well as testing the target subjects : the earth’s surface and weather as well as of astronauts inside the capsule and outside during EVAs.

Unsurprisingly during the formal photographic experiments spot meters were used when conditions were tricky or unknown.

Moon landers and Ranger, Surveyor, and the Lunar Orbiter, as early as 1964, took upwards 100,000 photos of the lunar surface. By the time Apollo came about, a lot was known about the sunlight strength at the moon as well as the moon’s own albedo.

Subsequently, nasa was not unfamiliar with the expected photographic environment in transit or on the lunar surface.
This is why their equipment and the setting parameters used worked.

If you are truly interested, here is the article outlining the above.
Here is the NASA Apollo Experience Report regarding how and why the photography program was developed for Apollo flights and astronauts as well as details of the photographic equipment used on all Apollo missions.

Frankly your entire “argument” can be debunked thoroughly by a single photo from the report.
(ironic, eh?)

This model was used by Apollo 11 astronauts.

View attachment 73574

 

[EHocking]

What radiation do you think will mess with the contrast?

Bets are on for Vixen backpedalling and pretending she meant radiance.

 

[Joe Random]

Anyone else get to a triple digit page on a Vixen thread and think :



Just without the pity?

 

[Mojo]

What radiation do you think will mess with the contrast?

Scary radiation!

 

[threadworm]

No, that doesn't work. Aside from the Lunar Orbiters NASA at the time had no idea just how well the photography on the Moon surface would work, short of sending up probes.

What, precisely, didn't they know?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It'll likely follow the same principles of magnitude (such as decibels or learning curves), I am guessing. In any case, Earth conditions are not like for like with lunar ones. Problem is on the Moon there is that much more radiation which will mess with the contrast,

How many microsieverts per hour would an astronaut on the moon absorb?

 

[Mojo]

What, precisely, didn't they know?

How bright the sun is? What angle it would be at wrt the lunar surface at the time and place they were landing? What the weather was going to be like on the Moon? How "radiation" would "mess with the contrast"? Whether little green men would hold ND filters in front of the lens?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Anyone else get to a triple digit page on a Vixen thread and think :

View attachment 73608

Just without the pity?

 

[catsmate]

15% - 30%.

So you admit you were wrong in your earlier assertions. A good start.

 

[catsmate]

A fact does not require attribution. A fact is not attributable to anyone. The Ektachrome 160 ASA used for Apollo 11 is factual. You can google it or wikipedia it.

You're trying to distract from your failure to provide a source. Try again.

 

[catsmate]

If people are interested in an issue or a topic they will go to the relevant source themself. They certainly don't go to some random post on a chat forum.

We need to bring in 'Trump's Law' as in invoking Godwin. Any time you need a put down, just compare them to the rotund orange one.

Another attempt to distract from your failure.

 

[catsmate]

No, that doesn't work. Aside from the Lunar Orbiters NASA at the time had no idea just how well the photography on the Moon surface would work, short of sending up probes.

Rubbish.

 

[catsmate]

It'll likely follow the same principles of magnitude (such as decibels or learning curves), I am guessing.

You are wrong.

In any case, Earth conditions are not like for like with lunar ones.

What is this supposed to mean?

Problem is on the Moon there is that much more radiation which will mess with the contrast,

Utter nonsense.

 

[Mojo]

Quick google says:

To calculate shutter speed based on a percentage of light increase, multiply your current shutter speed by the decimal equivalent of your increase. For example, if you want to increase your light by \(25\%\), you multiply your shutter time by \(1.25\)


So that'd be 10 /1.30. [ed.]

Why did you need to Google something so fundamental to an argument you have been making for over two months?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

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.

It's the kind of mistake someone might make if they had only ever used cameras on automatic settings.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why did you need to Google something so fundamental to an argument you have been making for over two months?

Well if you don't ask Google AI, how are you supposed to find the answer to the wrong question?

Like here, where the AI assumed the question was how to increase the exposure by some percentage, rather than to correct the exposure when the light level increased by a percentage.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

When @Vixen gets something right, we should highlight it.

It'll likely follow the same principles of magnitude (such as decibels or learning curves), I am guessing . In any case, Earth conditions are not like for like with lunar ones. Problem is on the Moon there is that much more radiation which will mess with the contrast,

Why did you need to Google something so fundamental to an argument you have been making for over two months?

She wasn't sure whether to multiply or divide. By Googling, she increased her odds of getting it right to 50%.

Peter Cook, explaining why she is neither a judge nor a miner:

They're quite rigourous, the judgin' exams. They're noted for their rigour.​

But the minin' exams, there's not much rigour involved, really.​

A complete lack of rigour.​

They only ask one question: Who are you?​

And I got 75% on that.​

 

[Vixen]

"If it takes 10 seconds to do a job, but someone figures out how to speed up the process by 30%, how long will it take?"

I would say that sounds like a question an accountant would know how to answer without having to Google. Some of my engineering staff teaches a remedial mathematics class in the evenings to people hoping to pass the entrance exam to be apprentice pipefitters or electricians. (It's the same exam.) This sounds like one of those questions, which usually boils down to knowing whether to multiply or divide by the ratio. But I see @Vixen cocked that up too initially. (She didn't edit her post fast enough and someone caught it.) Maybe I'll see if there's a seat available in the next session for her.

That is not the correct logic. Brightness, like sound, is based on magnitude so you can't just say something 30% brighter works in a linear way, any more than you can say two decibels is twice as loud as one decibel (it is logarithmic so actually more like ten times louder). Likewise the magnitude of your camera lens is another factor. (Think how binoculars and telescopes work.) So you can't just multiply brightness of 30% by multiplying it by 1.30, although cameras will show an easy notation so you don't have to work it out (just like your radio goes from 1 - 10 to adjust the volume).

In addition, if stars are 30% brighter you can't just assume ah, let's adjust the setting by same.

That was my thought process and not 'simple linear maths' as you claim.

 

[Mojo]

That is not the correct logic. Brightness, like sound, is based on magnitude so you can't just say something 30% brighter works in a linear way, any more than you can say two decibels is twice as loud as one decibel (it is logarithmic so actually more like ten times louder). Likewise the magnitude of your camera lens is another factor. (Think how binoculars and telescopes work.) So you can't just multiply brightness of 30% by multiplying it by 1.30, although cameras will show an easy notation so you don't have to work it out (just like your radio goes from 1 - 10 to adjust the volume).

In addition, if stars are 30% brighter you can't just assume ah, let's adjust the setting by same.

That was my thought process and not 'simple linear maths' as you claim.

How much longer, as a percentage, is 10/1.3 seconds than 1/250 of a second?