Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

That's because you do such a thorough job of obfuscating the salient point.

The salient point is, how to photograph stars successfully with 160 ASA film, and a camera that only allows 1/125 second at f5.6 as its maximum exposure.

Answer: You can't. Somehow you can't bring yourself to say "you can't".

But the Kodak/Ektachrome bods knew in advance where the photography was to take place

Your logic is rather like saying a bunch of soldiers were unable to reverse their tank because it didn't have a 'reverse' gear.

So, whose is responsible for that?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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

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.

The reason I didn't highlight "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)" is that two decibels isn't ten times louder. It's about 58% louder. Ten decibels would be ten times louder.

But that's the kind of mistake you make when you have no idea what the "deci" in "decibel" is about.

 

[Vixen]

No wonder nobody could work out what you were talking about. It seems that by "geopositioned" you intended to mean a satellite which orbits the moon and appears at a stationary point in the sky when viewed from the moon. The lunar equivalent of a geostationary satellite above the earth.

As the earth rotates every 24 hours, a geostationary satellite has to orbit every 24 hours too. That fixes the height of its geosynchronous orbit, which works out at at a bit less than 36,000 km above the earth's equator.

As the moon only rotates once every month, your "geopositioned" satellite would have to orbit the moon every month too. That makes its lunar synchronised orbit a good deal larger. More than 380,000 km. There is in fact an object which already does this. It's the planet earth. The earth, you will note, appears to hover at a fixed point in the sky when viewed from the moon. Any artificial satellite trying to perform the same task would be the same distance from the moon.

So in a funny way, your "geopositioned" terminology works. It is a satellite which is in the same position as the Earth. Geo-positioned. There was indeed a direct line-of-sight radio link from Tranquility Base to the "geopositioned" satellite we call "Earth".

So, now that we are all on the same page, tell us which satellite was used to beam TV images to earth, and whilst you are busy, the logistical steps by which to set it up for that exact time and place.

 

[Vixen]

Closest I can recall is Vixen implying NASA couldn't have planned in advance which stars to show in the sky and I pointed out that if NASA could perform the calculations to place a spacecraft on a particular spot on the moon at a particular time it was beyond ridiculous to suggest they would be incapable of calculating which constellations should then appear overhead.

...but only if the whole shebang had been filmed in advance as a training simulation. They'd need to 'get rid' of the Nevada/Arizona sky above.

 

[threadworm]

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.

This image shows Venus

https://flic.kr/p/yKAryx

It is one of the brightest objects in the sky after the sun. I know where it is - can you find it?

The photo was taken inside the LM. Earth is so overexposed no detail is visible. What does this tell you?

 

[threadworm]

...but only if the whole shebang had been filmed in advance as a training simulation. They'd need to 'get rid' of the Nevada/Arizona sky above.

Was this photo taken in advance?

https://flic.kr/p/zzPWnh

When?
Where?
How?
By whom?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So, now that we are all on the same page,

We'll be discussing the same book when @Vixen figures out the correct answer to this question:

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

For a numbers person, that would be an easy question.

Which is why we are unlikely ever to be on the same page.

 

[threadworm]

So, now that we are all on the same page, tell us which satellite was used to beam TV images to earth, and whilst you are busy, the logistical steps by which to set it up for that exact time and place.

There was no such satellite.

Next.

 

[Mojo]

But the Kodak/Ektachrome bods knew in advance where the photography was to take place

But according to you, "NASA at the time had no idea just how well the photography on the Moon surface would work".

 

[Vixen]

That you did, and your response revealed that you didn't know (among other things) what Ektachrome was/is.

The range and depth of ignorance you have displayed here is truly a thing to behold.

Ha ha ha As if Ektachrome wasn't one of the most popular camera film amongst the public. Hence, why hobbyists chose Ilford, the photographer's film of choice. (Rather like the real ale bods and CAMRA [geddit? See what I did there.])

 

[Vixen]

There was no such satellite.

Next.

So, are you confirming NASA did use TETRA...?

 

[Mojo]

So, now that we are all on the same page, tell us which satellite was used to beam TV images to earth...

The Moon.

 

[Vixen]

But according to you, "NASA at the time had no idea just how well the photography on the Moon surface would work".

But if you can make an uneducated guess 'it is 30% brighter', why couldn't the experts in camera film?

 

[SuperMurrio]

I don't know why everyone is confused. It's simply a matter of travelling 250,000K miles in your thin-walled aluminium capsule, setting up your dusty old Hasselblad in the pitch black of a crater on the side of the Moon that has never had any sunlight, move the gearr stick around a little bit to adjust the settings provided by the Ektachrome bods for the magnitude of your camera lens, and have the photos relayed to earth on a non-GEO positioned satellite.

Kemo sabe?

 

[threadworm]

So, are you confirming NASA did use TETRA...?

Which part of "there was no such satellite" escapes you there?

TETRA was not used to transmit TV from the moon, or indeed to it. I'm well aware of the claims made. Those claims are false.

5.9 Sneaking satellites

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So, now that we are all on the same page, tell us which satellite was used to beam TV images to earth, and whilst you are busy, the logistical steps by which to set it up for that exact time and place.

Why do you presume a satellite was needed as an intermediate link in the earth-moon radio communication? Where did you get that idea from?

 

[Vixen]

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

View attachment 73608

Just without the pity?

Bless all those who think with their hearts and not their minds.

 

[Vixen]

Why do you presume a satellite was needed as an intermediate link in the earth-moon radio communication? Where did you get that idea from?

Stop bringing in your ubiquitous explains-all radio waves.

 

[Mojo]

But if you can make an uneducated guess 'it is 30% brighter', why couldn't the experts in camera film?

And if "the experts in camera film", who NASA were working with, could do this, why wouldn't NASA know anything about it?

 

[Vixen]

Which part of "there was no such satellite" escapes you there?

TETRA was not used to transmit TV from the moon, or indeed to it. I'm well aware of the claims made. Those claims are false.

5.9 Sneaking satellites

Now we are getting somewhere. If TETRA was not used to transmit TV from the Moon, then it follows those images weren't coming from the Moon.