Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

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).

No.

Astronomers use a reverse logarithmic scale for the apparent magnitude of stars but that certainly does not mean that brightness can only be expressed using a logarithmic scale. Likewise sound levels are conventionally compared on logarithmic decibel scales for convenience but sound pressure level measurements can also be expressed linearly. I mean, of course they can. If you compare two measurements and say one has a 30% greater magnitude, that very clearly implies you are talking about a linear measurement.

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).

This odd ramble does seem to indicate you are entirely unfamiliar with what the f-stop expression of a camera's lens aperture actually means. It's not an abstract value where "yes but this lens goes up to f11" is a meaningless Spinal Tap brag.

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.

Your thought process appears to be getting confused by stuff you have quickly tried to mug up on and then declare everyone else wrong.

 

[Axxman300]

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 would they need a satellite? Just point your antena back at earth, and press the send button.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Why would they need to "adapt" it? Do you think taking photos in constant sunlight using 160 ASA film presents some sort of problem?

It presents a problem for @Vixen, as we can see.

It would not present any problem at all to a photographer, or to anyone who knows enough arithmetic to answer questions such as this:

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

 

[Axxman300]

If TETRA was not used to transmit TV from the Moon, then it follows those images weren't coming from the Moon

Really? Based on what technical evidence?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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?

The film was a fixed quantity. It's speed was known when it was selected.
At the time Ektachrome 160 was the fastest colour reversal film available.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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 direct line of sight from the Moon to the Earth.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Why would they need a satellite? Just point your antena back at earth, and press the send button.

"Line of sight" is already on The List...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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?

No.

My logic is more like saying a bunch of soldiers were unable to make their tank fly, because it was never intended to be able to do that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.])

No.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

What would the camera film experts have done with that information?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Stop bringing in your ubiquitous explains-all radio waves.

There is direct line of sight from the Moon to the Earth.
Why would a satellite be needed?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

There is direct line of sight from the Moon to the Earth.
No satellite was needed.
Anyone with a directional antenna could point it at the Moon and hear the transmissions.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Maybe they didn't need to adapt the film that much if it wasn't being done on the Moon anyway.

Why would they need to adapt the film?
You change the settings on the camera to account for increased illumination.

I thought you knew about photography?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...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.

This makes no sense. You are proposing a... let's call it a movie plot... where NASA pre-film faked moon landings in Arizona. You are suggesting they would know which were the wrong constellations to show overhead and that they would have to somehow erase those and substitute the right ones. Why would they not just plan to shoot their fake film on a night when the right stars were overhead?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Many a true word...

Actually Armstrong moved his joystick (settle down at the back) to avoid landing in a crater, the engine having been switched off, and Buzz reading out the altitudes, as though landing a fighter jet.

No wonder it's every little kiddies' dream.

The engine wasn't switched off until the contact probes on the landing pads made contact with the surface.
The Lender was a jet plane, just not a fighter.

You do know a rocket engine is a jet engine?
That's why the part of NASA that works with them is called the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

 

[wollery]

This makes no sense. You are proposing a... let's call it a movie plot... where NASA pre-film faked moon landings in Arizona. You are suggesting they would know which were the wrong constellations to show overhead and that they would have to somehow erase those and substitute the right ones. Why would they not just plan to shoot their fake film on a night when the right stars were overhead?

Even worse, providing it’s filmed at roughly the same time of year, you would only have to alter the “transmission times” by a few minutes to have the constellations in the right place!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.])

I see what you did there. You compared a popular slide film with a popular range of black and white negative film, seemingly to make it appear that Ektachrome was not the sort of film anyone with any expertise would use. Which was an odd thing to do.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

You mean TETRA the police radio system they started using in the '90s? No. NASA did not use that.

 

[Steve]

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.])

Yes I see. What you did there was post a mind-numbingly stupid comment to go along with all your mind-numbingly stupid comments that have been accumulating on this forum for years. Over that time your mind-numbingly stupid comments have become steadily more mind-numbingly stupid to the point that no other posters here can take any single thing you post as anything other than mind-numbingly stupid.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

Which uneducated guess are you talking about?