Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[welshdean]

We have several very old granite/gneiss quarries along the coast here (one of the biggest ever in Sweden among them), the red granite was shipped world wide. They're long since abandoned, but the lanscape the quarries left behind is dramatic, and looking for particularly nice and colourful pieces of granite and gneiss there, by the sea is endlessly fascinating.

I'll pop over next weekend if that's alright.

 

[Vixen]

A "keen amateur photographer" would know stars would not be present in the dark sky when a light foreground is properly exposed. Because you seem to be ignorant of this fact (despite having admitted the exposure time needed to properly photograph stars), you are most certainly not a "keen amateur photographer".

Prove me wrong, I dare you . . . admit the photos on the moon with a properly exposed foreground could not possibly show any stars in the background.

FGS photography on the moon is NOT equivalent to night photography on earth.

 

[Mojo]

FGS photography on the moon is NOT equivalent to night photography on earth.

And that's why stars are not visible in the photographs.

Nobody has said that photography on the moon is equivalent to night photography on earth. People have been telling you, for months, that it isn't.

 

[Andy_Ross]

FGS photography on the moon is NOT equivalent to night photography on earth.

You are right. Apollo photography on the moon was the equivalent of bright, sunlight day photography on the Earth.

 

[Foster Zygote]

FGS photography on the moon is NOT equivalent to night photography on earth.

You have yet to explain what properties of physics in the lunar surface environment would allow photography of stars using ASA 160 film and a 1/250 sec. exposure.

 

[zooterkin]

FGS photography on the moon is NOT equivalent to night photography on earth.

WTF is FGS?

 

[Darat]

"For god's sake"?

A phrase that I have often thought when reading some members' posts in this thread.

 

[Vixen]

WTF is FGS?

For goodness sake.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So after we wasted umpteen pages telling you daytime photography on the moon is not nightime photography just because the sky is black, you've decided to tell us daytime photography on the moon is not nighttime photography.

Thanks, I guess.

 

[Steve]

So after we wasted umpteen pages telling you daytime photography on the moon is not nightime photography just because the sky is black, you've decided to tell us daytime photography on the moon is not nighttime photography.

Thanks, I guess.

But Vixen figured that out all by herself with her massive intellect and her extensive knowledge of photography.. She didn't need the help of this forum at all.

 

[JayUtah]

FGS photography on the moon is NOT equivalent to night photography on earth.

Experienced photographers have explained to you many times exactly what aspects of nighttime photography apply and what aspects of daylight photography apply to Apollo photographs.

The subjects in Apollo photography are lit by full sun. The exposure was set appropriately for sunlight photography at that film speed: f-stops from f/5.6 to f/11 and shutter speeds of 1/125 and 1/250 second. Any experienced photographer can tell you correctly that stars are not bright enough in any context to be registered on film at those settings. The shutter speed is approximately 1,000 times too short.

Stars are only marginally brighter as seen from the lunar surface (day or night) as they are when seen from Earth's surface at night. I showed you the calculations that account for atmospheric attenuation. Any experienced photographer can tell you that it takes shutter speeds of tens of seconds to expose stars through at atmosphere, and only about 20% shorter to expose them without an atmosphere. The amount of light stars produce does not magically change simply because other circumstances are different.

You agreed to this. You conceded that it would take tens of seconds to expose stars on Apollo-type film. You conceded that such long shutter speeds would produce motion blur and camera shake if used on the Moon. You concede that sunlit objects on the Moon would be thoroughly overexposed—"blown out," in photography jargon—using those long shutter speeds.

What you still have not managed to do in five hundred pages is admit that your star witness (pun intended) Marcus Allen—despite his experience as a photographer—is therefore obviously lying about whether stars should be visible in the Apollo photographs. No amount of, "Well, he's an expert," changes the indisputable, easily tested laws of physics. You were unwise to have claimed to duplicate yourself what Allen said should be the case. You revealed yourself not only as biased toward Allen's beliefs, but willing to lie about your own experience and skill.

 

[Smock]

FGS photography on the moon is NOT equivalent to night photography on earth.

What are these differences in photography on the moon which makes stars against a dark background with a light foreground able to be exposed properly with the given aperture/shutter speed settings of the Apollo cameras? Be specific, please.

 

[zooterkin]

For goodness sake.

FFS, why use idiosyncratic abbreviations?

Also, please explain what settings would have allowed stars to be visible when the sunlit subjects were properly exposed?

 

[bknight]

<snip>

What you still have not managed to do in five hundred pages is admit that your star witness (pun intended) Marcus Allen—despite his experience as a photographer—is therefore obviously lying about whether stars should be visible in the Apollo photographs. No amount of, "Well, he's an expert," changes the indisputable, easily tested laws of physics. You were unwise to have claimed to duplicate yourself what Allen said should be the case. You revealed yourself not only as biased toward Allen's beliefs, but willing to lie about your own experience and skill.

Amen to that, she just has no ability to admit defeat.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

FGS photography on the moon is NOT equivalent to night photography on earth.

And yet that did not stop you from presenting Allen's experience with earth photography, as well as your own, as somehow dispositive. Without appeals to purported experience with night photography on earth, what exactly is your basis for suggesting that we should be able to see stars in the Apollo photographs, FGS or otherwise?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Look, I'm out in the wilds of Scottishland, so how the buggery bollocks am I supposed to get the mulberry bushes in?

Looking out of the window I can manage birch, sycamore, one of the oaks and a load of planted conifers. Mulberries? Naaaah.

Give me a break!

 

[Helen]

Look, I'm out in the wilds of Scottishland, so how the buggery bollocks am I supposed to get the mulberry bushes in?

Looking out of the window I can manage birch, sycamore, one of the oaks and a load of planted conifers. Mulberries? Naaaah.

Give me a break!

You should always bring an emergency mulberry bush, and a faintin couch, with you when you're travelling.

 

[Foster Zygote]

WTF is FGS?

Frantic Goalpost Shifting

 

[JesseCuster]

Vixen, now that you’re back reading and participating in this thread, would you mind answering a simple question you’ve been asked multiple time but have refused to answer?

Given the known settings and equipment used for the Apollo 11 lunar surface photographs - ASA160 film, f/5.6 to f/11 film and 1/125s to 1/250s shutter speed, should we expect to see stars in the photographs taken on the moon? That’s a simple question and it’s all I’m asking.

I’ll answer the question myself, just as an amateur photographer.

No, we definitely should not expect to see stars in those photographs. For taking photographs of the sky and expecting to see stars exposed, you’ve already agreed that shutter speeds of 10 seconds of more are required or recommended. Also, typically as fast a lens as possible is also recommended (prime lenses f/2 or faster are common), and cranking up the ISO to 1600 or more. It’s my opinion, and having read this thread, that of everyone else here who knows anything about photography, than such settings will no way allow something as faint as stars to appear in the photographs.

I’m not too cowardly to put my cards on the table and offer up my opinion.

How about you Vixen? Do you think we should see stars in the photos taken on the lunar surface given those settings? Remember, this is what I’m asking you and nothing else, please do my the courtesy of actually answering my question if you’re going to quote my post.

I think you now know that Marcus Allen’s claim that we should expect to see stars in the photos is obviously false, and you’re too cowardly and dishonest to actually put your own opinion forth on what you actually think.

Prover me wrong by actually answering the question.

 

[Trebuchet]

Wow, she's back!