Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

Nope. You claimed your expert's opinion that stars should be visible in the lunar photos is correct. Your subsequent claims to support that conjecture are also your responsibility. Also, see Post #10,222 above.

Don't lie. I never said I was 'expert opinion'. I cited experts, Allen, Percy and Groves.

 

[Steve]

Vixen thinks humans never landed on the moon.

 

[Vixen]

Can you describe what you think is different between properly exposing a film photograph and properly exposing a Voyager vidicon camera photograph? Both use a mechanical shutter to set the exposure time. In what significant way do you say they do not "equate"?

As regards the distance from the planet, if the exposure is properly adjusted for the brightness of the planet's surface, why do you think it matters if that subject entirely fills the photo's frame, or half the photo's frame, or if it only occupies a tenth or a hundredth of the frame? I think your objection is baseless and silly.

Firstly, I haven't brought vidicon in as a comparator to the Hasslebads and secondly, the person/s who brought in the vidicon can explain to the rest of us how taking space pix up to 64K miles away from a planet is the same as standing on the Moon and taking a pic with a handheld/chest hung manual camera, albeit using autowind. Let's clarify that first.

 

[Vixen]

You agreed it would take tens of seconds to do just that using ISO 160 film. That is a physical fact. Do you still accept that as a physical fact?

Ceteris paribus.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You can find all of this cited in the NASA link I provided Andy_Ross. So NASA is now nonsense. So now we know it is just knee-jerk disagreement depending on whom you believe is being cited.

As you ought to know by now if you had read and understood this thread, all of the stuff you mentioned is not relevant to the question of photographing stars while standing on the moon, and all those considerations around things which might harm the film were separately considered and mitigated where necessary.

It's your bringing it up as irrelevant empty bluster which is nonsense, not NASA's work on the subject.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Protection from harmful radiation. And we know camera film is subject to this.

How does pressure protect against radiation?.
How much radiation were Apollo films exposed to?
Do you think the metal film backs snd camera bodies would protect the film?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Protection from harmful radiation. And we know camera film is subject to this.

Answered long ago in this thread. Irrelevant to photographing stars.

 

[Vixen]

You have set forth the bold claim that comparing them is a false equivalence. I am asking you to justify that claim.

Well, I could say to you oh I went out with my smart phone. Can't see no stars when I took a picture of the sky. Of course you would want to know how that was the slightest bit relevant to Armstrong and Aldrin taking snaps on the Moon. It wouldn't be the onus on me to demand you tell me why my smart phone has sweet FA to do with proving anything.

 

[Smock]

Protection from harmful radiation. And we know camera film is subject to this.

How is a pressurized container going to keep out harmful radiation? What is it about an increase in pressure that can ward off subatomic particles? Be specific, please.

 

[Vixen]

Now try to make it relevant.

How is taking pics 3,000 to 64,000 miles away from a planet equivalent to standing on the Moon and taking pics? How would you compare the perspective of being in situ and being 64K miles away?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ceteris paribus.

Since the events of 1969 have not magically changed it seems fair to say all other things are still equal. So, you agree it would take tens of seconds of exposure to capture the stars. Which cannot be achieved with a handheld camera, particularly one with 1/125 sec as its longest exposure setting.

Yet somehow you can't bring yourself to say it.

 

[Smock]

Don't lie. I never said I was 'expert opinion'. I cited experts, Allen, Percy and Groves.

Read it again, sweety . . . slowly this time. Try to concentrate on the phrase "your expert's opinion". Notice the "(apostrophe) s", a possessive notation pertaining to the noun "expert", modifying the phrase to mean "an opinion given by or belonging to your cited expert".

Are we good now? Because if you still don't understand it, I'll get a 3rd grader to explain..

 

[Vixen]

Asked and answered. You can't keep stating the same BS without answering the questions already put to you, like how does a 20% gain in luminosity overcome a 1000 times the exposure time requirement.

It's not a 20% gain in luminosity it is a 20% gain in luminous flow. This refers to the perspective from the human eye not from the eye of a camera lens. In addition, it is not linear in the same sense 20% more people means twenty more for every hundred (as per cent means).

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's not a 20% gain in luminosity it is a 20% gain in luminous flow. This refers to the perspective from the human eye not from the eye of a camera lens. In addition, it is not linear in the same sense 20% more people means twenty more for every hundred (as per cent means).

What is "luminous flow"?

 

[Vixen]

Read it again, sweety . . . slowly this time. Try to concentrate on the phrase "your expert's opinion". Notice the "(apostrophe) s", a possessive notation pertaining to the noun "expert", modifying the phrase to mean "an opinion given by or belonging to your cited expert".

Are we good now? Because if you still don't understand it, I'll get a 3rd grader to explain..

OK, sorry.

 

[Smock]

Ceteris paribus.

What are the inequalities in conditions between Earth and the moon that would make the "10's of seconds" you state are necessary to properly expose stars on Earth suddenly become possible using the shutter and aperture settings on the Apollo cameras? Be specific, please and show the math.

 

[Vixen]

What is "luminous flow"?

Erratum: that should read 'luminous flux' not 'luminous flow'.

 

[Andy_Ross]

luminous flux?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

How is taking pics 3,000 to 64,000 miles away from a planet equivalent to standing on the Moon and taking pics? How would you compare the perspective of being in situ and being 64K miles away?

Perspective is not relevant to exposure settings.

It seems you did not understand (or did not bother to read) what I wrote earlier. If you want to take a properly exposed photo of the moon's surface, it doesn't matter if you're 3,000 miles away, or in orbit a few tens of miles above it, or standing on it and looking at your feet. The moon is as bright as the moon. No more, no less. When you photograph the moon, you are photographing an object exactly as bright as the moon. If the moon only fills one tenth of your view, that doesn't matter because the part of your photo you want properly exposed is the part of it that is the moon.

That is how it is equivalent.

 

[Smock]

It's not a 20% gain in luminosity it is a 20% gain in luminous flow. This refers to the perspective from the human eye not from the eye of a camera lens. In addition, it is not linear in the same sense 20% more people means twenty more for every hundred (as per cent means).

Utter ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Answer the question.