Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

[Childlike Empress]

Argumentum ad populum is, of course, a fallacious argument in matters of fact.

I made no argument. And Radio Freedumb of course doesn't use the poll against the moon landing, but against the Russians.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I made no argument.

Nor did I claim that you did.

And Radio Freedumb of course doesn't use the poll against the moon landing, but against the Russians.

In which context, of course, it has some actual value as an argument, though still not formally rigorous.

Dave

 

[Childlike Empress]

Nor did I claim that you did.



In which context, of course, it has some actual value as an argument, though still not formally rigorous.

Dave

In other words your post, of course, was worthless.

 

[threadworm]

Re stars: in addition to still, film-based photographs, there were some videos, right? These are also film-based, right?

If so, then maybe the videos could be processed to show stars. Here’s my idea:

Assume x frames per second. Assume the individual frames, with sky in them, can be registered, as in each pixel can be associated with an (RA, Dec) position. To an accuracy of ~5”, say (yeah, I’m ignoring the challenge of converting a film frame to pixels).

Pick the brightest stars that were in the sky. Stack all registered patches of film frame with these stars in them. The signal - the stars - will add; the blank/black sky will not (essentially just noise, which won’t be correlated). Maybe the signal will rise above the noise?

I've been through all of the images and footage hunting down anything that could remotely be considered a star, and in most cases it turns out to be a blemish on the film or some other artefact.

Apollo's photographs showing stars by and large are the result of them deliberately setting out to photograph them. Apollo 16 accidentally caught Venus in a series of lunar surface images. Apollo 14 also photographed it, though I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they were snapping there.

I've analysed what is available here:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/starryskies.html

 

[Jack by the hedge]

People are just people. About a quarter of British people apparently thought the moon landings were faked (don't know if that's shifted recently) but most people don't really think about it much if at all. I reserve my scorn for people who claim they have "researched" it and spout long-debunked crap.

 

[threadworm]

I made no argument. And Radio Freedumb of course doesn't use the poll against the moon landing, but against the Russians.

The poll the article cites, however, is from a Russian State sponsored organisation. The Russian poll is also not aiming at 'proving' the Apollo landings, but what level of trust people have in scientists based on their level of education.

The found that even educated people who have faith in science can still believe really stupid things.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I made no argument.

In other words your post, of course, was worthless.

Quite.

Dave

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I made no argument. And Radio Freedumb of course doesn't use the poll against the moon landing, but against the Russians.

Ironic. An anti-Russian story (seemingly factual) about the public's belief in an anti-American story (clearly false) yet it's the true story that gets criticised.

 

[bknight]

I've been through all of the images and footage hunting down anything that could remotely be considered a star, and in most cases it turns out to be a blemish on the film or some other artefact.

Apollo's photographs showing stars by and large are the result of them deliberately setting out to photograph them. Apollo 16 accidentally caught Venus in a series of lunar surface images. Apollo 14 also photographed it, though I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they were snapping there.

I've analysed what is available here:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/starryskies.html

And A16 did use the UV camera that imaged the sky in a different set of wavelengths.

 

[Belz...]

Behind every skeptic lurks a man who just wants to punch people who annoy him.

Damn! I've been made! <ninja-teleports away>

 

[Belz...]

In other words your post, of course, was worthless.

Well, one good turn deserves another.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks!

Re stars: in addition to still, film-based photographs, there were some videos, right? These are also film-based, right?

If so, then maybe the videos could be processed to show stars. Here’s my idea:

Assume x frames per second. Assume the individual frames, with sky in them, can be registered, as in each pixel can be associated with an (RA, Dec) position. To an accuracy of ~5”, say (yeah, I’m ignoring the challenge of converting a film frame to pixels).

Pick the brightest stars that were in the sky. Stack all registered patches of film frame with these stars in them. The signal - the stars - will add; the blank/black sky will not (essentially just noise, which won’t be correlated). Maybe the signal will rise above the noise?

I've been through all of the images and footage hunting down anything that could remotely be considered a star, and in most cases it turns out to be a blemish on the film or some other artefact.

Apollo's photographs showing stars by and large are the result of them deliberately setting out to photograph them. Apollo 16 accidentally caught Venus in a series of lunar surface images. Apollo 14 also photographed it, though I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they were snapping there.

I've analysed what is available here:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/starryskies.html

I like the images with Venus in them, a clear demonstration of the dynamical range (Venus, the brightest object in the sky after the Moon itself, Sun, and Earth, is really faint).

The method I briefly describe - stacking - is not uncommon in astronomy. For example, the famous SDSS Stripe 82 survey is basically just an exercise in stacking. And many amateur astronomers use a version to produce much nicer-looking images.

 

[curious cat]

I have never understood the "no stars" argument. My goto on that one is "go try photograph stars, see how that works out for you". So far, no response.

It is all about "exposure latitude" of the film used. Our eye has a pretty wide exposure latitude and we can see details in well light areas as well as the ones in the shadows at the same time. Photographic film exposure latitude is much narrower. If you set the exposure for a brightly lit scenery, the shadows will appear pitch black an vice versa. The astronaut's camera were set to record the well lit landscape. The light of the stars is actually not that intense, we can see them only because they contrast well with the black background. They are not bright enough to make their mark on the film exposed for the bright landscape.

 

[JayUtah]

The astronaut's camera were set to record the well lit landscape. The light of the stars is actually not that intense...

Apollo color film was ASA/ISO 160. A typical daytime exposure for that film, in that camera, would be 1/125 second at f/5.6 or f/8. At f/5.6, the smallest f-stop on the Zeiss Biogon, my testing showed it takes several seconds for starlight to show up.

 

[curious cat]

Apollo color film was ASA/ISO 160. A typical daytime exposure for that film, in that camera, would be 1/125 second at f/5.6 or f/8. At f/5.6, the smallest f-stop on the Zeiss Biogon, my testing showed it takes several seconds for starlight to show up.

That would about fit. Surprisingly, the image sensors in digital cameras are not much better. But, the there are ways around it. One of my cameras has a unique mode for these situations: it takes 2 pictures in a quick sequence. One exposed for the lights, the other one for the shadows - going in such lengths like modifying the ISO values if needed - and then digitally combines them. Dirty cheating! It would have solved the problem with moon sky .

 

[JayUtah]

That would about fit. Surprisingly, the image sensors in digital cameras are not much better.

I wouldn't expect DSLRs to be. I expect their sensors to be calibrated to match the response of film so that similar techniques can be used in both types of cameras. But CCD sensors used for astronomy can be made to be very sensitive, so I'm told. The problem then is noise. By the time you've accumulated enough light on the sensor to register a star, other sensor elements will have accumulated enough charge by other means.

One of my cameras has a unique mode for these situations: it takes 2 pictures in a quick sequence. One exposed for the lights, the other one for the shadows - going in such lengths like modifying the ISO values if needed - and then digitally combines them. Dirty cheating! It would have solved the problem with moon sky .

The astronauts at the time mentioned that even consumer cameras had exposure aids that could have been used to improve their picture-taking experience. The Hasselblad 500/EL was not one of them, but presumably it was chosen for other reasons.

The mechanism you describe sounds like in-camera HDR photography. There are plenty of software packages that can produce high dynamic range photos given a series of photos taken at different settings. Some of them produce very good results. You can achieve dramatic artistic effects, or you can use it sparingly and mimic the dynamic range of the human eye, which generally exceeds that of either film or CCD.

I believe someone else mentioned the stacking technique. That gets rid of CCD noise. You take several long-exposure photos. The noisy pixels are not expected to be the same from shot to shot, so the ones that appear in all the shots are presumed to be stars.

 

[pgwenthold]

50 years after Apollo, conspiracy theorists are still howling at the ‘moon hoax’

Money quote:

Conspiracy theories may seem strange and fringe, but they are not harmless. They often transmit racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic beliefs. In their most toxic form, these theories have led to violence, including mass shootings. Behind many conspiracy theories lurks a pervasive rage. Many researchers and communicators who deal with fringe conspiracy theories endure venomous and misogynistic threats and harassment.​

We know they lead to violence. Remember when Buzz Aldrin cold-cocked that one a-hole?

 

[Belz...]

We know they lead to violence. Remember when Buzz Aldrin cold-cocked that one a-hole?

One of my favourite moments in human history.

Bart Sibrel, is the a-hole in question.

 

[Major Major]

50 years after Apollo, conspiracy theorists are still howling at the ‘moon hoax’

Money quote:

Conspiracy theories may seem strange and fringe, but they are not harmless. They often transmit racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic beliefs. In their most toxic form, these theories have led to violence, including mass shootings. Behind many conspiracy theories lurks a pervasive rage. Many researchers and communicators who deal with fringe conspiracy theories endure venomous and misogynistic threats and harassment.​

We know they lead to violence. Remember when Buzz Aldrin cold-cocked that one a-hole?

One of my favourite moments in human history.

Bart Sibrel, is the a-hole in question.

And he's only the beginning.

 

[bknight]

It is too bad that the cold-cocking didn't knock some sense into Bart.