Moon landing - Fact or fake?

[idleidolidyll]

that's because i hadn't enough interest to look deeper after seeing the 'expose' on tv

i'm still uninterested and don't intend to be drawn into the debate

[pzkpfw]

that's because i hadn't enough interest to look deeper after seeing the 'expose' on tv

i'm still uninterested and don't intend to be drawn into the debate

Pretty much what I expected.


I would guess that "expose" refers to "the Fox documentary" that T.V. 3 showed about 4 times. For anyone who cares (but hasn't posted, in contrast to those who post but don't care) it's discussed here (among other places):

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jsco...faked/FOX.html

Cheers,

[Wolf]

Pretty much what I expected.


I would guess that "expose" refers to "the Fox documentary" that T.V. 3 showed about 4 times. For anyone who cares (but hasn't posted, in contrast to those who post but don't care) it's discussed here (among other places):

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jsco...faked/FOX.html

Cheers,

You're pissing into the wind with the conspiracy theorists, mate. People who have never taken a photo of stars in their entire lives and people who have no idea of the physics involved or the actual training programme undergone by the astronauts "know more than everyone else and have no desire to have their omniscience challenged by such things as "exposure times", "throttled-back engines", "training exercises" and the distinctions between "training equipment" and "prototypes".

Was said before: sad no-hopers who cannot face the facts that other people have achieved anything as it would highlight the fact they have achieved nothing themselves. Much better to loudly dismiss everyone else's achievements as "hoaxes" and feel good believing others are just as worthless as they are - and "liars" to boot.

[pzkpfw]

You're pissing into the wind..

For some, yes.

[
For him to have made a post, started it with "as a photographer" (implying expertise), give an opinion, but then say he didn't want to discuss it - is intellectual dishonesty. It means "I have an opinion but am scared to find out I'm wrong".
]

I replied (with the links) for other people; fence-sitters who may not yet be beyond help.

Cheers,

[Wolf]

I replied (with the links) for other people; fence-sitters who may not yet be beyond help.

Cheers,

Ah, for those who're not already firmly in the "aliens must have built the pyramids because there's no way primitive sandniggers could do it when the Japanese with the best modern equipment failed" camp.

[BAD DAD]

'' WE'' didn't land anywhere since Gallipolli. It was the Yanks and yeah they they did actually land , if you can call anywhere on the moon, " land ".

[Wolf]

Well, I don't claim to be a Photography Expert (tm) but I do know more than a little about photography - more, it would seem than the "Photography Experts" trotted out by the Conspiracy Theorists.

"shutter speed" - how long the shutter remains open: very fast, and you can get crisp images of speeding motorcycles but you need a lot of light on the film to expose the film enough for a decent image. Very slow, and you get more exposure time in lower light but you get motion blur.

"f-stop" - the aperture size: Widen it, and you let in more light to expose the film but the "focal depth" is diminished. Narrow it and you get great focal depth but it decreases the amount of light falling on the film.

"Film speed" - granularity: how sensitive to light the film is. Low speed, fine granularity, great detail but not very light sensitive, takes a lot of light to expose (wide aperture and or slow shutter speed). High speed, coarser granularity. Great response in lower light conditions but chunkier coarser images.

Shutter speed, film speed and aperture size can be juggled and balanced depending on available light and what you want to achieve.

You have a fast moving object and normal light conditions and a mid-range film speed, you want a nice crisp image. You drop your shutter speed to reduce motion blur so (since you can't change the film speed) you open up the aperture to increase the light falling on the film. This drops focal distance, so you have to make sure you're focused pretty much exactly for the distance to the object as the area that is still in focus either side of that point is very small. You end up with a very crisp image of a speeding bike but the track in the foreground and the advertising on the far side of the track are both out of focus.

Still not changing film, you close your aperture which brings the whole width of the track in focus, meaning the foreground, bike and advertising are in focus, but that diminishes the light falling on the film. To again avoid under exposure, you slow the shutter speed to expose the film for longer, resulting in motion blur on the speeding bike. Of course, since your focal depth is pretty bloody good and will forgive changing distances between the camera and the bike, you can track the bike, resulting in a sharp bike but motion blur on the advertising and track.

So, forgetting fast moving objects and on to people against objects.

As your subject is posed, it is relatively static and motion blur is not going to be an issue. You can safely drop the aperture down for a great depth of field (Aunt Mabel and the 14th Century German castle 200m behind her are both in sharp focus) and crank the shutter speed down to allow for plenty of light to get in. Unless Aunty is leaping about and cavorting, you're going to get a nice shot of both her and the castle for your album.

Of course, if you are in a brightly lit area and you have a preferred shutter speed, you can prevent the film from over-exposing by dropping your aperture size. This has the automatic side-effect of increasing depth of field.

If lighting is poor and you can't open the shutter for any longer that it is already set for, you can open the aperture and let in more light - but only the object is in sharp focus as the depth of field diminishes.

Reflection.

What light does when it hits certain surfaces - like a lunar surface (how reflective is it? Well, I can see well enough on a clear moonlit night, despite the distance between the Earth and the moon and the filtering caused by the atmosphere...) or a white space suit (which was designed to reflect light away to stop the astronauts overheating.)

Anyone who's watched a movie depicting professional photographers or been professionally photographed know that they use white or reflectorised umbrellas or sheets of white card to reflect diffused light onto the subject (softer than a direct spotlight or flash).

So, you are on the surface of a reflective object with no atmosphere to diffuse/absorb the light and wearing a bright white space suit. You are taking photos of said bright surface and similarly white-clad figures. You have been supplied with film calculated in advanced to be the best for the lighting conditions and the level of detail they want to capture (set film speed and granularity) so you have 2 adjustable settings - f-stop and shutter speed.

Due to the amount of light directly falling onto the scene from the sun and the light reflected onto the scene by the reflective (high albedo) surface and your own high albedo (reflective) suit, you balance your shutter speed and aperture to get the right exposure for the conditions to get a photo of an astronaut in front of the LM and the surrounding lunar landscape - rather than a large bright featureless blob.

Due to the large amounts of direct and reflected sunlight, you have shutter speed fast and aperture small (giving an excellent depth of field) to avoid over exposure.

You are pointing a camera at the sky to get photos of the stars. You a lot of small, dim objects in a near-black background. In order for those dim lights to register on film you need a very fast film but not too fast (or the granularity would ruin the image) or a long shutter speed (slightly curved lines rather than star-like points of light) and your aperture opened as wide as it can be.

Two entirely different camera settings.

Don't believe me? Want a real, here-and-now, experiment?

We'll head up the mountain one clear summer's night when the stars are bright and easily visible in the night sky away from the light pollution of the city.

I'll stand on a ridge, silhouetted against the starry night sky and you can stand so that the viewfinder captures me and the majesty of Orion and Sirius behind me (Sirius is the brightest star in the sky and Orion has some bloody bright ones as well.)

Then we'll fire up some decent lamps and flashes to light me and the hillside enough to get a good detailed shot of my features, set the shutter speed and aperture for that lighting level and you can take a pic.

Later, I'll denounce the photo as a fake shot in a studio with a manikin made up to look like me and a cunningly constructed fake hilltop because there aren't any stars visible in the shot and they were there that night, damn it, I saw them!

Once you light me up enough to get details and adjust the camera accordingly, you can kiss good bye to those pale points of light.

How do I know? Dunno, maybe I've taken a photo or two at night in the bush.

[Drew]

Well, I think that very strongly blows the "fake photo" idea out of the water, but as I'm sure you know wolf, when an idiots argument is threatened, they usually raise thier voice, rather than present new facts.

[Wolf]

All Rossi's so-called racing has been faked, and I can prove it.

See here - the pics clearly show him inside a building, proving that all the "races" were faked in a sound studio somewhere.

My thanks to the Lunar Landing conspiracy theorists who opened my eyes to this important fact by demonstrating that photos of astronauts inside a building constitute conclusive proof that the moon landing was faked.

I'm off to seek evidence that other so called celebrities and high-achievers faked their glory.

[peasea]

All Rossi's so-called racing has been faked, and I can prove it.

See here - the pics clearly show him inside a building, proving that all the "races" were faked in a sound studio somewhere.

My thanks to the Lunar Landing conspiracy theorists who opened my eyes to this important fact by demonstrating that photos of astronauts inside a building constitute conclusive proof that the moon landing was faked.

I'm off to seek evidence that other so called celebrities and high-achievers faked their glory.

Start with Paris Hilton.

[Finn]

We landed on the moon. Full stop. You've got to remember that when this happened, it was in the good old days when men where men and lefties were beaten up. We did it with nothing in our way. A giant leap for man kind.

Since then, we've basically done nothing except bitch about progress.

We live in a boring world now.