Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by Komodo


Liquid oxygen is about 3000 times more dense than the oxygen in the atmosphere of the CM. The CSM carried about 650 pounds of liquid oxygen. The LM descent stage carried about 48 pounds of oxygen, and the ascent stage carried about 4.8 pounds. The PLSSs were charged with about 1.2 pounds of oxygen.

As your source states, a person uses about 550 liters of oxygen per day. That volume of oxygen at 1 atmosphere of pressure is about 1.4 pounds.

So it's pretty easy to see how they had plenty of oxygen.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Nat has brought up some evidence that the cameras could take additional speeds than the 250 and 125 setting. But I have asked him to determine if the long exposures setting was still included.

Indeed they were. On the Bulb setting, the shutter would stay open as long as the shutter release was depressed. The LOT switch, which was not present on the lunar data camera, was merely a convenience feature that allowed the shutter to be locked closed or open. It wasn't required to take a long manual exposure.

Come on now Nat, in the interest of full disclosure you have to give up your sources.
Where on the camera was the BULB setting?

Originally posted by FoosM
Come on now Nat, in the interest of full disclosure you have to give up your sources.
Where on the camera was the BULB setting?

Shutter speed was selected on the lens, and as I pointed out before, the 60mm f/5.6 lens had shutter speeds of 1/500 to 1 and a Blub setting:

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Come on now Nat, in the interest of full disclosure you have to give up your sources.
Where on the camera was the BULB setting?

Shutter speed was selected on the lens, and as I pointed out before, the 60mm f/5.6 lens had shutter speeds of 1/500 to 1 and a Blub setting:

You mean the shutter speed ring on the lens?

Similiar to this:



What you are suggesting is that the Apollo astronauts had total control over all the available speeds and exposures available on the camera and its lens?

So with their bulky suits, pressurized gloves, helmets with visors that restrict their viewing,
extreme light situations of their environments (blinding light or pitch darkness).
The dust that would smudge and stick to anything.
The fact that they shared their cameras so they didnt always have it on their chest.
No metering, no way to know about the focus...

These astronauts could see the numbers on the lens, and manipulate the settings of their cameras and correctly focus and expose like 80 to 90 % of the thousands of photos they made?

Really?









Not buy it Nat.

Originally posted by FoosM

So with their bulky suits, pressurized gloves, helmets with visors that restrict their viewing,
extreme light situations of their environments (blinding light or pitch darkness).
The dust that would smudge and stick to anything.
The fact that they shared their cameras so they didnt always have it on their chest.
No metering, no way to know about the focus...

Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance about the facts of photography with these cameras. Not to mention this whole notion of 'blinding light and pitch darkness'. Why would they need metering? Do tell that. Why wouldn't they be able to focus based on estimated distances? You claim to know about photography. Explain your lies.

These astronauts could see the numbers on the lens, and manipulate the settings of their cameras and correctly focus and expose like 80 to 90 % of the thousands of photos they made?

Really?

Originally posted by FoosM
So with their bulky suits, pressurized gloves, helmets with visors that restrict their viewing,
extreme light situations of their environments (blinding light or pitch darkness).
The dust that would smudge and stick to anything.
The fact that they shared their cameras so they didnt always have it on their chest.

Really?

Really. We've been over this before. The vast majority of the photos were taken at 1/250th at f/5.6, f/8, or f/11. Even if handed a camera with random settings, adjusting it back to the standard settings would be super simple. Put the shutter speed all the way left and you've at 1/500th. One click back and you're at 1/250th. Move the aperture all the way to the right, you're at f/5.6. One click back and you're at f/8. One more and you're at f/11. Estimate the distance to the object you're photographing and set the focus to that (the length of various tools were even marked on the focus ring so if they were photographing something that was the tool's distance away, they just set focus to that).

It's not rocket science.

Originally posted by FoosM
No metering, no way to know about the focus...

They absolutely had a way to check focus. There was a depth of field indicator that told them what distances would be in focus at their current settings.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

SORRY Foosm but once again YOU show YOU dont have a clue its was to prove gravity acts the same
on any mass be it a feather or a hammer with no air resistance they fall at the same speed.

YOU are indeed are a really sad person only equipment needed is a movie camera and your eyes!!!

Even I knew Foosm meant it wasn't a serious science experiment..
I doubt the results will be peer reviewed and turn up on someones science paper..

It was done merely for the TV audience..So Foosm point was correct...

So maybe try again and think before you do...

Of course it was a serious experiment it proved what Galileo had assumed that all objects fell at same rate,it also showed they were in a vaccum and also proves gravity is less on the Moon compared to Earth are you trying to be as DAFT as Foosm or are you Foosm.

Just for Foosm if you look its obvious one object has a far larger MASS than the other you do know what Mass is so trying to claim we dont know if it was a feather was fuuny but another example of your BS tactics regards this subject.

Apollo missions tracked to the Moon , Jodrell Bank radio telescope has a trace of the Apollo 11 mission decent to the Moon.

JW , Foosm ,ppk55 have claimed allsorts since the start of this with regards photpraphy etc and at every turn they have been PROVED WRONG then they deflect or change subject I dont know what age you are but I know my kids have went through a better education system than JW,Foosm,ppk55 and possibly YOU!

I mean ppk55 claimed at one point he was a ciematographer but if you ask him now he avoids the question,is it because lots of his post SHOW he knows NOTHING about HOW EXPOSURE WORKS.

reply to post by FoosM


This post displays the depths of depravity you are willing to sink into, by saying, doing, writing ANYTHING in order to foist your delusion into this thread. Lying, intentionally deceiving, all of it, no problem for you, apparently. No compulsions against it.


"artfully" and deceptively posting up straw-man "arguments", using photos from NORMAL Hasselblads, then "innocently" dropping innuendo and attempting to deflect the discussion AWAY from the area you were most recently spanked in ....RADIATION....by yet again re-hashing this other territory.

RE-hashing, because it's been already described completely, in this thread, much earlier.

The FALSE claims of any "difficulties" in handling the camera equipment, LONG ago debunked. Debunked. Debunked. Debunked. Again and again.

YOU know this. Therefore, this latest attempt....acting as if you are asking "innocent" questions....is exposed as the frauds that the "HOAX debate" is, and that 'JW' and his "followers" are.


READ THIS!!! (I believe it's been linked before...several times....):

sterileeye.com...

A trigger was fitted under the camera to make it easier to fire ...

^^^^^^^^^^

Exposure
The cameras did not have any light metering or automatic exposure. Based on experimentation on earlier Apollo missions, exposure settings for the different kinds of expected lighting conditions were worked out in advance. The guidelines were printed for the astronauts on the top of the Hasselblad film magazines (shown below). The shutter speed was set to 1/250, and the f-stop recommendations were ƒ/5.6 for objects in shadow and ƒ/11 for objects in the sun. For some of the more important photographs, the astronauts utilized exposure bracketing, varying the exposures one stop up and/or down from the recommended setting, to ensure a good result.

Even YOU should be able to understand that, and how it was simplified for use WITH the handicap of the bulky gloves, and helmets and NO!! It was never, as you so disingenuously wrote, "pitch darkness" or "blindingly bright".

You do not do yourself any favor, making yourself look so ignorant, there....you aren't writing to children.

^^^^^^^^^^

Focus
The focusing system was similar to a lot of consumer compact cameras of the era. The f-stop was kept relatively high (the lowest being ƒ/5.6). Combined with the wide-angle lens (60 mm) this results in a relatively large depth of field (increasing with increasing f-stops). This meant the astronauts only had to get the focusing distance approximately right to get a sharp image. Instead of an infinitely variable focus ring, it was divided into three preset positions: near, medium and far. Although not extremely accurate, it did the job. I have an old Kodak compact camera with this system myself, and it works surprisingly well.

^^^^^^^^^^
MORE:

...This camera had to work in the extreme conditions of space, with vacuum and temperatures varying from 120° C in the sun to minus 65° C in shadow. The camera was painted silver to make it more resistant to the variations in temperature. Conventional lubricants had to be eliminated as they would boil off in the vacuum of space. It was fitted with a Zeiss Biogon ƒ/5.6 / 60 mm wide-angle lens and a polarizing filter, which reduces reflections.

It also had a glass plate with engraved grid-aligned crosses (Reseau plate) fitted close to the film plane. These crosses was recorded on every photo as a means to measure angular distances between objects in the frame. The same method was used in aerial photography at the time....

Finally, yet more ridiculously stupid YouTube videos??? LOL!

Easily trashed, they are.....I have seen that particular person's posts, many times on YT. He is a delusional imbecile. "ArcAngel4Myke".

All I can assume, based on that kind of screen name, is that like Bart Sibrel, that person is off into the idiotic realm of "religion land" and using THAT as the motivational basis for the "belief" that Apollo could not be real....since, of course to those sorts of numbskulls, "god" wouldn't have allowed men to leave the planet.....

.....THAT is one of the actual beliefs of Bart Sibrel. He is a fundamentalist loon....and he's not the only one, in the "great hoax debate".

Originally posted by FoosM

And what do these videos have anything to do with anything we're talking about?

Originally posted by FoosM

They're not saying "little node" and "long cam." They're saying "little note" and "long can." The "long can" was a sealed core sample container. They knew this was one of the samples that would not be opened upon return and is being held for the development of future analysis techniques. Cernan and Parker (the CAPCOM) were just making a joke. Actually putting a note in with the sample would contaminate it.

Originally posted by FoosM

The pan they're talking about is a panoramic sequence, where they take a series of photos by staying in place and rotating. And they're still joking about the note and the sample container.

Originally posted by FoosM

He's not saying "lens cap lock." He's saying "lens cap off."

reply to post by nataylor


I'm fairly sure that SAME YouTube video poster has taken clips from other Lunar EVAs, and misunderstood references in them, too.

Somewhere are some equally laughable examples....where he thinks the dialogue is discussing putting gasoline (or, "fuel") in the LRV!!

They are actually speaking about one of the experiments that used a radioactive fuel source that they had to insert once they were active on the EVA, as it wasn't meant to be installed until ON the Moon, in order to power the machine.

....and, I think that these have already, also, been discussed in this very thread........

reply to post by FoosM


Any descent amatuer photographer would KNOW (unlike YOU) how to use the lens aperture setting to focus from a few feet to infinity in LOOK it up.

In fact here is a picture look at the text below the lens picture below acceptable sharpness.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is the text.

A 35 mm lens set to f/11. The depth-of-field scale (top) indicates that a subject which is anywhere between 1 and 2 meters in front of the camera will be rendered acceptably sharp. If the aperture were set to f/22 instead, everything from 0.7 meters to infinity would appear to be in focus.

Its so simple Foosm even you could do it (well maybe)

Again this just shows the type of person you are with regards to photography !!!

Also once again people can see you for what you really are.

reply to post by Komodo


Science is obviously a strange and mystic subject to you looking at your last couple of posts ie your 22k and air tanks posts

reply to post by wmd_2008

Its so simple Foosm even you could do it (well maybe)

Again this just shows the type of person you are with regards to photography !!!

Also once again people can see you for what you really are.

It's not that simple in a space suit and also when you can't look through the view finder..
Try that out...

Originally posted by backinblack
It's not that simple in a space suit and also when you can't look through the view finder..
Try that out...

The field of view on the 60mm lens was 60 degrees. Photographing something 20 feet away, you could be aiming at something as much as 10 feet to either side and still capture your target.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

The pan they're talking about is a panoramic sequence, where they take a series of photos by staying in place and rotating. And they're still joking about the note and the sample container.

So OK dig this.
He is doing a PAN with a manual camera.
While he is changing his position he will have to make changes for exposure!
How can he do that with one hand?
He is barely even standing still!
And whats with all the the jokes?
He is just begging for blurry photos!
How can he even see what he is doing ?
How can he remember what his last setting was to know where he should begin?

At any rate, this whole situation is worse for Apollo defenders.
If the cameras allowed for settings to expose for stars.
Then there is absolutely no excuse for it to not have happened.
I mean even an accidental exposure could have occurred!

Look that this guy:


Is he taking photos? And what of, the ground?
And Look how fast he appears to make adjustments to the settings!
With one hand even! Its just not realistic people.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
It's not that simple in a space suit and also when you can't look through the view finder..
Try that out...

The field of view on the 60mm lens was 60 degrees. Photographing something 20 feet away, you could be aiming at something as much as 10 feet to either side and still capture your target.

Shepard took stock of the situation. They'd been out from the LM for about two hours and had perhaps another fifteen to twenty minutes before they would have to stop to take the bedrock samples and then head back to the LM. Although neither of them had much faith in their ability to judge distance, Shepard estimated that, at the present pace, it would be at least another half hour to the rim. It was time, he thought, to pick out some likely boulders - there were a few not far above them - and start sampling.

Hello!

For a moment before they started, Shepard and Mitchell paused to get their bearings and to admire the view. Although they were looking down-Sun - that is, away from the Sun - they were high enough up that they could see shadows in the larger craters, shadows that gave the landscape a bit of texture. The landmarks that they'd used during the final landing approach were clearly visible around the LM; and out beyond it, the ALSEP package sparkled in the Sun like a "little jewel." All day they'd had trouble judging distance because there were no familiar objects to provide scale, no color differences to break up the scene, and no haze to help differentiate smaller, relatively nearby craters from larger ones in the distance. With experience, they might have used the presence or absence of boulders on crater rims as an indication of crater diameter and hence of distance. But to their untrained eye, only the LM provided scale

That just cant be good for photography!

Some of the Apollo astronauts reported difficulties judging distance while on the moon, for example: far-off rocks and features seemed closer than they really were.

www.solarviews.com...
www.newscientist.com...

Originally posted by FoosM
So OK dig this.
He is doing a PAN with a manual camera.
While he is changing his position he will have to make changes for exposure!
How can he do that with one hand?
He is barely even standing still!

The video doesn't actually show him doing the pan sequence. They're just saying he should do one when he's done with the core samples.

Originally posted by FoosM
How can he remember what his last setting was to know where he should begin?

If he ever forgets, all he has to do is what I said: Move one lever all the way to the right and then back a click and move the other lever all the way to the left and keep it there or move it back one or two clicks depending on his angle to the sun. Take a couple seconds.

Originally posted by FoosM
At any rate, this whole situation is worse for Apollo defenders.
If the cameras allowed for settings to expose for stars.
Then there is absolutely no excuse for it to not have happened.
I mean even an accidental exposure could have occurred!

You still don't seem to understand photography. It would still take a long exposure, which you just can't hand-hold.

Originally posted by FoosM
Look that this guy:

Is he taking photos? And what of, the ground?
And Look how fast he appears to make adjustments to the settings!
With one hand even! Its just not realistic people.

At most he had to flip the aperture paddle one click in those photos. The camera is firmly attached to him. All it takes is a flick of a finger and a press of the shutter release. Easy to do very quickly and with one hand.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

Any descent amatuer photographer would KNOW (unlike YOU) how to use the lens aperture setting to focus from a few feet to infinity in LOOK it up.

Ummm.. so?
My point is they had a complicated lens system to work with.
They had no indicators for exposure, distance, focus, etc.
They wore pressurized gloves.
Not winter gloves, but pressurized to the point they complained of their nails hurting.
They wore visors the reduced sunlight to what like 90%- so what did they base exposure on?
And how could they see in the dark with those visor on!
The were constantly talking and being talked to.
I like to see how a professional is able to generate a series of great photos
in that situation with a fully manual camera.

Originally posted by FoosM
That just cant be good for photography!

Even with the lens at f/5.6, the depth of field was big enough that anything far enough away that you'd have trouble judging distance would on be in focus if you set the focus at infinity. Set at infinity, the focus would cover a range of 17.5 feet to infinity. They may have had trouble judging distance on far-off things, but I think they wouldn't have much trouble telling if something was less than 17.5 feet away.

reply to post by FoosM


What's your point with this post????

It was already mentioned to you....do you understand the concept of how lenses work?? Do you understand apertures, and focus?

Let's put it this way.....just look at the aperture/distance rings. Go to a camera store, and play with one.

Say your f-stop is 11.....everything from infinity, up to within a certain distance from the lens (and this depends on what focal length the lens is) will be in focus. You only have to worry, through a viewfinder, about "focusing" when you are close enough to the subject to fall within that "closer" range.

Geeze, I wish everyone had been able to own and learn with an SLR when they were kids....would eliminate 99% of this rubbish about photography on the Moon!!!!