Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM
My point is they had a complicated lens system to work with.

It's not complicated at all.

Originally posted by FoosM
They had no indicators for exposure, distance, focus, etc.

Yes they did. They could tell at any time what their shutter speed, aperture, and focus, and depth of field was.

Originally posted by FoosMThey wore pressurized gloves.
Not winter gloves, but pressurized to the point they complained of their nails hurting.

The controls on the camera were large and easy to operate.

Originally posted by FoosM
They wore visors the reduced sunlight to what like 90%- so what did they base exposure on?

As pointed out several time before, they had diagrams on the film canisters telling them exactly what to set the exposure to based on their angle to the sun.

Originally posted by FoosM
And how could they see in the dark with those visor on!

The visor could be raised and lowered as needed.

Originally posted by FoosM
The were constantly talking and being talked to.

Most people are able to do tasks while talking and listening.

Originally posted by FoosM
I like to see how a professional is able to generate a series of great photos
in that situation with a fully manual camera.

It would probably be pretty easy.

Originally posted by nataylor

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.

Ok, so what the hell is he doing?
Admiring the view?

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

No not for sharp focused shots.

But if they wanted to... they HAD TRIPODS!
Remember the one they stuck the TV camera on?
They could have also used the ROVER.
And they still had the LM.

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.

You just dont flick your finger to adjust aperture and speed settings and hope the dials rotates to the correct exposure like you are playing roulette. And again, he will have to know his last settings. He would also have to assume that he didnt accidentally move the settings while he was conducting other experiments.

Generally its easy to rotate the rings three four clicks at a time without even thinking about it. And usually, one is aided by the ears. One thing the astronauts could not have used. Go deaf, and try to rotate the rings and see how easy it is to over turn the dial. Factor in the gloves and now we got a situation where the tactile feedback is highly diminished! It should have created many unusable photos and general frustration for the Astronauts!

Originally posted by weedwhacker

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!!!!

edit on 26 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

False,
they weren't using a SLR.
Not even close.

Originally posted by FoosM


Generally its easy to rotate the rings three for clicks at a time without even thinking about it. And usually, one is aided by the ears. One thing the astronauts could not have used. Go deaf, and try to rotate the rings and see how easy it is to over turn the dial. Factor in the gloves and now we got a situation where the tactile feedback is highly diminished! It should have created many unusable photos and general frustration for the Astronauts!

You definitely do not know what you are talking about. I work in a field where I can't always hear and see the electronic equipment I use and to compensate for that, I sometimes have to rely on a very similar "click" system of indentations on the equipment controls. I feel for the indents with my hands. You feel the resistance of each click as you hit each indent. And if you forget where you are, you click all the way in one directions until it ends in order to "reset" yourself. I even had to wear gloves using the equipment several times..... it can be done.

Got it?

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!

Wth are you on about? Why would he need to make any changes to exposure? You seriously dont know anything about photography?

reply to post by weedwhacker

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!!!!

Some of us are old enough..
I had a nice Minolta SLR..
I understand the need to focus on closer objects..
I'll have to go back through some pics as I can't remember too many with close subjects..

reply to post by Facefirst

You definitely do not know what you are talking about. I work in a field where I can't always hear and see the electronic equipment I use and to compensate for that, I sometimes have to rely on a very similar "click" system of indentations on the equipment controls. I feel for the indents with my hands. You feel the resistance of each click as you hit each indent. And if you forget where you are, you click all the way in one directions until it ends in order to "reset" yourself. I even had to wear gloves using the equipment several times..... it can be done.

Of course it can be done..
Ask any motor bike rider..
We do the same with gears..
There's not many bikes with gear indicators so you just pop up or down to 1st or 5th and work from there...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Facefirst

 

You definitely do not know what you are talking about. I work in a field where I can't always hear and see the electronic equipment I use and to compensate for that, I sometimes have to rely on a very similar "click" system of indentations on the equipment controls. I feel for the indents with my hands. You feel the resistance of each click as you hit each indent. And if you forget where you are, you click all the way in one directions until it ends in order to "reset" yourself. I even had to wear gloves using the equipment several times..... it can be done.

Of course it can be done..
Ask any motor bike rider..
We do the same with gears..
There's not many bikes with gear indicators so you just pop up or down to 1st or 5th and work from there...

I rode for almost 30 years. That's a good analogy.

Originally posted by FoosM


Ok, so what the hell is he doing?
Admiring the view?

He's getting the core sample out of the ground.

Originally posted by FoosM
But if they wanted to... they HAD TRIPODS!
Remember the one they stuck the TV camera on?
They could have also used the ROVER.
And they still had the LM.

Then they couldn't be taking the photographs of the surface they should have been taking. We get it, you think they should have taken shots of the stars. You disagree with their choices of photographic material. So? That doesn't prove anything.

Originally posted by FoosM
You just dont flick your finger to adjust aperture and speed settings and hope the dials rotates to the correct exposure like you are playing roulette. And again, he will have to know his last settings. He would also have to assume that he didnt accidentally move the settings while he was conducting other experiments.

Again, there were indents on the controls so they clicked into place. And because of that, it was easy to tell what the settings were without even looking at the camera.

Originally posted by FoosMGenerally its easy to rotate the rings three for clicks at a time without even thinking about it. And usually, one is aided by the ears. One thing the astronauts could not have used. Go deaf, and try to rotate the rings and see how easy it is to over turn the dial. Factor in the gloves and now we got a situation where the tactile feedback is highly diminished! It should have created many unusable photos and general frustration for the Astronauts!

We're talking about distinct stops on the dial. You could probably do it with a stick and still be able to tell were you were.

Originally posted by FoosM

False,
they weren't using a SLR.
Not even close.

The concept of depth of field relates equally to all cameras, no matter their particular design.

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by FoosM


Generally its easy to rotate the rings three for clicks at a time without even thinking about it. And usually, one is aided by the ears. One thing the astronauts could not have used. Go deaf, and try to rotate the rings and see how easy it is to over turn the dial. Factor in the gloves and now we got a situation where the tactile feedback is highly diminished! It should have created many unusable photos and general frustration for the Astronauts!

You definitely do not know what you are talking about. I work in a field where I can't always hear and see the electronic equipment I use and to compensate for that, I sometimes have to rely on a very similar "click" system of indentations on the equipment controls. I feel for the indents with my hands. You feel the resistance of each click as you hit each indent. And if you forget where you are, you click all the way in one directions until it ends in order to "reset" yourself. I even had to wear gloves using the equipment several times..... it can be done.

Got it?

Yeah and you just failed in your example:

I feel for the indents with my hands

how are you going to do that with pressurized gloves?

And Im sure go auto with some aspect of your camera to ensure proper photos.
And when you are taking photos, all you are doing is taking photos.
You are not running scientific experiments in one sixth gravity wearing a bulky space suit.

Your "real life" experiences can never replicate the difficulty of taking photos on the moon.

reply to post by FoosM


Oh, for Pete's sake on a stick!!!

False,
they weren't using a SLR.
Not even close.

Where did I say that the Hasselblad was an SLR? Read okay, mate?

I mentioned the SLR (I had a Minolta SRT-101...a classic, nowadays) for many, many years....(from circa 1971...) and THAT is how I learned these very, very basics. You are taking landscape photos? With the standard 52-55mm lens? No focusing needed, at all....it is at infinity.

The Hasselblad would work the same way....distance, focal length...these are all constant relationship functions.

Now.....about your other red herrings??

Sunday last, in the "Washington Post". An article about the Chinese space program. Section 'A', page 12.

"As China eyes the stars, U.S. watches warily."

IN BEIJING China's grand ambitions extend literally to the moon, with the country now embarked on a multi-pronged program to establish its own global navigational system, launch a space laboratory and put a Chinese astronaut on the moon within the next decade.

www.washingtonpost.com...

"...within the next decade." Sound familiar?


Oh, but wait! According to 'JW' and his acolytes, it is "TOO DANGEROUS" for humans, and their skin will fall off, (or something), if they try to go through the VABs .... maybe they aren't watching the 'MoonFaker' series??

Hey! A 'JW' fan needs to contact Beijing right away! And warn them, send them those videos! Because they must be stupid and foolish, and not have ANY science at all, not to realize the 'danger'. Just think! Someone could get a big red star, and be a national hero of China!!

(and all the dim sum they can eat, for life!)....

reply to post by weedwhacker

Oh, but wait! According to 'JW' and his acolytes, it is "TOO DANGEROUS" for humans, and their skin will fall off, (or something), if they try to go through the VABs .... maybe they aren't watching the 'MoonFaker' series??

I think you should save the fanfare for when they actually do it..
Talk is nothing...

I doubt even you would call a planned mission 10 years away proof man has been there before..

reply to post by FoosM

...how are you going to do that with pressurized gloves?

Crying out loud!!

Do you mean you don't realize that the human hand, and especially the fingers, are exquisitely sensitive to touch?? WE are tool makers, after all...and what do we make tools with?

Now, you're trying to allege that just because the gloves were "pressurized", there would be "no" sensation through the fabric?

Truly, not your best work. Not by a long shot.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Do you mean you don't realize that the human hand, and especially the fingers, are exquisitely sensitive to touch?? WE are tool makers, after all...and what do we make tools with?

Now, you're trying to allege that just because the gloves were "pressurized", there would be "no" sensation through the fabric?

Truly, not your best work. Not by a long shot.

Didn't they have inner gloves and then the outer was pressurized?
So they had movement between the layers...
I know from wearing motorbike gloves that it doesn't allow for much feeling..
And I always wore reasonably thin gloves...

I can see how they operated the camera controls with extended levers but your comments don't make sense..

Originally posted by nataylor
Then they couldn't be taking the photographs of the surface they should have been taking. We get it, you think they should have taken shots of the stars. You disagree with their choices of photographic material. So? That doesn't prove anything.

They could have done BOTH!
Its not an exclusive situation!
They could have tried!
Even out of curiosity.

It goes to proving they didnt go!
For whatever reason they couldnt superimpose a starfield with the horizon.

Originally posted by FoosM
You just dont flick your finger to adjust aperture and speed settings and hope the dials rotates to the correct exposure like you are playing roulette. And again, he will have to know his last settings. He would also have to assume that he didnt accidentally move the settings while he was conducting other experiments.

Again, there were indents on the controls so they clicked into place. And because of that, it was easy to tell what the settings were without even looking at the camera.

was only for the focus as far as I recall.

Originally posted by FoosMGenerally its easy to rotate the rings three for clicks at a time without even thinking about it. And usually, one is aided by the ears. One thing the astronauts could not have used. Go deaf, and try to rotate the rings and see how easy it is to over turn the dial. Factor in the gloves and now we got a situation where the tactile feedback is highly diminished! It should have created many unusable photos and general frustration for the Astronauts!

We're talking about distinct stops on the dial. You could probably do it with a stick and still be able to tell were you were.

A stick... ok, alright.

You know what, lets just leave it to those who are on the fence.

Make up your own mind, watch some photo shoots, in a controlled environment, for example:

or


Just take a look at how many times the viewfinder is being used,
and how many times adjustments are made with the various knobs and rings.

Take note how many times those professional photographers simply guess the distance and take a photo.
Like the Apollo astronauts would have to do.

See if they simply guess the speed and f-stop for lighting and action that they have set up.

Why is this guy using a light meter?

Its a rainy day, he should know by know what to set his camera to.
I mean, dont we all use those little icons: rain, sunny, fireworks, etc when we do photography?

This dude is outside, why bother with looking through the viewfinder?

What an amateur, just set it to infinity.
Or guess the depth of field and set your camera accordingly.
Right?

Once you watch those so called professionals handling their $25K machines.
Take a look at the apollo photography.
Look at the lighting, the close-up shots.
See how many photos are over exposed, under exposed, blurry, or just right.
And ask yourself if it makes sense.

To me it doesn't.
I mean... who took this photo of the camera?

LOL

reply to post by FoosM


FoosM, why do you need to post videos of professional photographers? Amateur photographers see straight through you. Why not post a video of Jarrah using a camera? Could it be because he is as ignorant as you about basic photography? If I were you, I'd take stock of your situation and mind the old Klingon adage: "Only a fool fights in a burning house."

reply to post by backinblack


It is the motion, is what I meant....you'd still be able to detect detents, and have sensory feedback. Otherwise, it would be nigh on impossible. to actually do any work, in the EVA suits. SO, obviously, the gloves are designed with this in mind.

True 40+ years ago on Apollo, and true today on the ISS.....although, if you Internet search, you will learn that technology, design and progress march on....

...but, back to Apollo:

Apollo Space Suit Gloves
Each of the protective gloves for the Apollo space suit were designed for the individual astronaut. They were custom-molded with silicone-rubber fingertips. This allowed the astronauts to feel some sort of sensitivity when touching equipment and picking up moon rock. The Apollo gloves were attached to the arms of the main suit body using pressure seals. There were two layers to the protective gloves for the Apollo space suit: the first layer were black rubber that fit the exact mold of a person's hand, while the second was the extra-vehicle activity covers that added extra protection while on the mission.

www.brighthub.com...

Originally posted by FoosM
They could have done BOTH!
Its not an exclusive situation!
They could have tried!
Even out of curiosity.

It goes to proving they didnt go!

They *could* have done many things. That doesn't mean they didn't go.

Originally posted by FoosM
For whatever reason they couldnt superimpose a starfield with the horizon.

Huh? What does that even mean? After all we've gone over about photography, you're expecting to see a star field and landscape in one photo?

Originally posted by FoosM
Make up your own mind, watch some photo shoots, in a controlled environment, for example:

Do you understand the difference between artistic photography and documentary photogrammetry? There's nothing particularly artistic about the Apollo photos. But for their location and subject matter, they'd be in the bottom of a shoebox somewhere based on their artistic worth.

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...

How close have you , personally, tried this out, BiB?

I was a wedding photographer for many years (many years ago!) and we used this type of MF camera, mostly Bronica SQ's, but we had two Hasselblads also. 80mm lenses were our workhorses, and were used for about 80% of the 300-400 shots we would take for a 'normal' wedding (this was back in the film days, and we worked in a failry upmarket sector..). These lenses have a significantly NARROWER field of view than the lens in question... Bear that in mind as you read on.

Now the vast majority of shots in our 'normal' wedding shoots were posed (more so back in those days), but we would always be ready to quickly shoot from the hip - no raising the camera or using the viewfinder - just see some candid moment, point and fire. And I can't recall any shots like that I missed due to poor aim - it's EASY. Surely as a Minolta user (respect! - my fave SLR ever was an X700) you've used a WA lens, and know how easy it is to frame an image without looking?

We would also use the cameras manually (very rarely did we get out exposure meters), and also have the camera preset at all times to what would be a likely good exposure setting and focus (taking into account hyperfocal distances) - you get a feel for this stuff quickly (remember when lenses had depth of field scales??), so there's no great need to get out labels or printed notes.

As for the spacesuit and gloves, well no, but I've certainly shot with heavy winter gloves on a few times and had no difficulty - these are already big cameras, and with the added paddles? They would be a cinch to operate.

At some point, BiB, I hope you will work out what FoosM is doing, and why...

And why some of us simply ignore him.