Landing on the Moon - It Never Happened.

[Riedquat]

6 minutes ago, Mr Jib Fingers said:

Well if it is an unzoomed photo I'd imagined the earth would look larger, that's why I thought it looked strange. The size of the astronaut is irrelevant in the photo as are the hilarious references to the Father Ted sketch you all keep making over and over again.

But if you're all happy that the earth looks 16 times larger than the moon does in unzoomed photos from here then we'll have to agree to disagree.

I've just measured the Earth on that picture as having a diameter of 182 pixels (although it's a crude measurement), the photo is 3804 x 3804 pixels, and the size of the Earth from the Moon would be about 2 degrees (the exact number depends precisely where in the orbit you are). That makes the picture 21 degrees if the Earth is the right size.

Now admittedly I'm getting lazy now, too lazy to figure out how to work it out, but is that consistent with a 60 mm focal length on 70 mm film (not too lazy to Google those details )?

[long time lurking]

5 minutes ago, Broken biscuit said:

Please read my original response that describes the same effect here on earth.

The sun is high in the moon sky. Why should it illuminate all parts of the earth that are visible to the astronaut? The sun is in a very different position to the astronaut and will be illuminating parts of the earth that are not visible to the astronaut.

because it`s in front of him if the reflection is the sun ,that argument is like saying if i face west at sunrise and i can see my knees the sun can`t be behind me 

 

[XswampyX]

49 minutes ago, Mr Jib Fingers said:

You honestly think the earth in that photo looks 4 times the size that the moon does from here? Wow.

Not sure I can argue with that to be honest.

Well you can't. Look how small it is in the first x1 image. Next time the moon is out I suggest you go outside and look at it. It's that round white object. 

 

[XswampyX]

... 

[long time lurking]

24 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

No it wouldn't. Only slightly behind but very much up and to the left, completely consistent with the shape of the Earth and the shadows on the astronaut.

If its behind the camera i cant see how it can do that as the earth is in the back ground the sun would have to be behind him  to have that lighting effect and then there would be no reflection in his visor 

[Riedquat]

3 minutes ago, long time lurking said:

If its behind the camera i cant see how it can do that as the earth is in the back ground the sun would have to be behind him  to have that lighting effect and then there would be no reflection in his visor 

I'm not following you. Yes, the Sun is behind him, although not by that much. That's entirely consistent with how the Earth is illuminated.

[XswampyX]

1 hour ago, londislagerhound said:

Oh for heaven's sake (pardon the pun).

Go grab a camera with a wide angle lens. Frame up a person to look about the same size as the astronaut, take a photo. Then put on a lens with a longer focal length, and get the astronaut the same size again, take another photo. You'll have to stand back further to do it.

Now, compare the sizes of things in the background. Oh look, they're not identical... It's almost as if different lenses can make things appear relatively different sizes.

As seen in jaws...

 

[Dorkins]

25 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I've just measured the Earth on that picture as having a diameter of 182 pixels (although it's a crude measurement), the photo is 3804 x 3804 pixels, and the size of the Earth from the Moon would be about 2 degrees (the exact number depends precisely where in the orbit you are). That makes the picture 21 degrees if the Earth is the right size.

Now admittedly I'm getting lazy now, too lazy to figure out how to work it out, but is that consistent with a 60 mm focal length on 70 mm film (not too lazy to Google those details )?

The size of the astronaut (both real size e.g. 6 feet tall and apparent size e.g. number of pixels) is relevant, it tells you how zoomed the picture is (i.e. what fraction of the observer's field of vision the photo is showing). Then you just need the diameter of the Earth (12,700km) and the distance from the Moon to the Earth (384,000km).

I guess this assumes no effect of lens type on the relative sizes of the astronaut and the Earth, I'm no expert on lenses so can't really comment.

[Lurkst]

58 minutes ago, Broken biscuit said:

The visor is curved. Think of a curved (section of a sphere) mirror and how it allows you to see round corners. 

Yes, the Apollo helmets were like goldfish bowls, look at how the ceiling lights reflect over Jim Lovell's helmet (ooo-err)...

[MrPin]

Supposing astronauts went to where they thought the moon was, but it had moved around a bit, due to being in an orbit?

[Lurkst]

48 minutes ago, Broken biscuit said:

The sun is high in the moon sky. Why should it illuminate all parts of the earth that are visible to the astronaut? The sun is in a very different position to the astronaut and will be illuminating parts of the earth that are not visible to the astronaut.

Correct. The Earth seen from the moon waxes and wanes in a similar way to how the moon appears to us over its cycle...

http://earthsky.org/space/what-would-earth-look-like-from-the-moon

 

[Hail the Tripod]

On 04/01/2017 at 10:22 PM, Lurkst said:

 

 

1 hour ago, The XYY Man said:

Deniers often cite the fact that only the Americans claim to have successfully sent humans through the Van Allen belt as evidence that it is not possible for us to travel to the moon. They extrapolate this truth to conclude that all other nations realised that it was impossible, and thanks to Kennedy's "by the end of the decade" commitment - the Yanks had to fake it.

But you will note they always use the words such-as "humans" or "men" - because then they aren't lying in their claims, they just aren't giving us the full story

The Russians appear to have successfully got a number of plants, worms and flies into lunar orbit - via the Van Allen belt - and returned them safely back to Earth unharmed in 1968. 

Oh, and a pair of tortoises..!

Google "Zond 5" to find out more...

 

 

 

XYY

                                                                                                               

The dog's kennel is not the place to keep a sausage - Danish proverb

I don't see how some primitive animals surviving till the landing but never being seen again says much as to viability for humans either way.

[MrPin]

Tortoises hold up the Discworld, er, or was it elephants?

[billybong]

.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

44 minutes ago, XswampyX said:

Well you can't. Look how small it is in the first x1 image. Next time the moon is out I suggest you go outside and look at it. It's that round white object. 

 

Well seeing as you said the earth was exactly 4 times the size in that NASA photo you were actually agreeing with me, you just didn't realise it at the time 

Look at the x18 size on that video, which is the nearest size to how the earth should look from the moon. Doesn't look like that NASA photo does it?

[Lurkst]

1 hour ago, Hail the Tripod said:

 

I don't see how some primitive animals surviving till the landing but never being seen again says much as to viability for humans either way.

The tortoises were seen again though, the photo is of the scientists analysing them after the flight.

[Riedquat]

2 hours ago, Dorkins said:

The size of the astronaut (both real size e.g. 6 feet tall and apparent size e.g. number of pixels) is relevant, it tells you how zoomed the picture is (i.e. what fraction of the observer's field of vision the photo is showing). Then you just need the diameter of the Earth (12,700km) and the distance from the Moon to the Earth (384,000km).

I guess this assumes no effect of lens type on the relative sizes of the astronaut and the Earth, I'm no expert on lenses so can't really comment.

The size of the astronaut isn't much help if you don't know how close he was standing to the camera.

[XswampyX]

19 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

The size of the astronaut isn't much help if you don't know how close he was standing to the camera.

They thought of that....

Quote

Two of the Hasselblad cameras were identical to those carried on the earlier Apollo 8 and 10 lunar orbit missions. During the Moon landing one Hasselblad was left aboard the Command Module Columbia, which remained in lunar orbit. Two were taken on the Lunar Module Eagle to the Moon's surface.

The Data Camera used on the lunar surface during the Apollo 11 mission and later Moon landings was a 500EL with additional modifications. A transparent glass Reseau plate, or register glass, engraved with grid markings was placed between the film magazine and the camera body, immediately in front of the film plane. The plate is engraved with crosses to form a grid and the intersections accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. The crosses were recorded on every exposed film frame. From the markings, it is possible to calibrate distance and heights in photos taken either on the lunar surface or from space. Such markings were not new or unique to the space program. They were commonly used for large format scientific and aerial photography prior to the Moon landings, when the large size of the photographic negative could be distorted either during exposure or the printing process.

When film is normally wound in a camera, static electricity is generated on the film surface. This electricity is dispersed by metal rims and rollers, which guide the film, and by humidity in the surrounding air. In the lunar surface camera, however, the film was guided by the Reseau plate's raised edges. As glass is a poor electrical conductor, and with the absence of surrounding air, the charge built up between the glass surface and the film could become so great that sparks could occur between the plate and the film. In order to conduct the static electricity away and prevent sparking, the side of the plate facing the film was coated with a thin transparent conductive layer and silver deposited on the edges of the conductive layer. The electrical charge was then led to the metallic parts of the camera body by contact springs.

The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in the camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated or replaced because conventional lubricants would boil off in the vacuum and potentially could condense on the optical surfaces of the lenses, Reseau plate, and film.

Two film magazines for the lunar surface Hasselblad 500EL data camera were carried for use on the Moon's surface. Thirty-three rolls of the same film types as used on the earlier missions were carried on the Apollo 11 mission. The film used for Apollo 11 was loaded and several test shots exposed prior to flight. When the film magazines were returned for processing after the mission, the test shots were cut off and processed first. These were compared against accurate color charts to ensure that there would be no defects in processing the remainder of the film and that the colors would be most accurate.

Just so years later the moon landings could be proved fake! 

Edit for source :- http://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/apollo_photo.html

[frozen_out]

3 minutes ago, XswampyX said:

They thought of that....

Just so years later the moon landings could be proved fake! 

Edit for source :- http://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/apollo_photo.html

This is it isn't it? Who could conceive of a deception in such detail? It really is beyond imagination.

[the gardener]

Has anyone noticed the three astronauts reflected in his helmet visor?

[Captain Cavey]

10 hours ago, The XYY Man said:

This thread has forced me to re-visit the debate over the moon-landings, and having earlier declared my view that it was 70/30 whether we'd actually put men on the moon or not, I'm now 95 to 5 that we did.

I can't really be bothered to debate anyone over this - but I will offer an example of one of the many new things that I have discovered that I was previously unaware of in defence of my new-found point-of-view.

Deniers often cite the fact that only the Americans claim to have successfully sent humans through the Van Allen belt as evidence that it is not possible for us to travel to the moon. They extrapolate this truth to conclude that all other nations realised that it was impossible, and thanks to Kennedy's "by the end of the decade" commitment - the Yanks had to fake it.

But you will note they always use the words such-as "humans" or "men" - because then they aren't lying in their claims, they just aren't giving us the full story

The Russians appear to have successfully got a number of plants, worms and flies into lunar orbit - via the Van Allen belt - and returned them safely back to Earth unharmed in 1968. 

Oh, and a pair of tortoises..!

Google "Zond 5" to find out more...

 

 

 

XYY

                                                                                                               

The dog's kennel is not the place to keep a sausage - Danish proverb

 

 

 

I'm assuming these are adult Galapagos Tortoises and therefore Russian scientists are fücking huge. 

Or is someone going to say that the light direction is inconsistent?

[GloomMonger]

13 hours ago, Mr Jib Fingers said:

Aha there we are, that's similar to the one I saw. A close up of one of the astronauts with a tiny earth in the background. If the earth was indeed visible, then there is no chance they wouldn't have pointed the camera at it at some point.

Also I'm sure the earth would appear larger on the moon than the moon looks from the earth? It looks absolutely tiny in that photo

It's an optical illusion. I discovered this when I tried to photograph a spectacularly large full moon and the result was a very small dot. 

http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/moon/

[Lurkst]

23 hours ago, Lurkst said:

 

Another observation from that photo, it was taken in December 72 and you can see the North Pole is tilted away from the sun as expected in mid-winter. A good one to use when explaining to people how the seasons work

 

[Hail the Tripod]

2 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

Another observation from that photo, it was taken in December 72 and you can see the North Pole is tilted away from the sun as expected in mid-winter. A good one to use when explaining to people how the seasons work

No matter how much I expand the image I can see no detail of land whatsoever, nevermind judge the exact orientation of the continental outlines. If you're suggesting that the lit/unlit delimiting line is not vertical indicates anything about seasonality, you need to seriously rethink your understanding before "explaining" it to people.

[Riedquat]

17 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

No matter how much I expand the image I can see no detail of land whatsoever, nevermind judge the exact orientation of the continental outlines. If you're suggesting that the lit/unlit delimiting line is not vertical indicates anything about seasonality, you need to seriously rethink your understanding before "explaining" it to people.

Where the day-night line lies relative to the poles is very much the reason the seasons are what they are. I have to agree about the land detail though, I can't see anything to suggest what bit of the Earth we're looking at, although from the lack of any obvious land I suppose it could be the Pacific. It could be worked out from the exact date and time.