Intellectual Insurgent said ...
The lighting argument isn't as convincing for me, but there's no doubt the photos are fakes.
The average photo from a 70mm lens will have the subject of the photo in full focus while the background is blurred. The photo at the top left, in contrast, has everything - foreground and background - in focus, which could not be achieved unless you had the lens at high aperture - meaning the eye on the lens is barely open.
If the astronauts adjusted the lens to a high aperture, they would have then had to compensate for the loss of light that would happen when the eye of the lens became smaller, so they would have to slow down the shutter speed to allow in more light.
When you slow down the shutter speed, the shutter of the lens stays open much longer and becomes much more sensitive to movement. So, even if the astronauts used high F + low shutter speed, they still would have needed a tripod to get the clarity of the photos they took. And, if I understand the story correctly, they supposedly had the cameras built into their spacesuits.
Even Rocket Scientist Hubby, who believes wholeheartedly that Man has stepped foot on the moon, had to concede that the photos are fake. They are completely inconsistent with photography principles.
Denmark Vesey said ...
II. What's happen' Lady? Long time. Ask my favorite rocket scientist, how can the belief that the photos are fake, coexist with the wholehearted belief that man walked on the moon? Why fake photos if you can shoot the real thing? What was the real benefit of the government's desire to land a man on the moon? What is the propaganda benefit? The US was engaged in an intense Cold War with the Soviets, each attempting to claim "technological" superiority. At the end of the day ... landing on the moon ... is a media event. A television spectacle. A meme opportunity of biblical proportion. Imagine a moon landing without film, without photos, without scripted words like "One Small Step For Man, One Large Yada Yada Bullshit".That's pure Hollywood. Filming and photographing a moon landing in a studio has just as much memetic impact as filming it on the lunar surface. But billions cheaper and actually doable. (We just crash landed a bomb on the moon ... 50 years after we supposedly walked on it.)
Considering the rate of technological development over the past few decades, if we LANDED on the moon 50 years ago, we should be able to book day trips on Expedia.com today.
But nah. Muhfuggas bombing the moon's surface with projectiles hoping to analyze the dust for evidence of water. GTFOH. Computers that filled entire rooms in 1969 and cost over $1Million are $2.99 pocket calculators today.
If we really landed men on the moon half a century ago, there would be a Marriott up there by now. A Home Depot with Mexicans hanging around in space suits. Sub prime condos. Pollution. A Sam's Club.
14 comments:
Are there any conspiracy theories in which you DON'T believe?
Yes.
I don't believe the Polio "Vaccine" conspiracy theory.
I don't believe the H1N1 "Epidemic" conspiracy theory.
I don't believe the "Global Warming" because of CO2 conspiracy theory.
I don't believe the "Germ Theory of Disease" conspiracy.
I don't believe the official government "911 Conspiracy Theory" that insists a religious fanatic holed up in a cave in Afghanistan armed with a satellite phone and credit card orchestrated the greatest single terrorist attack in history ... alone.
I don't believe the "911 Conspiracy Theory" that says 2 planes caused 3 sky scrapers to collapse, when no skyscraper in history has ever collapsed because of fire.
I don't believe the conspiracy theory which credits the ancient Greeks with philosophical, mathematical and scientific "discoveries" that were practiced in ancient Kemet thousands of years earlier.
I don't believe the conspiracy theory that insists men go see Plantation MD's once a year to have a finger stuck up their asses, until one day the MD announces they have "prostate cancer". (There's gotta be a better way.)
Is there no silly ass Plantation Theory, massa has disguised as "science" ... that you don't believe?
So you admit that you are an ignorant jackass. Good. That's what I was waiting for.
I believe your issues are mainly psyhological.
My grandfather, who died before I was born, was adamant that there was no moon landing and it was all a fake. I don't know either way.
While coloreds be steady denying that man ever walked on the moon... whitey is building machines and sending them out past Jupiter. And communicating with them.
It's a daggone shame.
The lighting argument isn't as convincing for me, but there's no doubt the photos are fakes.
The average photo from a 70mm lens will have the subject of the photo in full focus while the background is blurred. The photo at the top left, in contrast, has everything - foreground and background - in focus, which could not be achieved unless you had the lens at high aperture - meaning the eye on the lens is barely open.
If the astronauts adjusted the lens to a high aperture, they would have then had to compensate for the loss of light that would happen when the eye of the lens became smaller, so they would have to slow down the shutter speed to allow in more light.
When you slow down the shutter speed, the shutter of the lens stays open much longer and becomes much more sensitive to movement. So, even if the astronauts used high F + low shutter speed, they still would have needed a tripod to get the clarity of the photos they took. And, if I understand the story correctly, they supposedly had the cameras built into their spacesuits.
Even Rocket Scientist Hubby, who believes wholeheartedly that Man has stepped foot on the moon, had to concede that the photos are fake. They are completely inconsistent with photography principles.
hahaha dmg
Mills...
"coloreds be steady denying..."
...whitey is building machines...
David, "DV" ain't "Coloreds" and my father, who ain't exactly a "Whitey", was an engineer at the Goddard Space Flight Center in MD.
Stating stuff like that you're running into danger of becoming very "DV"-like.
michael fisher is trying too hard
Since I wasn't there, I don't know whether the photos are real or fake. But I don't think they're inconsistent with principles of photography.
If you believe the published accounts:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/photography/
The cameras used were medium format -- 70mm was the film size, not the focal length of a lens on a 35mm camera. And the cameras the astronauts carried had 60mm lenses, which for the medium format, is a moderate wide-angle rather than a moderate telephoto. The focal length is kind of like the 35-39 length you'd see on a non-adjustable lens disposable camera. It would give mildly wide perspective and max depth of field -- which is what we see in the NASA pix.
On top of that, I would guess that when you're on the sunny side of the moon, there'd be sufficient light to allow for high shutter speeds and small apertures. Even though there's no air, and thus no ambient light from reflections in the atmosphere, I'd guess that the effect of being on the sunlight side of the moon would be like having tangible objects be spot-lit. If you shoot a subject that's in a spotlight on stage, even if they're surrounded by darkness, you can use high shutter speeds and tiny apertures just as you would in outdoor sunshine.
So, to me, the pictures look like the way you'd expect them too, from an amateur photographer's perspective, at least.
As an aside for those who are of the "it was a hoax" persuasion, how does the USSR figure into the analysis? Was their whole space program a hoax, too -- so much so that they weren't able to tell that nobody was really going to the moon, and couldn't call us on our hoax?
A. Charles,
All good points. However, the clarity of the shot I think would still be out of bounds under the conditions.
Perhaps the question is how bright the lighting available really was, because it doesn't look so impressive as to permit high shutter speeds.
But, in any event, what is your take on radiation risk to the film?
Thank you A. Charles. Very edifying. Please give me your take on this issue:
"An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface.
The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots. Surely the film would have perished under such conditions? If the film used during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand such differences in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?"
I think the radiation shielding was relatively simple to do, even back then. Don't know if they still sell them, but there used to be lead-lined "Film Shield" bags that you could use to send your film through airport scanners, and they were pretty effective for not much money. You probably couldn't coat a whole space projectile like that, but I'd imagine that a trunk full of film magazines wouldn't have been too cumbersome.
As for the temperatures the film would have had to withstand, beats me. I've got zero thermodynamics knowledge. It's been reported that the cameras had reflective skins to protect them from extreme overheating. I would think that it's theoretically possible that a combination of that reflection plus some internal insulation would have been the direction taken to try to mitigate the temparature extremes. Could that combination let the cameras and their innards get warm, but not too hot, and retain those temps long enough not to freeze in the shade?
I don't know, but it seems to me sufficiently possible that I wouldn't swear against it without knowing more.
I'm thinking that route rather than temp-resistant film. If the cameras got as cold as the coldest of the moon's surface, I would expect the shutters to literally freeze.
Post a Comment