Author Topic: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.  (Read 92897 times)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #195 on: January 07, 2017, 12:26:20 PM »
Two great posts by Smartcooky and Peter B.

Just wanted to add, regarding the argument from some CTs that NASA would never allow any of their precious photos of Apollo to become contaminated, the same people would be up in arms if all the photographic imagery was pristine. We know that for a fact, because the likes of Jack White and Aulis were using the (false) claim that all the Apollo photos were perfectly exposed as proof that they never went to the moon.

For some reason they forgot to mention https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5904.jpg and the countless dozens of other images that were of dubious quality.

Good quality photos = proof Apollo was faked
Poor quality photos  = proof Apollo was faked

I would add Marcus Allen to your list of two using false claims.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline dwight

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 685
    • Live Tv From the Moon
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #196 on: January 07, 2017, 08:51:30 PM »
As someone extremely close to the Telemetry Tape search Team, I can categorically state that absolutely no footage of the Apollo 11 EVA is missing. It was available before the search started and has been telecast many many times in various countries around the globe in full since July 20, 1969.

Since 2009 a remastered/restored version of the EVA has been available which sourced 1st generation 2" videotape and processed to clean up the image. If you so desire you can also still purchase the kinescope recordings and run the two side by side to confirm that the EVA is all there.

As has been stated, the Telemetry tapes recorded the raw data signal. It would have yielded a slightly clearer picture, but nothing new in the way of footage as in what is visible in the events unfolding.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 08:54:57 PM by dwight »
"Honeysuckle TV on line!"

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #197 on: January 07, 2017, 11:40:43 PM »
As someone extremely close to the Telemetry Tape search Team, I can categorically state that absolutely no footage of the Apollo 11 EVA is missing. It was available before the search started and has been telecast many many times in various countries around the globe in full since July 20, 1969.

Since 2009 a remastered/restored version of the EVA has been available which sourced 1st generation 2" videotape and processed to clean up the image. If you so desire you can also still purchase the kinescope recordings and run the two side by side to confirm that the EVA is all there.

As has been stated, the Telemetry tapes recorded the raw data signal. It would have yielded a slightly clearer picture, but nothing new in the way of footage as in what is visible in the events unfolding.

I'm intrigued. Do you have any interesting stories from the Telemetry Tape search?
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline dwight

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 685
    • Live Tv From the Moon
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #198 on: January 08, 2017, 05:53:15 AM »
I will PM you as these blunder disciples like to promote their misinterpreted news to promote their own agenda. If they want the info I will happily share it after they pay my standard consultant day rate.
"Honeysuckle TV on line!"

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #199 on: January 09, 2017, 08:37:57 PM »
For the record?  If you want to close a quote, use this--{/quote}--but with regular brackets.  When you want to open a new quote block again, start it with this--{quote}--with regular brackets.  It will go a long way toward making what you write intelligible.

Now, if you want to make it intelligent, I have other suggestions.  Like don't say that your ignorance outranks their expertise.  If you don't know how film works, because all your professional photography work is digital?  Learn.  If you don't understand the physics of why it's not possible for the film to capture stars?  Learn.  I freely admit that my science knowledge is extremely limited; the story of Why Gillian Never Learned Physics is amusing enough, but it's also why I don't argue with physicists.  I admit my ignorance.  I'm strictly an amateur photographer, too, but I do know enough about science and photography to understand exposure and don't expect to see stars that aren't the Sun in daylight scenes.

And a question.  Do you understand the point about constellations?  I know, I know--you've conceded.  But that's not why I'm asking.  I'm trying to determine if you've given in or if you've actually learned something; the latter is considerably more important--to both of us.

Hi, didn't think was still going.

thanks for the reply.  Sorry to burst you bubble on your response though.  The only thing I've learned is that the scans I've used are full of dust etc.  My initial inquiry still stands.

If we remove the Conspiracy factor surrounding the Moon landings i.e the millions in book sales around the world etc. then to the inquiring mind it was fair to assume I may have stumbled upon Stars.  no Conspiracy, just a look at images that I've never seen before.  I've never once insisted they were Stars!  FACT!  and I brought the Question, NOT Statement of FACT, to a truth forum to have my answers....answered!

You are all guilty of either assuming too much or scanning my post, without actually understanding what it was I set out to achieve.-I think you've all had too much battle with Full Time theorists and I've been painted one too.  Nearly 200 posts on this to Prove it's Dust!

I really can't be bothered to personally reply to each one of you in kind with suggestions like; If you want to be Intelligent, then don't.......Wow.  Who do you think you are?!  Some of you have your heads so far up your asses I'm surprised you even know we have a moon!

Conspiracy Theorists are not all un-educated idiots.  You say you're an amateur Photographer?  Well I'm a Professional, and I think you may know less about Photography than you actually think you do.  I make around £1000 per week as a Freelancer and I've been Self Employed since 2005.  This alone gave me reason enough to take a closer look at 2 images.  Digital/Film makes **** all difference!!  I learned on Film from an early age.  I even had my own Dark Room.  My Photography got me to University where I studied Film and Media.  I am an Amateur Film Maker and and Entrepreneur.  Being an amateur Film Maker also allowed me to research the the moon landing.  I've defended certain areas of the moon landing against the Conspiracists.

The world is full of knowledge and information.  Filtering it out is a painstaking process.

Let me give you and all others some advice:

Don't talk to strangers like they're children.!  The amount of accusation and assumption in here is astounding! You have absolutely No Idea who I am!  This shows the ONLY lack of intelligence in here; the lack of intelligence and rapport to treat and regard strangers with courtesy.

Thanks again.

Try being more humble in your approach.




Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #200 on: January 09, 2017, 08:48:25 PM »
If Icarus1 is still interested and reading, I can tell him that we've addressed the topic of random dots on the Apollo imagery several times in the past. The discussion included a complete description of the structure of color photographic film and how physical abrasions of different depths would produce artifacts with different colors: blue for a superficial penetration of the emulsion and white for a much deeper one.

We've also discussed the details of the so-called "missing master tapes" from Apollo 11.

So rather than explain it all yet again, I suggest that he first go search the archives. Then we can answer any remaining questions.

All I can say to this is:

Where were you at the beginning? :D

To state once again, I asked if they were Stars, not Claimed it.

Thanks

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #201 on: January 09, 2017, 09:29:15 PM »
I have a related question, but maybe I should start a new one?

I'll put it here for now and see what comes back.

I need to clarify, that I'm not asking these question to Prove we didn't go the moon, but to prove we did.

As I understand it we circled the earth gaining speed and used a figure 8 thru space to gravity shoot around the moon into a stable orbit.

Here's part of the question, and I hope I can find the words to ask it correctly.

We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?  Traveling directly toward the moon? or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?  (assuming it is the latter, why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead?  constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.  (3 days? - How far has the moon traveled thru space?)

Does all of this make sense?

OR point me in the direction for this info?

Thanks

How much energy or joule or whatever does it require to alter course? considering the lateral RCS Thruster are tiny? Do they blow Air or is it a fuel like a rocket?  How fast is the craft traveling as it reaches the moon and is it simply gravity itself that puts it into orbit?

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #202 on: January 09, 2017, 09:38:06 PM »

Hi, didn't think was still going.

thanks for the reply.  Sorry to burst you bubble on your response though.  The only thing I've learned is that the scans I've used are full of dust etc.  My initial inquiry still stands.

If we remove the Conspiracy factor surrounding the Moon landings i.e the millions in book sales around the world etc. then to the inquiring mind it was fair to assume I may have stumbled upon Stars.  no Conspiracy, just a look at images that I've never seen before.  I've never once insisted they were Stars!  FACT!  and I brought the Question, NOT Statement of FACT, to a truth forum to have my answers....answered!

You are all guilty of either assuming too much or scanning my post, without actually understanding what it was I set out to achieve.-I think you've all had too much battle with Full Time theorists and I've been painted one too.  Nearly 200 posts on this to Prove it's Dust!

I really can't be bothered to personally reply to each one of you in kind with suggestions like; If you want to be Intelligent, then don't.......Wow.  Who do you think you are?!  Some of you have your heads so far up your asses I'm surprised you even know we have a moon!

Conspiracy Theorists are not all un-educated idiots.  You say you're an amateur Photographer?  Well I'm a Professional, and I think you may know less about Photography than you actually think you do.  I make around £1000 per week as a Freelancer and I've been Self Employed since 2005.  This alone gave me reason enough to take a closer look at 2 images.  Digital/Film makes **** all difference!!  I learned on Film from an early age.  I even had my own Dark Room.  My Photography got me to University where I studied Film and Media.  I am an Amateur Film Maker and and Entrepreneur.  Being an amateur Film Maker also allowed me to research the the moon landing.  I've defended certain areas of the moon landing against the Conspiracists.

The world is full of knowledge and information.  Filtering it out is a painstaking process.

Let me give you and all others some advice:

Don't talk to strangers like they're children.!  The amount of accusation and assumption in here is astounding! You have absolutely No Idea who I am!  This shows the ONLY lack of intelligence in here; the lack of intelligence and rapport to treat and regard strangers with courtesy.

Thanks again.

Try being more humble in your approach.

I still can't parse this. Slow down, think back to all those essay exercises in the classroom. You aren't being willfully misunderstood; you are, simply put, hard to understand.

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #203 on: January 09, 2017, 09:43:31 PM »


All I can say to this is:

Where were you at the beginning? :D

To state once again, I asked if they were Stars, not Claimed it.

Thanks

That is not a useful stance for any kind of investigation.

If I am diagnosing a problem in a signal chain and hypothesize the fault might actually be in the brand-new replacement cable, I don't say, "Maybe it isn't the cable so I shouldn't bother testing because I'm not sure."

No. You take a stance, you say, "What if it IS the cable?" and you test appropriately.

You are trying to think about the marks on the pictures without formulating a hypothesis sufficiently defined to allow it to be tested. It doesn't matter if it is probably false, if you think it is false, if it turns out to be in the end false. One progresses anyhow. STATE, "Assume these are stars..." and then see if that hypothesis can be disproved. If it is, then move on to the next one.

Enrico Fermi is credited with a quote that applies to what you've been doing. That quote is, "Not even wrong."

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #204 on: January 09, 2017, 09:46:10 PM »
I have a related question, but maybe I should start a new one?

I'll put it here for now and see what comes back.

I need to clarify, that I'm not asking these question to Prove we didn't go the moon, but to prove we did.

As I understand it we circled the earth gaining speed and used a figure 8 thru space to gravity shoot around the moon into a stable orbit.

Here's part of the question, and I hope I can find the words to ask it correctly.

We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?  Traveling directly toward the moon? or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?  (assuming it is the latter, why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead?  constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.  (3 days? - How far has the moon traveled thru space?)

Does all of this make sense?

OR point me in the direction for this info?

Thanks

How much energy or joule or whatever does it require to alter course? considering the lateral RCS Thruster are tiny? Do they blow Air or is it a fuel like a rocket?  How fast is the craft traveling as it reaches the moon and is it simply gravity itself that puts it into orbit?

This should be split into a new thread. I presume LO will do the duty, now that you've started already and people are bound to respond in thread.

The website Atomic Rocket is very good at covering the basics of space travel, including the energy calculations. If you want more detail, Bob here has an incredible resource -- I never remember the name so I just google for "Braunig space."  For a less numeric exploration that nevertheless returns a very good "feel" of how the vectors and numbers work out, get a copy of Kerbal Space Program and play with it.

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #205 on: January 09, 2017, 10:12:17 PM »

Hi, didn't think was still going.

thanks for the reply.  Sorry to burst you bubble on your response though.  The only thing I've learned is that the scans I've used are full of dust etc.  My initial inquiry still stands.

If we remove the Conspiracy factor surrounding the Moon landings i.e the millions in book sales around the world etc. then to the inquiring mind it was fair to assume I may have stumbled upon Stars.  no Conspiracy, just a look at images that I've never seen before.  I've never once insisted they were Stars!  FACT!  and I brought the Question, NOT Statement of FACT, to a truth forum to have my answers....answered!

You are all guilty of either assuming too much or scanning my post, without actually understanding what it was I set out to achieve.-I think you've all had too much battle with Full Time theorists and I've been painted one too.  Nearly 200 posts on this to Prove it's Dust!

I really can't be bothered to personally reply to each one of you in kind with suggestions like; If you want to be Intelligent, then don't.......Wow.  Who do you think you are?!  Some of you have your heads so far up your asses I'm surprised you even know we have a moon!

Conspiracy Theorists are not all un-educated idiots.  You say you're an amateur Photographer?  Well I'm a Professional, and I think you may know less about Photography than you actually think you do.  I make around £1000 per week as a Freelancer and I've been Self Employed since 2005.  This alone gave me reason enough to take a closer look at 2 images.  Digital/Film makes **** all difference!!  I learned on Film from an early age.  I even had my own Dark Room.  My Photography got me to University where I studied Film and Media.  I am an Amateur Film Maker and and Entrepreneur.  Being an amateur Film Maker also allowed me to research the the moon landing.  I've defended certain areas of the moon landing against the Conspiracists.

The world is full of knowledge and information.  Filtering it out is a painstaking process.

Let me give you and all others some advice:

Don't talk to strangers like they're children.!  The amount of accusation and assumption in here is astounding! You have absolutely No Idea who I am!  This shows the ONLY lack of intelligence in here; the lack of intelligence and rapport to treat and regard strangers with courtesy.

Thanks again.

Try being more humble in your approach.

I still can't parse this. Slow down, think back to all those essay exercises in the classroom. You aren't being willfully misunderstood; you are, simply put, hard to understand.

Well, I certainly can't argue with that.  I hear it a lot. :D

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3789
    • Clavius
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #206 on: January 10, 2017, 01:08:59 AM »
As I understand it we circled the earth gaining speed...

No, that's not how orbits work.

Quote
...and used a figure 8 thru space to gravity shoot around the moon into a stable orbit.

No, it's not a gravity "slingshot" maneuver.  It's a transfer orbit.  It requires a burn at the other end to enter an orbit around the Moon, and another burn to make that orbit circular and stable.

Quote
We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?

The translunar injection (TLI) maneuver added around 10,000 fps to the spacecraft velocity.  This raised the apogee of the orbit to bring it into the Moon's sphere of influence.  Until then it was still in orbit around Earth.  All paths through space are orbits.

Quote
Traveling directly toward the moon? or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?

The latter, in the sense that all paths through solar-system space are orbits.  And yes, they're aiming for where the Moon will be when they get there.

Quote
why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead?

It doesn't have to be straight ahead to be visible out the window.

Quote
constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.

Two opportunities for mid-course corrections were provided on each of the outbound and inbound orbits.  They were generally not needed, except that in some missions MCC-1 was mandatory because that's what established the hybrid trajectory that made it possible to enter lunar orbit at an inclination that opened up other landing sites.

Quote
Does all of this make sense?

Vaguely, in that it's a pile of common misconceptions about how spacecraft work.

Quote
OR point me in the direction for this info?

Roger Bate, Fundamentals of Astrodynamics.  It's probably the most entry-level text you'll get on practical orbital mechanics.  One of our members, Bob Braeunig, maintains a number of helpful web pages:  braeunig.us

Quote
How much energy or joule or whatever does it require to alter course?

Lots, whatever.  The basic equation is that a change in velocity is proportional to the specific impulse of the engine times the natural logarithm of the ratio of spacecraft dry mass to its presently fueled mass.

Quote
considering the lateral RCS Thruster are tiny?

The translunar injection was performed with the J-2 engine on the S-iVB.  The return transearth injection (TEI) maneuver was performed with the SPS.  These are both considerably more powerful than the SM RCS.

Quote
Do they blow Air or is it a fuel like a rocket?

The J-2 burned hydrogen and oxygen.  The RCS and SPS burned hypergolic propellants:  a member of the hydrazine family oxidized with nitrogen tetroxide.  None of the Apollo rockets "blow air."

Quote
How fast is the craft traveling as it reaches the moon...

I probably would have to go look that up.

Quote
...and is it simply gravity itself that puts it into orbit?

Without the LOI-1 maneuver, the spacecraft would either swing around the Moon and return to earth (free-return trajectory) or fly off into solar orbit (hybrid trajectory).  The arrival at the Moon (and in fact into orbit around anything) is a combination of engine thrust and gravity.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3789
    • Clavius
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #207 on: January 10, 2017, 01:15:56 AM »
To state once again, I asked if they were Stars, not Claimed it.

Well, in your original post you called them stars.  "The stars were totally different," etc.  It's far more likely they were contaminants.  The film emulsion/process in question is ASA/ISO 160, Kodak Ektachrome (the E-3 process, not the E-6 process you may be familiar with) on an ESTAR base.  The Zeiss Biogon lens had a widest f-stop of f/5.6.  At that setting, it takes 30-60 seconds for stars to show up.  Generally the longest shutter speed used was 1/60 second.  Stars simply aren't going to produce any meaningful exposure.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Count Zero

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Pad 39A July 14,1969
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #208 on: January 10, 2017, 01:24:49 AM »

As I understand it we circled the earth gaining speed and used a figure 8 thru space to gravity shoot around the moon into a stable orbit.

(Note that, in all that follows, the formulae for orbital calculations were written by Johannes Kepler ~400 years ago, and the equations for rocket thrust were created by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky ~100 years ago.  They work and they are not terribly difficult to use.  The astronauts trained to work them with pencil & paper, which is all that Kepler and Tsiolkovsky had.)

The launch puts the spacecraft it a circular orbit of Earth at ~35,560 feet-per-second.  With the nose pointed forward in its direction of orbit, the S-IVB (third stage of the Saturn V) then fires its rocket to increase the orbital speed by ~10,000 ft/sec.  This changes the circular orbit at an altitude of ~100 miles to an elliptical orbit with a perigee of ~100 miles and an apogee somewhere out near the Moon.  If the Moon wasn't there, the spacecraft would follow its ellipse out to ~240,000 miles and return (the Soviet Zond 4 spacecraft did this).  When aimed towards the Moon, spacecraft gets to a point where it is attracted more by the Moon's gravity than the Earth's.  Thus its course transitions from an elliptical orbit of the Earth that is anti-clockwise (when seen from above the north) to a clockwise elliptical orbit around the Moon.  However, this new orbit has an aposelene towards the Earth and as it climbs up from its periselene, it crosses the boundary where the Earth's gravity dominates and and then starts falling towards the Earth.  This is what gives it its distinctive "figure-8" shape:



Quote
Here's part of the question, and I hope I can find the words to ask it correctly.

We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?

~35,500 feet-per-second

Quote
Traveling directly toward the moon? or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?

The latter, since the apogee is on the opposite side of the Earth from the perigee, which is where the ~5 minute translunar injection burn (TLI) took place.

Quote
(assuming it is the latter, why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead?

It isn't.  They show it that way in the movies because it looks cool and the audience expects it (like showing stars in the background even though they would not be visible with sunlit objects in the foreground). 

Quote
constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.

Very little course adjustments were necessary.  The TLI burn would get them in the speed ballpark.  While the spacecraft was coasting its trajectory was measured and adjustments were made using the RCS.  Typically, these adjustments were on the order of only a few feet-per-second.

Quote
(3 days? - How far has the moon traveled thru space?)

Geometry problem:  The Moon orbits Earth at an average radius of ~240,000 miles and takes ~27 days to complete a 360° orbit.  How far will it travel in 3 days.  Show your work.

Incidentally, the 3-day flight time was peculiar to the "figure-8" orbit described and shown above.  It was not used for unmanned science probes.  The first Soviet moon probe (Luna-3) took only 23 hours to reach the Moon in 1959, and the ESA's Smart-1 probe took months to get there using an ion engine in the 1990s.  However, the 3-day trajectory is the only orbit that will swing your spacecraft around the Moon and send it back towards Earth with no extra rocket burns needed.  This "Free-Return Trajectory" was considered the safest for manned missions and was used by the Soviet Zond missions (which were unmanned tests of craft intended for manned missions) and the first four Apollo lunar missions.  Apollo 13 was the first mission to deviate from the FRT.  After they stabilized the spacecraft following the Service Module explosion, their first order of business was to use the Lunar Module's engine to put them back on a Free-Return Trajectory.

Quote
Does all of this make sense?

Yes

Quote
OR point me in the direction for this info?

Bob Braeunig's Apollo Pages
Apollo by Numbers
Encyclopedia Astronautica

Quote
Thanks

Sure!

Quote
How much energy or joule or whatever does it require to alter course?

That depends on how much mass you're moving.  Is the LM still attached?  How much fuel (i.e. mass) is still in your tanks?  Again, this is just stuff that you can plug into the Tsiolkovsky equation.

Quote
considering the lateral RCS Thruster are tiny?

It doesn't matter if they're small.  In space all thrust counts, and it add up.  Apollo 11 landed ~ 3 miles past its aim-point because the tunnel between it and the Command Module wasn't completely depressurized when they undocked.  This extra little puff of air affected the LMs orbit and it wasn't caught until they were well into their powered descent.  Fortunately they were more concerned with landing safely than landing accurately.

Quote
Do they blow Air or is it a fuel like a rocket?

They are hypergolic rockets that provide ~100lbs of thrust each.

Quote
How fast is the craft traveling as it reaches the moon...

I don't have the exact numbers handy, but a quick calculation shows that they were going at ~7,500 ft/sec as they rounded the Moon.

Quote
...and is it simply gravity itself that puts it into orbit?

No, to convert the elliptical orbit to circular, they had to burn their engine with the rocket facing the direction of travel to slow down by ~3,000 ft/sec.  This put them in a roughly circular 2-hour orbit at an altitude of ~60 miles.

Hope this helps.

(Edit:  Dang, ninja'd!)
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 01:27:02 AM by Count Zero »
"What makes one step a giant leap is all the steps before."

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #209 on: January 10, 2017, 01:38:36 AM »
Conspiracy Theorists are not all un-educated idiots.  You say you're an amateur Photographer?  Well I'm a Professional, and I think you may know less about Photography than you actually think you do.  I make around £1000 per week as a Freelancer and I've been Self Employed since 2005.  This alone gave me reason enough to take a closer look at 2 images.  Digital/Film makes **** all difference!!  I learned on Film from an early age.  I even had my own Dark Room.  My Photography got me to University where I studied Film and Media.  I am an Amateur Film Maker and and Entrepreneur.  Being an amateur Film Maker also allowed me to research the the moon landing.  I've defended certain areas of the moon landing against the Conspiracists.

Being an amateur filmmaker doesn't qualify you to understand better than 90% of the issues.  Heck, it doesn't even require you to understand the physics of film!  I'm sure we could both name plenty of professional filmmakers who are quite clearly clueless.  And, yes, you pretty much do have to be uneducated to be a conspiracy theorist, because the small amount of effort it would take to actually educate yourself would lead you to say, "Oh.  I was wrong about that."

Quote
Don't talk to strangers like they're children.!  The amount of accusation and assumption in here is astounding! You have absolutely No Idea who I am!  This shows the ONLY lack of intelligence in here; the lack of intelligence and rapport to treat and regard strangers with courtesy.

You're right; I have no idea who you are.  So I start by attempting to educate at a very basic level.  You're claiming to be a professional photographer.  Would it stun you to know that we get a lot of people in here making obviously false claims about their expertise in things?  You have shown, by your own posting, that you are not inclined to being told you're wrong even when you are, because you don't believe you are.  I have little patience for that.  If you are the professional photographer you claim to be, you are certainly not the only one here.  You are also talking to people with expertise in lots of other relevant fields, and you're ignoring what you're being told.  You want to be treated with respect?  Reciprocate.

Quote
Try being more humble in your approach.

Right back at you, pal.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates