Strong arguments versus weak arguments.

[Chew]

If the cameras could expose astronauts standing in complete shadow even being lit from the back by the sun, nothing would stop them from phtographing stars being inside a shadow.

Expect the shutter speed, of course. What was it? This is a direct question requiring an answer per the forum rules: what was the shutter speed used by the astronauts on the moon?

[Echnaton]

`Then learn something about basic photography. They were not equipped to take pictures of the stars, and there is no reason they would be.`

 Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there, and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there.

If you were shown a photo from the moon with Venus visible in it, would you accept that the Apollo program was real?  What about the photos from the moon that show stars?  Why do you dismiss these? Or do you not know about them?

Also, for the sake of clarity and politeness to others, please learn to use the quote function.

[Jason Thompson]

coarse sand  doesn`t have that much of dust . And simply by walking over it you wouldn`t dustify or grind to dust anything, at least no to noticeable amount.

And what about the act of laying it down on the set, and all the set dressing that goes on over the top of it? There is NO WAY to avoid fine dust being generated.

Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there, and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there.

How does a picture of the stars, that would look no different from one taken on Earth, validate their position as being on the moon?

Oh, and with regards to Venus, did you know that Venus IS in some of the Apollo 14 pictures, and it WAs exactly where it was expected to be?

I don't believe you when you say it would 'validate' it at all. As soon as we point out that things are where they are supposed to be, you or others will simply say that since we know where the stars are supposed to appear it would be a simple matter to fake the starscape.

If the cameras could expose astronauts standing in complete shadow even being lit from the back by the sun, nothing would stop them from phtographing stars being inside a shadow.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The astronaut is lit by back-scattered light from the surface, and the camera still has to expose the surface correctly. Star photography takes whole seconds, and they did not have the ability to do it.

Having trained for some time in design and sketching, I guess I know a thing or two about photography or shadows.

How does 'design and sketching' in any way qualify you to discuss photography and its limitations?

About the trained test pilots, who were not afraid because of their experience.  Well, the ejection seats and a parachute makes a huge difference in how brave a man can be.

But they still fail, or the aircraft can fail without the time to activate the ejection system. Many test pilots and astronauts died when their planes crashed.

And I edit my posts to get rid of some typos, but I still get many. Don`t you bother about that.

You sir, are a LIAR. Adding whole paragraphs of text to your reply after some times is NOT 'correcting typos'.

Luke, Jarrah chose the lowest possible radiation levels to calcualte the total dosage.

But the point is that Jarrah does not know HOW to calculate the dosage.

Of course, astronauts were very educated, some of them stating that they have visited the moon, but not being sure if they went as far as van Allen belts. Mass negligence?

Or the fact that after forty years the memory of a man unexpectedly being asked the technical details might just not be perfect. Alan Bean's job was to fly the spacecraft, not worry about the van Allen belts. That bit was dealt with by the technicians and ground crew who designed the trajectory.

[Glom]

Jason, coarse sand  doesn`t have that much of dust . And simply by walking over it you wouldn`t dustify or grind to dust anything, at least no to noticeable amount.
`Then learn something about basic photography. They were not equipped to take pictures of the stars, and there is no reason they would be.` Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there, and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there. If the cameras could expose astronauts standing in complete shadow even being lit from the back by the sun, nothing would stop them from phtographing stars being inside a shadow.  Having trained for some time in design and sketching, I guess I know a thing or two about photography or shadows. It would be funny if they could turn the cameras all around and up pointing to the sky.
About the trained test pilots, who were not afraid because of their experience.  Well, the ejection seats and a parachute makes a huge difference in how brave a man can be.
And I edit my posts to get rid of some typos, but I still get many. Don`t you bother about that.


Lunar Orbit. Your picture of a boot is a bit funny, . Firstly have you seen many people with such clumps after having walked near the sea, or close to the waterline of a sandy beach? You do realize, the wetter the sand the more shallow the imprint will be? When I was in Canada, I lived in Ottawa for 4 months, more specifically in suburbs of Ottawa, Place`d Orleans. I went to the local river for swimming. Quiet often actually. The place was called Petrie Island or beach  if I recall  it correctly. I was surprised that no matter how strong the wind was , the sand was not blown around and seemed quiet solid.  I asked the lifeguard and he told me they use a kind of specific glue they spray over the sand to make it cling together. At the same time I could dig it , but there would be no dust, but it seemed almost as if humid or wet.Don`t you think your boot pic is a notch exaggerated.
As to my identity. I can speak perfect Latvian and write as well, I am coherent in Russian, slightly aware of German. You can check me that way. We can talk through skype, as my registration place would indicate year registered( many years ago)  and it would be very unlikely  that I had been using a proxy server to register a secret skype account in Latvia  many years ago. Yes, you could send me a postcard, but that would take 2 weeks to get here, and about 2 weeks to get back. That is how our post works. Or I could simply make a picture of myself in my town with a paper that would say your name. I could stand next to a recognisable feature.
Luke, Jarrah chose the lowest possible radiation levels to calcualte the total dosage. Of course, astronauts were very educated, some of them stating that they have visited the moon, but not being sure if they went as far as van Allen belts. Mass negligence?
And I already told you I don`t resort to sock puppetting. That would fit more for a person voting for a Romney or Obama:))))

I thought I'd quote the whole thing to protect us against the DakDak play.

You need to show your working.  How did you arrive at the conclusion that if object in shadow could be exposed correctly, so could stars.  Because that certainly doesn't agree with my experience.

Capturing the stars is irrelevant because they look no different on the Moon than they do on Earth, so you could just claim the photo was taken at night in the Nevada Desert/Shepperton riverfront.

[DataCable]

Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there

You must post photos of Venus and Jupiter to prove that you are actually in Latvia.

and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there.

Since you brought it up, it was the afformentioned bitchslapped hoax proponent's posting of Venus and Earth's relative positions in the lunar sky from unspecified planetarium software, supposedly set for the time of Apollo 14's stay (the screencaps were insanely low-res) which allowed me to find Venus in Shepard's photos.

If the cameras could expose astronauts standing in complete shadow even being lit from the back by the sun, nothing would stop them from phtographing stars being inside a shadow.

What is the minimum exposure time required to image Sirius on Ektachrome EF film at f/2.8?

[Luke Pemberton]

Jarrah chose the lowest possible radiation levels to calculate the total dosage.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I'll recap the main points:

Calculating such doses is an academic exercise that only informs engineering parameters for provision of design tolerance. You cannot perform exact calculations in the way that Jarrah claims. Certainly not in a matter of fact way by multiplying two numbers. No one can calculate exact doses from the data, yet Jarrah claims to do so as a matter of course. His calculations are flawed.

Jarrah applies radiation exposures determined from shock generated halo-CME  SPEs, and applies this value to the duration of H-alpha prominences. These two solar events are hugely different. Once takes place in the solar corona region and is due to magnetic reconnection in localised regions. One takes places in the solar plasma once it has been ejected from the sun following large scale reordering of the coronal magnetic field. His calculations are flawed.

Jarrah does not account for energy loss in the material, so makes no attempt to perform an integrated dose calculation that accounts for the CM materials. His calculations are flawed.

Now, care to address these three points, and offer a rebuttal why his calculations aren't flawed, and why I am wrong.

[SolusLupus]

Lunar Orbit. Your picture of a boot is a bit funny, . Firstly have you seen many people with such clumps after having walked near the sea, or close to the waterline of a sandy beach? You do realize, the wetter the sand the more shallow the imprint will be?

Uh, no.  No, that's not how it works.  The wetter sand is (AKA, mud), the deeper you'll sink in and the deeper the impression you make.  Furthermore, mud would not act the way it did when the LRV drove over it, as seen in the previous video, because it would none fall back down as relatively fine particles.

[nomuse]

For someone who is "speaking for himself" you seem to have memorized a lot of the standard playbook!

Jason, coarse sand  doesn`t have that much of dust . And simply by walking over it you wouldn`t dustify or grind to dust anything, at least no to noticeable amount.

Regardless of that, they aren't walking on coarse sand.  The pictures clearly show fine particulates.

Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there, and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there. If the cameras could expose astronauts standing in complete shadow even being lit from the back by the sun, nothing would stop them from phtographing stars being inside a shadow.  Having trained for some time in design and sketching, I guess I know a thing or two about photography or shadows. It would be funny if they could turn the cameras all around and up pointing to the sky.

Any star or planet positions would also be the same for Earth, or for Earthly orbit.  You prove nothing with those.  Also, if the position of, say, Venus can be accurately determined, then it can also be determined by a group of filmmakers and a bright light or post effect stuck in the right spot.

The astronauts were never in complete shadow.  You have background in photography from what?  Perhaps you are being misled by your experience in 3d rendering where interobject reflectivity is usually treated as a second-pass effect; in many render packages, if you don't invoke it implicitly, then ray-traced shadows can be harsh indeed.  The lunar environment, however, is filled with material that reflects light.

Also, regardless of whether it would be possible to find an exposure setting that would pick up the stars, it is NOT possible to fit both stars and astronauts and equipment within the same dynamic range.  If you know any photography at all then you will find this ludicrously easy to calculate.

About the trained test pilots, who were not afraid because of their experience.  Well, the ejection seats and a parachute makes a huge difference in how brave a man can be.

Read up on career life expectancy for test pilots.

And I edit my posts to get rid of some typos, but I still get many. Don`t you bother about that.

You seem to be doing more than that.

Lunar Orbit. Your picture of a boot is a bit funny, . Firstly have you seen many people with such clumps after having walked near the sea, or close to the waterline of a sandy beach? You do realize, the wetter the sand the more shallow the imprint will be? When I was in Canada, I lived in Ottawa for 4 months, more specifically in suburbs of Ottawa, Place`d Orleans. I went to the local river for swimming. Quiet often actually. The place was called Petrie Island or beach  if I recall  it correctly. I was surprised that no matter how strong the wind was , the sand was not blown around and seemed quiet solid.  I asked the lifeguard and he told me they use a kind of specific glue they spray over the sand to make it cling together. At the same time I could dig it , but there would be no dust, but it seemed almost as if humid or wet.Don`t you think your boot pic is a notch exaggerated.
As to my identity. I can speak perfect Latvian and write as well, I am coherent in Russian, slightly aware of German. You can check me that way. We can talk through skype, as my registration place would indicate year registered( many years ago)  and it would be very unlikely  that I had been using a proxy server to register a secret skype account in Latvia  many years ago. Yes, you could send me a postcard, but that would take 2 weeks to get here, and about 2 weeks to get back. That is how our post works. Or I could simply make a picture of myself in my town with a paper that would say your name. I could stand next to a recognisable feature.

The photographic and video record does not show wet sand.  It is clearly fine dust, it is clearly kicked up and scattered in large amounts.  It clearly stays CLEAR -- there is no suspended matter.

Luke, Jarrah chose the lowest possible radiation levels to calcualte the total dosage. Of course, astronauts were very educated, some of them stating that they have visited the moon, but not being sure if they went as far as van Allen belts. Mass negligence?
And I already told you I don`t resort to sock puppetting. That would fit more for a person voting for a Romney or Obama:))))

More politics, more games.

Why don't you go to ATS?  I don't think this board is suited for you.

At LEAST, you could cease with the Gish Gallop!

[scooter]

advancedboy,

Something you need to know here...some of the posters here are professionally involved in spaceflight, satellite/booster design and manufacturing, mission design and space system engineering and operations in general. Others of us have learned through related education, and general curiosity and study. It's interesting to us.

You use Jarrah as your authority, yet dismiss input by real professionals in the business, considering them somehow biased. Jarrah doesn't study spaceflight or space radiation, he simply pores over magazines and books until he finds something which, to him, presents a show stopper to manned flights to the Moon. He doesn't bother with the details, nor does be bother to check with the source of the material he takes out of context. And he had his head handed to him by Jay over at the IMDB debate...Jay had to teach him the basics of the subject of space radiation, which was rather embarrassing for JW...he just quit the forum.

I wish you would be as skeptical of the hoax claims as you are about the Apollo evidence...you would find the sources of the hoax data severely lacking in expertise in some very complex subjects. Bottom line...you need to do some homework on the subject you so easily dismiss.

[Luke Pemberton]

advancedboy,
He doesn't bother with the details, nor does be bother to check with the source of the material he takes out of context. And he had his head handed to him by Jay over at the IMDB debate...Jay had to teach him the basics of the subject of space radiation, which was rather embarrassing for JW...he just quit the forum.

For the record, here is the full exchange. As Jay points out himself (in another thread if I recall), others asked many searching questions, and Jarrah hardly responded. It was another example of his obsession with Jay. Jay did most of the damage though, that much is true. Watching Jarrah change the subject to Apollo 1 would have been hilarious except for the fact he was making that hideous accusation of murder by NASA.

[PetersCreek]

I don`t see what could have stopped NASA from either using wet sand or adding coagulants.

Wet sand (and, finer particulates, especially) doesn't behave as seen in the video and photographic record.  See this photo of Gene Cernan with obviously fine material clinging to his suit, up to his thighs.  I can see no evidence that it was wet at any time...none of the caking and/or smearing typical of wet material.  If moisture or coagulants were used to prevent it from billowing, as you suggest, then he would have had to pretty much roll in it to get it on his upper legs.

[twik]

I always wonder if HBs in this kind of situation imagine themselves as Juror 2 from 12 Angry Men?  That they "just ask simple questions" bit by bit, but by the end of the movie they find they've convinced the whole jury that there was a conspiracy?  Then they naturally get frustrated when it doesn't work out that way, especially when they get confronted by obstacle after obstacle in actual evidence.

Absolutely. That's why the new ones so often melt down when people don't gasp "You're RIGHT! Why didn't I see it, I was a fool!"

[twik]

As some one who has spent quite some time on beaches, I'm, er, dubious that they spray "some sort of glue" on beaches near Ottawa to prevent sand from blowing. What on earth would be the point? And how would they get it past environmental authorities? I have, however, seen sand that has naturally formed a crust, which would reduce blowing of dust, but only until someone walked over it and revealed the loose sand underneath.

And coarse sand is, actually, quite dusty.

I suspect someone was telling advancedboy a tall tale, that they never suspected he would be gullible enough to believe. I think this is quite telling that he believed a nonsense story (or misunderstood what he was told) without questioning whether it was logical or not.

[Chew]

Juror 2? John Fielder? Who did the voice of Piglet in The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh?

[Tedward]

I love the idea of glue on sand. I now have visions of tankers of a well known sticky fluid heading for the beaches to stop coastal erosion and a sign saying "top secret Moon mission being filmed. Keep orf" along side "Nudists only".