Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.

[Zakalwe]

Now, before we go half cocked on me being a crazy un-educated basement rat, this 'theory' actually makes sense to me!  Why is it garbage?

I've linked to Phil Plaits debunking of that nonsense video in my post.

Phil Plait is a professional astronomer and author. He knows what he is talking about rather than a DJ spouting New Age claptrap

[JayUtah]

To surmise, once again after another infurence that I am NOT a Professional Photographer...

You're not the first, nor even the tenth, person to come here claiming to be a "professional photographer" and be rather ignorant of the general knowledge professional photographers have.  The strategy of claiming to be a professional in order to forestall questioning of your claims is a decades-old practice in conspiracy theory mongering.  My advice is to listen carefully to what you're being told here by people, some of whom really are professional photographers, and avoid professing expertise you don't actually have.

[JayUtah]

Thank you so much for this JayUtah.  I understand everything you've said re: all being in an orbit.

That's the key to understanding how the Apollo trajectories work, and -- with few exceptions -- how all spacecraft work.  When we say all paths through space are orbits, what that means is that all the quantities that apply to space travel have at least one foot in orbital mechanics at all times.  The problem in many cases is that people are given only "Reader's Digest" versions of space travel, and their natural follow-up questions require more advanced understanding.

Bob's name has popped up several times now across the internet.  He must be famous.

I guess he is.  He has expended quite a lot of effort explaining orbits and space travel in simple terms, hence his pages tend to be referenced a lot.

I'm hoping to find a visual illustration of trajectory and scale in relation to Earth, moon and craft; if it's even possible.  I'll keep looking.

Someone else linked to Bob's animation.  It's to scale.  It illustrates the free-return trajectory (what would have happened if the CSM had not performed the orbital insertion maneuver) and it was created not by drawing the path manually but by plugging the actual Apollo numbers into the appropriate formulas and letting a spreadsheet solve them for the entire trajectory.  It's pretty solid proof that Apollo's numbers as published are spot-on.

[Icarus1]

To surmise, once again after another infurence that I am NOT a Professional Photographer...

You're not the first, nor even the tenth, person to come here claiming to be a "professional photographer" and be rather ignorant of the general knowledge professional photographers have.  The strategy of claiming to be a professional in order to forestall questioning of your claims is a decades-old practice in conspiracy theory mongering.  My advice is to listen carefully to what you're being told here by people, some of whom really are professional photographers, and avoid professing expertise you don't actually have.

.........................but I AM a Professional Photographer!  My income is from Photography.  My reason for mentioning that I am a Photographer was not to Forestall anything!  Why would you Assume this of a Stranger??  What is wrong with you people.

My Name is Paul Knowles.  I am a Freelance Photographer living in the UK.  I operate as Paul Knowles Photography and Video.  I have been self employed since 2005 where I originally operated as LongRoad Productions.  My career has been varied and not exclusive to any arena.  I graduated University of Northumbria with a 2:1 honours Degree in Media Production.  For several years I worked on Film Productions only as a Still Photographer.  I also cover wedding and Product.!

Why am I still debating this to people like you?  Are you a failed Photographer?

[twik]

You may be a wonderful wedding photographer, but that doesn't mean you know how to evaluate scientific data in photographs.

I'm not a professional photographer, but I could see a flaw in your plan when you start by using Photoshop to "reveal stars" in the Apollo photographs, and then were surprised that two subsequent photos showed different "stars." Photoshop cannot reveal any information that wasn't already in the photo by changing levels, any more than zooming in will result in information at a less than pixel depth. So, what you've done is mess with the levels until you got artefacts. The fact that the artefacts are completely different in the next photo should clue you in that these represent random noise not stars. Instead, you seem to believe that NASA faked the invisible stars, but used a completely different set of stars for each photo, which is not a logical assumption.

Your photos may be beautiful, but you're not trained in examining scientific photographs.

[Icarus1]

You may be a wonderful wedding photographer, but that doesn't mean you know how to evaluate scientific data in photographs.

I'm not a professional photographer, but I could see a flaw in your plan when you start by using Photoshop to "reveal stars" in the Apollo photographs, and then were surprised that two subsequent photos showed different "stars." Photoshop cannot reveal any information that wasn't already in the photo by changing levels, any more than zooming in will result in information at a less than pixel depth. So, what you've done is mess with the levels until you got artefacts. The fact that the artefacts are completely different in the next photo should clue you in that these represent random noise not stars. Instead, you seem to believe that NASA faked the invisible stars, but used a completely different set of stars for each photo, which is not a logical assumption.

Your photos may be beautiful, but you're not trained in examining scientific photographs.

OOO.MMMM.GGGGG  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Did you just land on the last page here and talk a load of rubbish???

you lot ever wonder why people start swearing in here and lose the plot???  i have never once insisted they are stars.  I said they look like stars and came hear to inquire. FFS!

I'm not a fucking scientific Photographer, NOR have I suggested as much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This is a fucking joke now!

And for your information using Photoshop is the SAME as using a Dark room, only for different material!  You can reveal info recorded faintly in an image.  Digital negatives OF COURSE are NOT FILM!!!!  I know what A Jpeg is!!!! Jeeeeeeez.


I seriously have no more time for this!!! 

STOP SCANNING POSTS IN ORDER TO VALIDATE YOUR DAY WITH A HALF ARSED REPLY BASED ON **** ALL.  YOU NEED A HOBBY? TAKE UP PHOTOGRAPHY!

**** Me Sideways Scotty!

[Icarus1]

PLEASE READ THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS POST.  AFTER YOU WADE THRU THE REMARKS FROM ABADDON AND DOUG ETC. YOU WILL FIND MY INTENTION WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT I AM NOT HERE TO PROVE OR DISPROVE ANY PARTICULAR THEORY, BUT I WOULD LIKE INFO REGARDING 'ARTIFACTS' FOUND IN 2 RANDOM BUT CONSECUTIVE IMAGES.  I ACKNOWLEDGE I CONSISTENTLY REFERRED TO THEM AS STARS.  MY ERROR.  IN MY EXPERIENCE IT WAS POSSIBLE AND STILL IS, THAT THEY COULD HAVE BEEN.  YOU WILL SEE THAT AS WELL AS AGREEING THEY COULD BE DUST ETC. I ATTEMPTED TO FURTHER EXPAND MY KNOWLEDGE ON THIS MATTER.

THIS WAS AN OPEN QUESTION ASKED IN THE WRONG MANNER.  FOR OVER 200 POSTS NOW I'VE DONE MORE AND DISCUSSED MORE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT I AM A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER, OF WHICH THERE MAY BE DOUBT ON YOUR END BUT IN ACTUAL FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AM!

JEBUS GIVE ME STRENGTH.

[gillianren]

you lot ever wonder why people start swearing in here and lose the plot???  i have never once insisted they are stars.  I said they look like stars and came hear to inquire. FFS!

And you were told they weren't and couldn't be.  And you continued to refer to them as such even when any number of evidences were presented to prove that it was impossible, including the simple logic of "they don't behave the way stars do."  That you still think they could have been despite the fact that stars don't move at random indicates that you are not the only one who gets frustrated at someone else's behaviour.

You know your background.  What we are telling you is that people lie to us about their backgrounds all the time.  You want your word to be good enough for us, but why should it be?  We've had people come in claiming to be professional photographers who don't seem to know how to remove a lens cap.  We've had people come in claiming to be engineers who don't understand the most basic of equations.  We've had at least one guy, as I recall, who claimed to be a historian and believed the entirety of the Cold War was faked and didn't understand the concept of the primary source.  Your flat assertion is meaningless.  The educational level you demonstrate in your posts means more.

[Allan F]

If you want to know - on a basic level - how the Apollo moon landings were performed, I suggest you go to youtube, and search for "From the Earth to the Moon" - a series of drama-documentaries hosted by Tom Hanks. Then find the series "Moon Machines" which will tell you a lot about the hardware used.

And cut off the all-caps rant, please. YOU assumed you could take a limited-depth JPG, throw 9/10th of the data away and actually FIND something there, which should not be there. A simple contemplation of the dynamic range needed and the dynamic range of a JPG would have shown you that finding stars would be impossible.

[Abaddon]

To surmise, once again after another infurence that I am NOT a Professional Photographer...

You're not the first, nor even the tenth, person to come here claiming to be a "professional photographer" and be rather ignorant of the general knowledge professional photographers have.  The strategy of claiming to be a professional in order to forestall questioning of your claims is a decades-old practice in conspiracy theory mongering.  My advice is to listen carefully to what you're being told here by people, some of whom really are professional photographers, and avoid professing expertise you don't actually have.

.........................but I AM a Professional Photographer!  My income is from Photography.  My reason for mentioning that I am a Photographer was not to Forestall anything!  Why would you Assume this of a Stranger??  What is wrong with you people.

Nothing wrong with "us" people, you simply have to remember that many rabid hoax proponents start with claims to expertise they do not have. Most of us here have seen this so often as an opening gambit by conspiracy nuts that it becomes an immediate suspicion every time. Doesn't mean it applies to you, though. You should be able to at least understand the reaction, however.

My Name is **** ******.  I am a Freelance Photographer living in the UK.  I operate as **** ******* Photography and Video.  I have been self employed since 2005 where I originally operated as ********* Productions.  My career has been varied and not exclusive to any arena.  I graduated University of ********** with a 2:1 honours Degree in Media Production.  For several years I worked on Film Productions only as a Still Photographer.  I also cover wedding and Product.!

Why am I still debating this to people like you?  Are you a failed Photographer?

I suggest that you PM LunarOrbit to have this portion redacted. It is never a great idea to post personal details on a site that is regularly read by some outright conspiracy lunatics who are not above direct harassment. Or edit it yourself if the edit window is still open. I have no idea how long that window is on this site.

I say this for your sake. If some CT lunatic happens to read this thread and takes it into their crazy head to harass you it can be unpleasant. It has happened before. Look up Dennis Markuze. He ended up being committed for such activity.

If you feel pressurised to validate your credentials as real, I suggest that you use the private message system that keeps the matter private while fulfilling your intended result. Believe it or not, most of the regulars here are honest and would report back to the thread with confirmation but not the data provided.

As a matter of fact, I have personally established my professional credentials both here and elsewhere on the internet, but that is fine for me. My company operates in a very specialist niche, my name is common, I do not operate in a retail environment and I have moved no less than 4 times since I have been a member here. It is highly unlikely that a nutter will track me down, so I am little blase about it.

Note: I have redacted any personal data from my reply so as not to further propagate such data.

[twik]

And for your information using Photoshop is the SAME as using a Dark room, only for different material!  You can reveal info recorded faintly in an image.  Digital negatives OF COURSE are NOT FILM!!!!  I know what A Jpeg is!!!! Jeeeeeeez.

Yes, you can sometimes use Photoshop to reveal faint images. What you can't do is use it to reveal images too faint to have been captured in the photograph in the first place

[Zakalwe]

Calm down before you give yourself an aneurysm. For the record, I personally couldn't care what you do in real life. Your posting history demonstrates your abilities.

Many conspiracy theorists make rather large claims of their alleged expertise- it's an attempt to build an argument from authority. It's been seen many, many times before and it gets old quickly. We've also seen similar "snarky" answers when people are genuinely giving answers to questions. Some of the people on here have been at this for many, many years, so the approaches are well know.

Ideas are vigorously debated and tested here. It's not a sewing circle and as long as people abid by the rules then it's not a heavily moderated place. However, there's no obligation on anyone to treat a claim or proposition with kid gloves, especially if the person making the claim has "attitude".

Anyhoo, take a breather and calm down. This is the Internet.





 

[Icarus1]

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 would have expected a professional photographer to understand the concepts of f-stop and shutter speed, and how they combine to establish an exposure value.

I would also have expected a professional to understand that both film and digital sensors have a limited dynamic range compared with the very wide range of intensities found in real world scenes, particularly between daytime and nighttime, and that's why a proper exposure setting is so important. Our eyes can work in both daylight and at night only because chemical changes in the retina effectively change its "ISO rating" by a very large factor. These changes are relatively slow, though much faster than the day-night cycle so normally we don't notice it. But you will notice that it takes time for your eyes to "dark adapt" when going quickly from a bright area into a dark one.

The irises in our eyes react more quickly (a second or so), but are limited to a much narrower brightness range that gets even smaller with age.

And I would have expected a professional photographer to understand that the daytime sun on the moon is roughly as bright as the daytime clear-sky sun on the earth (slightly brighter because of the lack of an lunar atmosphere) so that pictures taken of sunlit objects on the lunar surface require approximately the same exposure values as sunlit objects on the earth under a clear daytime sky. Because of the limited dynamic range of both film and digital sensors, such exposures are far, far too short to register stars even in a black sky.

But I wouldn't necessarily expect even a professional photographer to understand just how much brighter the sun is than even the brightest nighttime star. So here are the numbers:

Sol (our sun) has an apparent astronomical magnitude of -26.74. Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, has an apparent magnitude of -1.46. Five magnitudes represent a brightness ratio of 100:1, so the 25.28 magnitude difference between Sol and Sirius is a brightness ratio of about 13 billion to 1, or almost 34 f-stops (1 f-stop being the difference between, say, f/5.6 and f/8). And that's for the brightest star in the entire night sky.

I will simply say, I am not a Conspiracy Theorist on this matter, and I'm really tired of explaining this over and over again. I will also say, since the advent of Digital my practices in Film no longer apply to me; nor is my memory of them.  The knowledge i didn't have was what film iso etc. was used and how it reacted in space.  As we've arrived here in an inquiring manner, you might have figured that I've already covered this in earlier posts.  You have, like others, assumed too much of me and my supposed ignorance.

[Icarus1]

Calm down before you give yourself an aneurysm. For the record, I personally couldn't care what you do in real life. Your posting history demonstrates your abilities.

Many conspiracy theorists make rather large claims of their alleged expertise- it's an attempt to build an argument from authority. It's been seen many, many times before and it gets old quickly. We've also seen similar "snarky" answers when people are genuinely giving answers to questions. Some of the people on here have been at this for many, many years, so the approaches are well know.

Ideas are vigorously debated and tested here. It's not a sewing circle and as long as people abid by the [img=http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=18.msg120#msg120]http://rules[/img] then it's not a heavily moderated place. However, there's no obligation on anyone to treat a claim or proposition with kid gloves, especially if the person making the claim has "attitude".

Anyhoo, take a breather and calm down. This is the Internet.

I'm calm.  As you've stated earlier, this is Frustration.  This post has been fooked since it started.  If you'd care to re-read what I have posted in the very first page, the rest of this is nonsense.  you people accuse the likes of me at jumping the gun; yet that's a lot of what has happened in here.  There have been a very small amount of dare I say, 'Compassionate' responses, but most are simply a character assassination.  I'm not delicate, or sensitive and have a very thick skin.  I know what forums are like, and Mob mentality, but there comes a time when enough is enough and that was a long long way back in a Galaxy Far Far away.

Oh and it hardly escalated 'quickly'!  this thread has been going on a long time now back and forth!

Thanks to those that are genuinely interested in listening and answering question.  As a woman in modern times it's reassuring. x
So, are we living in a Matrix?

[Icarus1]

And for your information using Photoshop is the SAME as using a Dark room, only for different material!  You can reveal info recorded faintly in an image.  Digital negatives OF COURSE are NOT FILM!!!!  I know what A Jpeg is!!!! Jeeeeeeez.

Yes, you can sometimes use Photoshop to reveal faint images. What you can't do is use it to reveal images too faint to have been captured in the photograph in the first place

Agreed, hence me posting here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to see if there was anything on what I thought i had found!