Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.

[Icarus1]

Last one.  To finish, my 'Friend' has just sent me this to look at.  Looks like I'm going to be busy tonight!

Thanks

[JayUtah]

However, suggesting i am a Professional Photographer does not suppose I know all of this.

Yes it does, at least around here.  Claiming to be a professional photographer doesn't just say that's how you make your living.  It implies a body of knowledge, a degree of proficiency, and otherwise unobtainable experience with common pitfalls in the practice.  That's how your claim was received.  It was received as an assurance that the judgment involved in analyzing the two photographs was properly informed and shouldn't be written off as a layman's error.  And it was fairly apparent that's how you expected it to be received.  Maybe you didn't, but that's the customary reason for prefacing one's opinion by stating a relevant professional qualification.

Around here, knowledge of the things I mentioned to jfb is expected of a professional photographer.  What separates the amateur from the professional in terms of quality of work is that the latter knows about all the sources of failure, error, contamination, degradation, etc. in his work and takes steps to eliminate them.  All that I mentioned falls under that category.  The professional is expected to know a simple thing like an overblown contrast expansion simply amplifies noise.  Heck, that was true even back in film days -- it just wasn't noise in a rasterized grid.  Now I don't expect you blow a roll of 120 trying to shoot pictures of stars.  But a professional photographer is expected to know enough about film to have some intuition for what should and shouldn't expose.   Back in the day we didn't even have TTL light meters.  We metered and bracketed and metered again and bracketed again.  After a while you don't have to bracket so much because you came to know your equipment and supplies, and you got better at reading the environment.  After a while, remembering rules like "sunny 16," a professional is expected to know right off the bat that specks in a contrast-expanded photograph from the 1960s can't possibly be stars.

Now I apologize if you were held to a standard you weren't ready to meet.  But as far as your audience goes, all that I explained and more is indeed expected of someone who flies the flag of a professional in that field.

I hope we can move past this now, moot point.

Well, you've certainly taken your lumps over it and I think we'd all rather quit arguing in such a highly personalized form.  Whether it remains as moot as it is now depends on how accurately and honestly you represent your level of understanding in future.

[JayUtah]

I have proved on all accounts I am a N00b, especially in the 'How to post a question in a truthers Forum' Category.

Luckily, the "New guy perhaps being innocently mistaken for a conspiracy theorist" trope arises often enough that it can be believed.  We have to confess to a bit of paranoia because we're constantly being baited into lowering our guard.  Argumentation, when it comes to fringe theories like appear here, is probably 90 percent bare tactics and rhetoric on the part of the claimant.  Very little actual discussion or debate.  So we've become attuned to what historically have been the warning signs of rhetorical trickery.

I will take my first step toward apologising If I have offended anyone at all.  It was never my intention.

It seems like everyone is calming down a little.

Please take this as my final on the matter of 'Are these Stars' or 'These are Stars' or have I made a complete fool of myself publicy, again.

The goal is not to make a fool of any but who deserve it.  If your purpose is simply to know things, there are a lot of people on this and similar forums who know things.  Or even if you want to challenge some tenet, the purpose is to help understand what makes a good case and good rebuttals.  While the regulars are fairly aligned on the authenticity of Apollo, you'll find elsewhere here (and, again, on other forums), that we disagree on some things too.  We hold people (even ourselves -- ask about the T-shirt) to high standards of knowledge, logic, and reason because we believe that's going to benefit us all.

[Apollo 957]

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.

There's two, but not to exact scale, just a few posts above this one.

[Apollo 957]

Last one.  To finish, my 'Friend' has just sent me this to look at.  Looks like I'm going to be busy tonight!

Just un-friend him. You know it makes sense.

[Cat Not Included]

So, random question on the topic...and this may be a very dumb question (I am very, very, very much NOT a professional photographer. In fact, my photography knowledge is at the level of "there's this thing called a camera and I point it and push a button and hopefully get a picture and I think maybe there are little gnomes involved in the process)...

If you digitally scan a print of an image, would you actually be able to do much as far as altering the scanned version to learn about the original? I would think you would lose a lot along the way; the scanned version would just be at the resolution of the scan, regardless of the original resolution.

[AtomicDog]

"No other object, not Venus, not Jupiter, not any other star, is bright enough to see while the sun is still up."

I've seen Venus while the sun is up, in broad daylight. I saw it one morning a year or so ago, about two hours after sunrise. I used the crescent moon as a guide. Still hard to find,  but unmistakable once I finally spotted it.

[smartcooky]

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.

Thanks.

Well here is one of the Earth and the Moon, drawn to scale



The scale here is approximately 640km per pixel

The image is 640 x 425 pixels

The Earth is the 20 pixel diameter (12,700 km) pale blue dot on the left
The Moon is the 5 pixel diameter (3,400 km) grey dot, 600 pixels (384,000 km) away to its right.

The problems come when you try to show the Apollo orbits to scale.

TLI took place at 334 km above the earth's surface. That is about half a pixel on the scale of the above diagram

The Apollo lunar orbit began at 310 km x 110 km (above the Lunar surface) which was then changed to a circular parking orbit of about 110 km. In terms of the scale of the diagram, those values are about one half, and one sixth of a pixel respectively.

[Allan F]

So, random question on the topic...and this may be a very dumb question (I am very, very, very much NOT a professional photographer. In fact, my photography knowledge is at the level of "there's this thing called a camera and I point it and push a button and hopefully get a picture and I think maybe there are little gnomes involved in the process)...

If you digitally scan a print of an image, would you actually be able to do much as far as altering the scanned version to learn about the original? I would think you would lose a lot along the way; the scanned version would just be at the resolution of the scan, regardless of the original resolution.

You will lose data in the process. Every time you reproduce a photo, you lose something in the process.

[JayUtah]

The problems come when you try to show the Apollo orbits to scale.

Or in three dimensions.  Or over the time of the mission.  Over the vast sizes and distances involved, the required tolerances are just tiny.

[Icarus1]

The problems come when you try to show the Apollo orbits to scale.

Or in three dimensions.  Or over the time of the mission.  Over the vast sizes and distances involved, the required tolerances are just tiny.

JayUtah, what are your thoughts on the Spiraling Vortex Theory?  Once again , based upon my limited knowledge of how stars and galaxies are formed, it actually makes sense to me.

[Icarus1]

So, random question on the topic...and this may be a very dumb question (I am very, very, very much NOT a professional photographer. In fact, my photography knowledge is at the level of "there's this thing called a camera and I point it and push a button and hopefully get a picture and I think maybe there are little gnomes involved in the process)...

If you digitally scan a print of an image, would you actually be able to do much as far as altering the scanned version to learn about the original? I would think you would lose a lot along the way; the scanned version would just be at the resolution of the scan, regardless of the original resolution.

Scanning an already processed photo will almost NEVER reveal any extra info that was not present in the initial print and in all likelihood, add artificial detail such as tiny dust particles or printing defects.  Variances in the photographic paper used, for instance will create artifacts that can be distorted if overly processed;  especially if you use something like Photoshop to simply increase levels etc.  Scanning will also depend on the quality of the Scanner itself.  Not all hardware is created equal.  Ideally you would want the Original RAW digital File OR the original Film Negative to create a clean image.

There are a lot of people who think they are Photographers on here.  Make sure you listen to those that know their stuff.  A hobbyist making a few quid here and there is most definitely in this category.  Good Luck with your Scans.

[Abaddon]

So, random question on the topic...and this may be a very dumb question (I am very, very, very much NOT a professional photographer. In fact, my photography knowledge is at the level of "there's this thing called a camera and I point it and push a button and hopefully get a picture and I think maybe there are little gnomes involved in the process)...

If you digitally scan a print of an image, would you actually be able to do much as far as altering the scanned version to learn about the original? I would think you would lose a lot along the way; the scanned version would just be at the resolution of the scan, regardless of the original resolution.

Scanning an already processed photo will almost NEVER reveal any extra info that was not present in the initial print and in all likelihood, add artificial detail such as tiny dust particles or printing defects.  Variances in the photographic paper used, for instance will create artifacts that can be distorted if overly processed;  especially if you use something like Photoshop to simply increase levels etc.  Scanning will also depend on the quality of the Scanner itself.  Not all hardware is created equal.  Ideally you would want the Original RAW digital File OR the original Film Negative to create a clean image.

There are a lot of people who think they are Photographers on here.  Make sure you listen to those that know their stuff.  A hobbyist making a few quid here and there is most definitely in this category.  Good Luck with your Scans.

Wait, what? Are you now stating that you already knew the answer to your question in the OP?

[Icarus1]

I said I did.  I am Professional Photographer!

I've already pointed out in the very early posts that I ****** up in my post!  That sometimes I have trouble putting what I want to ask into a question.

I even used my own Tag line I often use and it's been missed; 'To answer the question, you first need to understand it!'

My point was never that I didn't know the process, it was to Ask for feedback on whether 'They could be stars'!  I didn't make myself understood.

Thanks for playing.

[Abaddon]

I said I did.  I am Professional Photographer!

I've already pointed out in the very early posts that I ****** up in my post!  That sometimes I have trouble putting what I want to ask into a question.

I even used my own Tag line I often use and it's been missed; 'To answer the question, you first need to understand it!'

My point was never that I didn't know the process, it was to Ask for feedback on whether 'They could be stars'!  I didn't make myself understood.

Thanks for playing.

You have no tag line.

Once again, can we agree that there are no stars and move along to your next question about orbits? Or not?