why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[JayUtah]

Do I get a T-shirt?

Probably, but for obvious reasons I don't get to decide that.

[JayUtah]

The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens?

I think that's his point.  With a fixed-length lens, each photo it takes should have the same field of view.  Alex informs us he is able to determine that one of his two photos has a different field of view than the other.  How?  By looking at the distance two movable objects are together in one versus the other.  Not to mention the movable camera.

What can we expect from someone who doesn't have the first clue what parallax is?

[Abaddon]

It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

I would hope that anyone who posts graphic pictures of execution victims to the boards would be banned no matter what their stance on Apollo.

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Come up with something better; you are becoming boring.

So boring this thread has stretched to 33 pages.

I posted my real name, a patent in my real name and my accreditation from the institute of engineers just up thread. What are you afraid of?

[Laurel]

The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures.

Schmitt took these two pictures. They are of Cernan, as we can tell from the red commander's stripes on his helmet and upper arms.

Do I get a T-shirt?

Cernan did however take photos of Schmitt with the earth above him too; AS17-134-20383 and AS17-134-20384. There's also a very clear change in angle between those two photographs. Apparently it was Cernan's idea to get the earth in the flag pictures, and I for one am very glad he thought of it.

[frenat]

Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1

I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

For violating the Terms of Service.

It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

No, it is the "dissidents" as you call them that can't seem to post without breaking multiple rules or even outright trolling.  But even non-"dissidents" have been banned too.

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Why not?

[frenat]

It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

I would hope that anyone who posts graphic pictures of execution victims to the boards would be banned no matter what their stance on Apollo.

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Come up with something better; you are becoming boring.

So boring this thread has stretched to 33 pages.

And?

How DARE we be polite and try to answer your questions, clear up your misconceptions, and call you on your falsehoods of being an engineer!  How DARE we!     

[Halibut]

I realise this is my first post here and I do apologise for jumping in in such a long thread, but:

Even if the photographs were fake (they weren't)
Even if stars were not visible in the photography (they should not have been)
Even if space travel is impossible (it's not)
Even if all the radio transmissions were faked such that no-one on the surface of the earth noticed (they weren't)

EVEN IF all that -
There remains one thing. And it's only short. Just 6 words. I have never seen it answered. This:

HOW DO YOU FAKE A ROCK?

[ka9q]

The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....

Actually the lunar surface cameras had nonremovable 60 mm f/5.6 lenses carefully matched to their Reseau plates. The cameras for internal cabin use lacked Reseau plates so they could use removable lenses with a variety of focal lengths.

[ka9q]

There's also a very clear change in angle between those two photographs.

Yes, there is.

Their lens had a fixed focal length, and they were far from the mountain in the background (to say nothing of the earth in the sky above it). This means the picture distance between the earth and the top of the mountain could not be changed by moving the camera a few meters or pointing it in a different direction.

Sure enough, when you measure the distance between the earth and mountain top in the second picture and then measure the same distance above the mountain top in the first picture, you see that the earth was off the top edge of the frame.

[dwight]

I am amazed that our resident former USAF engineer couldn't work that out. I blame the lack of finger puppets.

[nomuse]

I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.  I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...

So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.

You said you worked space station guidance.  What exactly did you do?

uninformed = false premise
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something).  Target code ran on an i386.

So what happened?  You use your entire brain to do your work, but to show that every one of your co-workers is either an idiot or a liar you don't need to actually think that hard?

Lemme ask you this.  If you are about to program in an unfamiliar environment, do you just assume you will get it right purely by instinct and accident, or do you actually ask for the development package?

[alexsanchez]

But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.

The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.

Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.

I thought the Apollo camera film made positives (slides), not negatives?

The possible changing of FOV is what makes me wonder.  I haven't checked the pics in a graphic editor yet.  Probably somebody has done that, but I haven't seen anything.  Hard to say for sure just eyeballing it.

[alexsanchez]

I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.  I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...

So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.

You said you worked space station guidance.  What exactly did you do?

uninformed = false premise
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something).  Target code ran on an i386.

So what happened?  You use your entire brain to do your work, but to show that every one of your co-workers is either an idiot or a liar you don't need to actually think that hard?

Lemme ask you this.  If you are about to program in an unfamiliar environment, do you just assume you will get it right purely by instinct and accident, or do you actually ask for the development package?

I get it right by instinct.  The development package was crap and we had to correct errors in the generated code all the time.

[AtomicDog]

But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.

But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.

The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.

Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.

I thought the Apollo camera film made positives (slides), not negatives?

The possible changing of FOV is what makes me wonder.  I haven't checked the pics in a graphic editor yet.  Probably somebody has done that, but I haven't seen anything.  Hard to say for sure just eyeballing it.

The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.

Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.

I thought the Apollo camera film made positives (slides), not negatives?

The possible changing of FOV is what makes me wonder.  I haven't checked the pics in a graphic editor yet.  Probably somebody has done that, but I haven't seen anything.  Hard to say for sure just eyeballing it.

The Apollo 12 cameras shot black and white negative film as well as color transparencies.

[nomuse]

But, it looks like the FOV has changed.  They should be 63 degrees.  I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.

The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.

Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.

I thought the Apollo camera film made positives (slides), not negatives?

The possible changing of FOV is what makes me wonder.  I haven't checked the pics in a graphic editor yet.  Probably somebody has done that, but I haven't seen anything.  Hard to say for sure just eyeballing it.

Hard to tell without the appropriate skills, too.

Starting with plane geometry.