"Regarding the Apollo missions I'm not sure these men walked on the Moon,it's possible NASA had cover it up": Brian O' Leary Apollo program scientific adviser and astronaut.
Jan Lundberg was an engineer not a scientist. And he did not say that the astronauts were in a spotlight. He said, it would seem that Armstrong stand in a spotlight and that he could not explain this.
@CHSarahBs Lundberg does not display the photograph he is looking at, which has been provided to him by the hoaxers. The copies of the photographs many of them show have been altered purposefully, or accidentally to show vignetting (they call it fall-off). The copies of the photo I've seen from NASA do not show this effect.
@PsychoSpammer -- Yes. Rather than explaining how items appeared in the picture that could not possibly have been framed in the picture "from the base of the ladder" as you have insisted 5866 was taken from, how about if you just run away laughing like an idiot?
If 5866 were taken "from the base of the ladder" HOW did it include the side of the LM that was facing AWAY from the ladder?
Note Armstrong's position: He is standing well in the distance beyond the ladder.
Now look at picture 5866 from Apollo 11. It contains a portion of the "United States" sign on the far side of the LM. It also shows the base of the ladder, the base of the rocket engine nozzle, and the base of the strut on the far side of the ladder.
That picture is consistent with the position of Armstrong standing in full sun in this video.
@PsychoSpammer -- Most of Aldrin's descent is while Armstrong is on the other side of the ladder and you can't see his orientation.
In the video, the video camera, the ladder, and Armstrong are aligned.
In the picture that Armstrong took of Aldrin descending the ladder, the camera that Armstrong is holding, the ladder, and the strut that the video camera was mounted on are aligned.
The alignment of things is consistent between the video and the still photo.
I've been de-bunking these hoax believers for only a short time and to be honest I thought initially that, being skeptical like me, I might find the exchange of ideas interesting. Unfortunately, hoax believers appear paranoid and credulous rather than skeptical. I suspect that the paranoia is a symptom of mental illness in some respondents and so I wonder what proportion of you have been diagnosed as bipolar or have schizophrenia. Those of you who who do should avoid these sites and seek help.
That sure looks like a spotlight. Funny that NASA's own maps prove the surface of the Moon has nore gamma radiation than the surface of the Sun. Plus X-rays, cosmic ray particles, 400F and -250F temperatures, gloves from hades, strict deadlines or you die a horrible death, but they always took perfect photos? HA!
Euclid wrote "The Elements" around 300 BC. Newton wrote "Principia Mathematica" in 1687. You can't muster a rational thought in 2008?
Most of your objections are wrong, the rest irrelevant, but all driven by your need to sound like a big shot when you really know nothing. You get your information from youtube and media hype from uneducated, psychotic, paranoid pariahs like Sibrel and Rene. And you consider yourself smarter than thousands of rocket scientists around the world for 40 years.
Oh, thank you for being more specific so I know what you're referring to.
If that section says they *only* used those two types of film, then yes it's wrong. I haven't read that piece in its entirety so I'm trusting that you're representing it accurately.
The astronauts also used Ektachrome 160. Quite extensively actually.
Yes, the astro's used E64 and E160. They primarily used E160. What does any of that have to do with St. Mark's hilarious statement that they used "ASA 120" film, or the fact that such a film doesn't even exist?
I'm simply pointing out his utter lack of knowledge about general photography. It's funny when someone pretends to have knowledge they don't. I get a kick out of it.
Anything under a 1-6oth sec exposure requires a tripod to be certain of a crisp image and to get features in the shadow area correctly exposed one would need those lower speeds (such as 1-30th.) But then the surrounding bright surface would be over-exposed.
That's why they would have needed a fill light to balance the picture out exposure-wise, pretty much regardless of film ASA.
Ever taken 400 ASA film to the beach on a bright, sunny day? You'll find that you can't stop your lens down enough. Depth of field gets squirrely when you're forced to use f22 all the time.
And alternatively, while at Photobucket, search Satweavers, view my album, open folder Moon Hoax and see the counterpoint to Saint Mark's chaotic ramblings.
I took your hoax claims point by point and debunked them on Photobucket, and you consider that plagerism. Hillarious! I'm an effects designer, not ride maintenance. I work with projetion, polarizers, thermal imaging cameras, custom optically coated glass mirrors, fiber optics, reflectors, electronics, and a wide variety of other technologies. You make "mountain movies" "Like Svector, only higher up", whatever that means.
"BTW If anyone wants to see the devious tricks this guy gets up to, type Photobucket into Google, then Michaelstmark into search images"
While there, send an email to Mr. Easymark and ask him why he makes no mention of the fake moon photo he used to show on the site, trying to fool viewers into thinking it was authentic.
You'll notice it's curiously missing from page 2, with no explanation for its absence.
Armstrong and the "sunlit lunar surface" have had to be totally overexposed here in order to get Aldrin to show up at all. Yet miraculously on the supposedly synchronous Hasselblads all is beautifully exposed perfectly, sunlit terrain and LM shadow alike.
The lunar module and astronauts in white suits are taller relative to the surface than rocks, so there is more light reflected from the surface providing fill. Light scatter DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ATMOSPHERE!!! Put a subject in a blackened studio with one key light on the subject's right. Place a white card to subjects left and you get reflected fill with one source. Evacuate ALL THE AIR and nothing changes.
Italiano, the "other TV video" you speak of is the DATA Acquisition Camera, which was 16mm film and had the f stop adjusted to improve the exposure of the astronaut on the ladder. The sunlit lunar soil was over exposed by comparison. You are trying very hard to not understand the difference.
Italiano, you don't understand the geometry of the LEM. The descent module was octagonal and the face with the MWEA where this vid camera was mounted was canted back 45 degrees from the ladder side.THis does not contradict Neil's position when he took the photo in question.
"for the entire frame to be in near perfect exposure, there had to be a fill LIGHT (as in studio) being used."
Apparently not! And what the fuck would you know about it? When you've been to the moon and taken pictures you're welcome back to tell us all about how they differ from the Apollo photos.
I know what ASA 120 film can and cannot do. Your pet idea that a partially sunlit spacesuit can illuminate a huge shadow area so as it exposes well along with "sunlight on the lunar surface" is utterly ridiculous.
You're the one who's busted Airbuzz, you may as well face it.
There is no logical photographic explanation for perfect exposure and focus from a hand-held camera c/w only a 120 ASA film sensitivity, for those low light Aldrin-on-the-ladder Hasselblad pictures.
They would have been simply impossible to achieve without a strong artificial fill light to enable the at least 1/ 60th sec exposure setting required for their excellent crispness.
It's not MY know-how Airbuzz, it's basic photo science.
Where, for example, in sunlit photos on earth do you find shadow sides of large objects as well exposed as in the Buzz/LM shots alongside sunlit terrain also well exposed?
The human eye has the dynamic range do it - but certainly not stills cameras without the use of a powerful fill light.
Listen up, Windley minion. The lighting on the moon or on a NASA-simulated moon set would be extremely harsh. There would be no atmospheric diffusion in the lunar day or at night on earth using a spotlight.
To expose detail in both the shadow side of objects AND in the surrounding "sunlit" landscape in the same photograph, using 120 ASA film in a hand-held camera would be impossible without fill lighting.
Well, the moon can light up the night even here on earth so I bet the lunar surface can aid in lighting a LM and also Neil was pretty well lit up as you can see. Clearly you're wrong, as demonstrated by the actual photos and this video. (Where detail is visible in the shadow even though there are no signs of multiple light sources)
" Well, the moon can light up the night even here on earth.."
To your eyes it can. To invent film that captures the same dynamic light range that the human eye can resolve is the holy grail of photography.
Only D. Bowie in " The Man Who Fell to Earth" has done it to date, Airbuzz.
The naked eye is hundreds of times more light- sensitive than film. That's how we know Armstrong was lying when he said he couldn't see stars from the moon surface.
I think the behaviour of Armstrong and Collins when MC chipped in 'he couldn't remember seeing any' at that press conference told it's own story.
Why didn't they ever change the Hassy camera exposure setting, put it on a tripod stand in the shade, point it away from the Spotlight, and get the most amazing pics of the cosmos with a badly exposed Moonset in the foreground? Six missions to do this ONCE!
They could have even set it on a timer in the shade of the LM when they were inside!
Thirty five Billion $s and NASA can't be arsed to include one solitary tripod on any Apollo mission - that most basic standard obligatory piece of photographers' kit.
Why did they leave it out?
What were they scared of?
The impossibility of forging optical spectrum arrays of star pics "from the moon"?
They can jam NASA's Chitty Chitty Bang Bang into the side of the LM but not a simple camera tripod stand.
We must not forget however that some bright spark at NASA remembered to tell Apollo 16 to take along the U.V. telescope for those 'clangers' style space images.
Oh yeah, those one or two psychedilic jam rolly poly star pics are the best yet! Make sense of those abstract art wonders and you'll win the Nobel physics prize!
Yes I remember Mr 'I own all the 'raw NASA footage' and made a video about Apollo flags not being on a Moonset because they aren't fluttering when the Astro-nots go by, but somehow I must have missed the Apollo 15 flag' threatening to clamp us all with those psychedellic beauts.
Wonder what happened to smectors A16 UV star images video?
And he'd closely studied and analysed hours upon hours of 'raw NASA footage' just to make sure there was no moon dust clouds.
He must have been looking below that flag when it started fluttering caused by the massive build up of " STATIC ELECTRICIY ON ASTRO-NOT SPACE SUITS- one of the OFFICIAL ALSJ EXCUSES- TM "
He's full of hot air, Green'. Wind' bag svector also said he had extreme Hi res pics of the "Hasselblad" A11 TLC earth pics on his hard drive, but couldn't manifest anything bigger than a timid little 60KB file size pic on his rancid Photobucket site.
"svector also said he had extreme Hi res pics of the "Hasselblad" A11 TLC earth pics on his hard drive, but couldn't manifest anything bigger than a timid little 60KB file size pic"
Would showing you the actual full size scan force you to concede that you're wrong? If yes, I'll gladly show it. If not, there's no point.
I already told you the dimensions: 4600x4400 pixels, and no it didn't come from either of those two sources, and yes it's razor sharp (i.e. not enlarged from a smaller image).
Magoos, I still don't understand what you expect to see on a photograph of the stars from the moon that is so different than the same photograph from earth.
I realize that the Hasselblad may be excellent Swedish craftmanship *ahem* But it's just a little camera! I think you grossly over estimates what it can do with objects many many lightyears away.
Buzz it seems to have taken some amazing Astro-not photos on the Moon *ahem* even with the Suns *ahem* rays blasting down on the surface with no atmosphere.
Give me ONE good reason why NASA never made that a mission objective at least on one of them to try and capture a 'star' image with the Hassy.
If I know I bet NASA know. It's a camera Magoos, not Hubble! What's a camera gonna do? Come on! I bet you that a snapshot of the stars would look very much the same whether it was taken on earth or on Pluto.
If they changed the Hassy camera exposure to a min, maybe two, put it in the shade, pointing away from the direction of the giant spotlight, if there is no atmosphere surely it would have picked up some points of light above a badly exposed Moonset!
Why didn't they at least try it ONCE. It's NASA sponsored for Gawds sake.
They could have simply sat the Hasselblad down on a rock or part of the rover for stability and utilized a time lapse setting on the camera.
I guess digging a heart trench got technical priority.
There was no excuse to leave a simple tripod behind in any case. It would have increased the versatility of the camera many-fold, eg with Cernan's 500mm "rolling rock" shots that came out all a blur.
So you've re-sized Kip Teague's scan. It won't show any more detail than the images already available however, I don't do deals with fake rotation frauds.
Teague promised us hi res pics of the TLC Hasselblads over a year ago -still ziltch. Can't say you'll do better than him, wee schoolboy.
Not at all. These are original scans. If they were resized, they'd show clear signs of enlargement. These don't. You still need to explain to me how film was exposed beyond the VA belts and returned to earth, showing the exact same earth the Apollo crew videotaped.
What's the matter? Afraid seeing them might shatter your little made-up fantasy?
I would say that it was a nice try by Groves. He was right that there was a light source, he just didn't realize, or did not want to make public, that it was Neil Armstrong and no studio light.
You're trying to convince people that a sunlit patch of spacesuit could fill out the entire shadow side of the LM.
That's preposterous, Airbuzz, you're grasping at straws.
That's standard 120 ASA film being used - for the entire frame to be in near perfect exposure, there had to be a fill LIGHT (as in studio) being used. Period.
"If Armstrong was in the sun why wasn't the picture heavily over exposed and not the very clear image we see"
OMG Eric, will you please just shut up when the subject of photography comes up? You honestly are the most photographically illiterate imbecile I've ever encountered.
You have absolutely no concept of the process required to produce a properly exposed photo do you? Be honest.
The light source is "24-36" (very accurate...) cm to the right of the camera. That's about one foot and it matches Armstrong's heavily sunlit right side.
Well done Dr Groves!
I wish the poster of the David Groves video would let me use this one as a video response, but it seems he's not going to.
This has been flagged as spam show
"Regarding the Apollo missions I'm not sure these men walked on the Moon,it's possible NASA had cover it up": Brian O' Leary Apollo program scientific adviser and astronaut.
watch?v=lOyYZIW0zvY
potrodsas 9 months ago
Comment removed
swfcocs1 9 months ago
Jan Lundberg was an engineer not a scientist. And he did not say that the astronauts were in a spotlight. He said, it would seem that Armstrong stand in a spotlight and that he could not explain this.
Sounds a little bit different, right?
CHSarahBs 10 months ago
@CHSarahBs Lundberg does not display the photograph he is looking at, which has been provided to him by the hoaxers. The copies of the photographs many of them show have been altered purposefully, or accidentally to show vignetting (they call it fall-off). The copies of the photo I've seen from NASA do not show this effect.
ToyRail 2 days ago
Jan Lundberg from Hasselblad said the astronauts were in the spotlight
Yes the scientist who Nasa asked to modify the cameras with they used
to Fake pictures on the Fake moon landings mocked Nasa
fuckutube74 11 months ago
@PsychoSpammer -- Yes. Rather than explaining how items appeared in the picture that could not possibly have been framed in the picture "from the base of the ladder" as you have insisted 5866 was taken from, how about if you just run away laughing like an idiot?
If 5866 were taken "from the base of the ladder" HOW did it include the side of the LM that was facing AWAY from the ladder?
You have no answer. So you just go away.
Bye.
nesokretep 1 year ago
Note Armstrong's position: He is standing well in the distance beyond the ladder.
Now look at picture 5866 from Apollo 11. It contains a portion of the "United States" sign on the far side of the LM. It also shows the base of the ladder, the base of the rocket engine nozzle, and the base of the strut on the far side of the ladder.
That picture is consistent with the position of Armstrong standing in full sun in this video.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@PsychoSpammer -- That is correct. He could not have been standing at the base of the ladder when he took that picture.
There are things in that picture that you could not possibly see from the base of the ladder.
The picture must have been taken from a position as far back from the ladder as the video shows Armstrong being.
Thank you.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@PsychoSpammer -- Most of Aldrin's descent is while Armstrong is on the other side of the ladder and you can't see his orientation.
In the video, the video camera, the ladder, and Armstrong are aligned.
In the picture that Armstrong took of Aldrin descending the ladder, the camera that Armstrong is holding, the ladder, and the strut that the video camera was mounted on are aligned.
The alignment of things is consistent between the video and the still photo.
nesokretep 1 year ago
APOLLO MOON HOAX
nasafakedit 1 year ago
The "artificial light source" nonsense was debunked years before this nonsense video was uploaded.
edmfw 1 year ago
Nasa's Motto
If we cant make it
WE FAKE IT"
6 times
nasafakedit 2 years ago
@nasafakedit how gay
fiddlestickszz 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
Jomo is a shill whore
nasafakedit 2 years ago
Great work! There are hundres of cross references on TV/16mm film/photos, if only the paranoid hoaxers wouldcare to investigate.
earospace 3 years ago
THANK-YOU!
libere 3 years ago
I've been de-bunking these hoax believers for only a short time and to be honest I thought initially that, being skeptical like me, I might find the exchange of ideas interesting. Unfortunately, hoax believers appear paranoid and credulous rather than skeptical. I suspect that the paranoia is a symptom of mental illness in some respondents and so I wonder what proportion of you have been diagnosed as bipolar or have schizophrenia. Those of you who who do should avoid these sites and seek help.
snoberts 3 years ago 2
That sure looks like a spotlight. Funny that NASA's own maps prove the surface of the Moon has nore gamma radiation than the surface of the Sun. Plus X-rays, cosmic ray particles, 400F and -250F temperatures, gloves from hades, strict deadlines or you die a horrible death, but they always took perfect photos? HA!
apolloscam 4 years ago
And NORAD can't find a commercial airplane on it's radar on 9/11 going toward the Pentagon...
AzraelEngel2 3 years ago
NASA went ot the moon in 1969 but youtube can't make the comments work in 2007?
apolloscam 4 years ago 2
Euclid wrote "The Elements" around 300 BC. Newton wrote "Principia Mathematica" in 1687. You can't muster a rational thought in 2008?
Most of your objections are wrong, the rest irrelevant, but all driven by your need to sound like a big shot when you really know nothing. You get your information from youtube and media hype from uneducated, psychotic, paranoid pariahs like Sibrel and Rene. And you consider yourself smarter than thousands of rocket scientists around the world for 40 years.
Astrobrant2 3 years ago
Oh, thank you for being more specific so I know what you're referring to.
If that section says they *only* used those two types of film, then yes it's wrong. I haven't read that piece in its entirety so I'm trusting that you're representing it accurately.
The astronauts also used Ektachrome 160. Quite extensively actually.
svector 4 years ago
"I think he said he knows what 120 ASA is capable of"
Go back and read what I said. There is NO SUCH THING as 120 ASA film. Hence, St. Mark is a moron.
"Are they wrong?"
Wrong about what? I'm pointing out St. Mark's daftness. What does this have to do with the ALSJ? Do you see "120 ASA film" mentioned there anywhere?
svector 4 years ago
Yes, the astro's used E64 and E160. They primarily used E160. What does any of that have to do with St. Mark's hilarious statement that they used "ASA 120" film, or the fact that such a film doesn't even exist?
I'm simply pointing out his utter lack of knowledge about general photography. It's funny when someone pretends to have knowledge they don't. I get a kick out of it.
svector 4 years ago
Anything under a 1-6oth sec exposure requires a tripod to be certain of a crisp image and to get features in the shadow area correctly exposed one would need those lower speeds (such as 1-30th.) But then the surrounding bright surface would be over-exposed.
That's why they would have needed a fill light to balance the picture out exposure-wise, pretty much regardless of film ASA.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
Ever taken 400 ASA film to the beach on a bright, sunny day? You'll find that you can't stop your lens down enough. Depth of field gets squirrely when you're forced to use f22 all the time.
satweavers 4 years ago
Is that right satweavers? And you can expose objects in shadow as well as the surrounding sunlit ground can you, with your super film?
Why not post some examples on your "really original" PB page?
BTW If anyone wants to see the devious tricks this guy gets up to, type Photobucket into Google, then Michaelstmark into "search images"
michaelstmark 4 years ago
And alternatively, while at Photobucket, search Satweavers, view my album, open folder Moon Hoax and see the counterpoint to Saint Mark's chaotic ramblings.
satweavers 4 years ago
.. and know that I provided all the leads for him to twist and distort by showing false comparisons.
Without my prompts his pathetic PB web page would not even be in existence. No wonder he services the rides at Disneyland for a living.
Poor sad old fcuk.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
I took your hoax claims point by point and debunked them on Photobucket, and you consider that plagerism. Hillarious! I'm an effects designer, not ride maintenance. I work with projetion, polarizers, thermal imaging cameras, custom optically coated glass mirrors, fiber optics, reflectors, electronics, and a wide variety of other technologies. You make "mountain movies" "Like Svector, only higher up", whatever that means.
satweavers 4 years ago
Glad you've done your research, Mr hi tech Mickey Mouse - now let the people decide.
Google Photobucket & type Michaelstmark into the search images toolbar.
See this dolt for what he is.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
Google Photobucket, Search Satweavers, View my album and open folders Moon Hoax, Views of Earth and many others. Compare my analysis with his.
satweavers 4 years ago
And know I provided all the leads and prompts for this clown to distort.
Why does satweavers continue to use false compares? Why not like with like? Why visible spectrum color against infra red black and white?
Why bother with this plagiarizing idiot at all?
Google Photobucket, "search images" enter Michaelstmark to see the antics this Disney employee gets up to.
Watermelon Earth, satbeaver? Don't put us on!
michaelstmark 4 years ago
"BTW If anyone wants to see the devious tricks this guy gets up to, type Photobucket into Google, then Michaelstmark into search images"
While there, send an email to Mr. Easymark and ask him why he makes no mention of the fake moon photo he used to show on the site, trying to fool viewers into thinking it was authentic.
You'll notice it's curiously missing from page 2, with no explanation for its absence.
svector 4 years ago
Armstrong and the "sunlit lunar surface" have had to be totally overexposed here in order to get Aldrin to show up at all. Yet miraculously on the supposedly synchronous Hasselblads all is beautifully exposed perfectly, sunlit terrain and LM shadow alike.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
Thanks again for the info, Michael. :-)
1967jrewing 4 years ago
The lunar module and astronauts in white suits are taller relative to the surface than rocks, so there is more light reflected from the surface providing fill. Light scatter DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ATMOSPHERE!!! Put a subject in a blackened studio with one key light on the subject's right. Place a white card to subjects left and you get reflected fill with one source. Evacuate ALL THE AIR and nothing changes.
satweavers 4 years ago
Italiano, the "other TV video" you speak of is the DATA Acquisition Camera, which was 16mm film and had the f stop adjusted to improve the exposure of the astronaut on the ladder. The sunlit lunar soil was over exposed by comparison. You are trying very hard to not understand the difference.
satweavers 4 years ago
Italiano, you don't understand the geometry of the LEM. The descent module was octagonal and the face with the MWEA where this vid camera was mounted was canted back 45 degrees from the ladder side.THis does not contradict Neil's position when he took the photo in question.
satweavers 4 years ago
1967jrewing. Thank you mate!
Airbuzz 4 years ago
No problem, Airbuzz. Debate away!
1967jrewing 4 years ago
Airbuzz. . . . .you still with us?
michaelstmark 4 years ago
I'm here Mike! Tired but alive.
Airbuzz 4 years ago
That's okay AirB' - you're allowed a rest before we put you back on the comments rack again :)
michaelstmark 4 years ago
That's mighty generous of you Mike!
Airbuzz 4 years ago
"for the entire frame to be in near perfect exposure, there had to be a fill LIGHT (as in studio) being used."
Apparently not! And what the fuck would you know about it? When you've been to the moon and taken pictures you're welcome back to tell us all about how they differ from the Apollo photos.
Airbuzz 4 years ago
I know what ASA 120 film can and cannot do. Your pet idea that a partially sunlit spacesuit can illuminate a huge shadow area so as it exposes well along with "sunlight on the lunar surface" is utterly ridiculous.
You're the one who's busted Airbuzz, you may as well face it.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
"I know what ASA 120 film can and cannot do."
No you don't.
"Your pet idea that a partially sunlit spacesuit can illuminate a huge shadow area..."
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the ground reflects the most light and that Neil causes the hot spot on Buzz' shiny boot.
"You're the one who's busted Airbuzz"
Then why won't the poster of the Groves video accept this as a response?
Airbuzz 4 years ago
There is no logical photographic explanation for perfect exposure and focus from a hand-held camera c/w only a 120 ASA film sensitivity, for those low light Aldrin-on-the-ladder Hasselblad pictures.
They would have been simply impossible to achieve without a strong artificial fill light to enable the at least 1/ 60th sec exposure setting required for their excellent crispness.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
Mike, well I guess NASA didn't have your excellent know-how when it comes to photo techniques. Too bad.
Airbuzz 4 years ago
It's not MY know-how Airbuzz, it's basic photo science.
Where, for example, in sunlit photos on earth do you find shadow sides of large objects as well exposed as in the Buzz/LM shots alongside sunlit terrain also well exposed?
The human eye has the dynamic range do it - but certainly not stills cameras without the use of a powerful fill light.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
Mike, we're talking daylight on earth, shadow sides are generally exposed just fine.
Here's an amateur pic for example which was taken straight into the sun and the shodow side of the object still shows nicely:
img291 dot imageshack dot us/img291/7866/nakano20sakaue20skyscrale1 dot jpg
Airbuzz 4 years ago
Well that link didn't work. You don't need my help though. Plenty of examples online if you care to look.
Airbuzz 4 years ago
Yes, because it was exposed for the shadow side.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
"It's not MY know-how Airbuzz, it's basic photo science"
Well as usual you know better than those stupid fucks at NASA!
Airbuzz 4 years ago
They're not SFs. They're very smart hoaxers.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
"They're not SFs. They're very smart hoaxers"
But not as smart as old Mike!:)
Airbuzz 4 years ago
Listen up, Windley minion. The lighting on the moon or on a NASA-simulated moon set would be extremely harsh. There would be no atmospheric diffusion in the lunar day or at night on earth using a spotlight.
To expose detail in both the shadow side of objects AND in the surrounding "sunlit" landscape in the same photograph, using 120 ASA film in a hand-held camera would be impossible without fill lighting.
Get over it, muscle man.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
"impossible without fill lighting"
Well, the moon can light up the night even here on earth so I bet the lunar surface can aid in lighting a LM and also Neil was pretty well lit up as you can see. Clearly you're wrong, as demonstrated by the actual photos and this video. (Where detail is visible in the shadow even though there are no signs of multiple light sources)
Airbuzz 4 years ago
" Well, the moon can light up the night even here on earth.."
To your eyes it can. To invent film that captures the same dynamic light range that the human eye can resolve is the holy grail of photography.
Only D. Bowie in " The Man Who Fell to Earth" has done it to date, Airbuzz.
The naked eye is hundreds of times more light- sensitive than film. That's how we know Armstrong was lying when he said he couldn't see stars from the moon surface.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
"Armstrong was lying when he said he couldn't see stars from the moon surface."
Why would the necessarily be able to see the stars in broad daylight? Through their helmets too. I wouldn't think that was possible.
Airbuzz 4 years ago
Oh, and why would he even lie about that you figure?
Airbuzz 4 years ago
I think the behaviour of Armstrong and Collins when MC chipped in 'he couldn't remember seeing any' at that press conference told it's own story.
Why didn't they ever change the Hassy camera exposure setting, put it on a tripod stand in the shade, point it away from the Spotlight, and get the most amazing pics of the cosmos with a badly exposed Moonset in the foreground? Six missions to do this ONCE!
They could have even set it on a timer in the shade of the LM when they were inside!
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Right on Green'.
Thirty five Billion $s and NASA can't be arsed to include one solitary tripod on any Apollo mission - that most basic standard obligatory piece of photographers' kit.
Why did they leave it out?
What were they scared of?
The impossibility of forging optical spectrum arrays of star pics "from the moon"?
I think so!
michaelstmark 4 years ago
They can jam NASA's Chitty Chitty Bang Bang into the side of the LM but not a simple camera tripod stand.
We must not forget however that some bright spark at NASA remembered to tell Apollo 16 to take along the U.V. telescope for those 'clangers' style space images.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Oh yeah, those one or two psychedilic jam rolly poly star pics are the best yet! Make sense of those abstract art wonders and you'll win the Nobel physics prize!
lol
michaelstmark 4 years ago
Yes I remember Mr 'I own all the 'raw NASA footage' and made a video about Apollo flags not being on a Moonset because they aren't fluttering when the Astro-nots go by, but somehow I must have missed the Apollo 15 flag' threatening to clamp us all with those psychedellic beauts.
Wonder what happened to smectors A16 UV star images video?
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Blink and you'll miss it, Green'.
"Absolute roars of laughter!!" ;)
michaelstmark 4 years ago
And he'd closely studied and analysed hours upon hours of 'raw NASA footage' just to make sure there was no moon dust clouds.
He must have been looking below that flag when it started fluttering caused by the massive build up of " STATIC ELECTRICIY ON ASTRO-NOT SPACE SUITS- one of the OFFICIAL ALSJ EXCUSES- TM "
greenmagoos 4 years ago
STATIC ELECTRICITY! What TF next!
He's full of hot air, Green'. Wind' bag svector also said he had extreme Hi res pics of the "Hasselblad" A11 TLC earth pics on his hard drive, but couldn't manifest anything bigger than a timid little 60KB file size pic on his rancid Photobucket site.
All bull and bluster, that wee piglet!
michaelstmark 4 years ago
Check out the ALSJ list of possible 'excuses' for the Apollo 15 fluttering flag Mike. That's right theres a 'list' of them.
Everythings there apart from the obvious and real reason for it. As Eric stated it's a suprise they didn't also include a Moonset Poltergeist.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
"svector also said he had extreme Hi res pics of the "Hasselblad" A11 TLC earth pics on his hard drive, but couldn't manifest anything bigger than a timid little 60KB file size pic"
Would showing you the actual full size scan force you to concede that you're wrong? If yes, I'll gladly show it. If not, there's no point.
Your call.
svector 4 years ago
What do you mean by a full size scan? Anything bigger than Kip Teague's done on the Apollo Image Library or the LSJ?
Wow, you do have good inside sources don't you.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
I already told you the dimensions: 4600x4400 pixels, and no it didn't come from either of those two sources, and yes it's razor sharp (i.e. not enlarged from a smaller image).
Like I said, your call.
svector 4 years ago
Magoos, I still don't understand what you expect to see on a photograph of the stars from the moon that is so different than the same photograph from earth.
Airbuzz 4 years ago
Buzz here's what I expect.
An amazing Hassy pic of the Cosmos taken from a planetary body with no atmosphere to scatter light pollution.
Good God even a PAN mocked up a image at the ALSJ showing just how amazing it might/should have been!
greenmagoos 4 years ago
I realize that the Hasselblad may be excellent Swedish craftmanship *ahem* But it's just a little camera! I think you grossly over estimates what it can do with objects many many lightyears away.
Airbuzz 4 years ago
Buzz it seems to have taken some amazing Astro-not photos on the Moon *ahem* even with the Suns *ahem* rays blasting down on the surface with no atmosphere.
Give me ONE good reason why NASA never made that a mission objective at least on one of them to try and capture a 'star' image with the Hassy.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
"Buzz it seems to have taken some amazing Astro-not photos on the Moon *ahem* even with the Suns *ahem*"
TicTac?:p
"Give me ONE good reason why NASA never made that a mission objective at least on one of them to try and capture a 'star' image with the Hassy."
One... Hmm, OK. It would have been useless! That's one reason.
Airbuzz 4 years ago
Did they try to find out if it was useless?
How would they know?
greenmagoos 4 years ago
"How would they know?"
If I know I bet NASA know. It's a camera Magoos, not Hubble! What's a camera gonna do? Come on! I bet you that a snapshot of the stars would look very much the same whether it was taken on earth or on Pluto.
Airbuzz 4 years ago
No it wouldn't Buzz. The horizon would be completely different for a start off.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
What happened buzz, lost your ability to type ?
eric144144 4 years ago
If they changed the Hassy camera exposure to a min, maybe two, put it in the shade, pointing away from the direction of the giant spotlight, if there is no atmosphere surely it would have picked up some points of light above a badly exposed Moonset!
Why didn't they at least try it ONCE. It's NASA sponsored for Gawds sake.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
They could have simply sat the Hasselblad down on a rock or part of the rover for stability and utilized a time lapse setting on the camera.
I guess digging a heart trench got technical priority.
There was no excuse to leave a simple tripod behind in any case. It would have increased the versatility of the camera many-fold, eg with Cernan's 500mm "rolling rock" shots that came out all a blur.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
Heart shaped trenches and take that golf club along for the trip to the Moonset.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Yeah that was it 'magoos, they had to choose between a golf club and a tripod in calculating max payload parameters for the LM.
So. Yet another triumph for science on Apollo then! lol.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
Because there is no sunlight diffusing in an atmosphere to block incoming starlight.
Get an education 'Buzz.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
"Get an education 'Buzz"
I very much am. You should too Mike.
Airbuzz 4 years ago
"The lighting on the moon or on a NASA-simulated moon set would be extremely harsh"
It would? With such harsh lighting, how would one be able to look up and see faint stars as you insist?
Boy, you just can't help but trip over your own big feet, can you?
This from the self-appointed "mountain movie artist", who doesn't even know the difference between a film's format and its ISO rating.
ROFL!
svector 4 years ago
You're pushing your luck Jay, you're asking for your own little dedicated corner on Photobucket.
Don't force me to have to find the time to do it by your continuous irritating and nonsensical little adolescent stick pokes.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
Haha, knock yourself out. I'm sure your two viewers and I will get a big chuckle out of it.
Please proceed, Mr. "120 ASA". Bwaaahahahahaha!!
svector 4 years ago
So you've re-sized Kip Teague's scan. It won't show any more detail than the images already available however, I don't do deals with fake rotation frauds.
Teague promised us hi res pics of the TLC Hasselblads over a year ago -still ziltch. Can't say you'll do better than him, wee schoolboy.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
"So you've re-sized Kip Teague's scan"
Not at all. These are original scans. If they were resized, they'd show clear signs of enlargement. These don't. You still need to explain to me how film was exposed beyond the VA belts and returned to earth, showing the exact same earth the Apollo crew videotaped.
What's the matter? Afraid seeing them might shatter your little made-up fantasy?
svector 4 years ago
"I know what ASA 120 film can and cannot do"
Exist?
svector 4 years ago
"Nice try. Those pics were staged."
I would say that it was a nice try by Groves. He was right that there was a light source, he just didn't realize, or did not want to make public, that it was Neil Armstrong and no studio light.
To be nice I'm gonna assume he didn't know.
Airbuzz 4 years ago
You're trying to convince people that a sunlit patch of spacesuit could fill out the entire shadow side of the LM.
That's preposterous, Airbuzz, you're grasping at straws.
That's standard 120 ASA film being used - for the entire frame to be in near perfect exposure, there had to be a fill LIGHT (as in studio) being used. Period.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
"That's standard 120 ASA film being used"
And you're another photography tard. They primarily used 160 speed Ektachrome. There is no such thing as "120 ASA" film anyway.
GAWT-DAYUM yer stoopid.
svector 4 years ago
Neil was in the sun the entire time while taking the David Groves pics.
Airbuzz 4 years ago
If Armstrong was in the sun why wasn't the picture heavily over exposed and not the very clear image we see.
eric144144 4 years ago
"If Armstrong was in the sun why wasn't the picture heavily over exposed and not the very clear image we see"
OMG Eric, will you please just shut up when the subject of photography comes up? You honestly are the most photographically illiterate imbecile I've ever encountered.
You have absolutely no concept of the process required to produce a properly exposed photo do you? Be honest.
svector 4 years ago
1967jrewing, why will you not accept this video as a response to your David Groves video?
Airbuzz 4 years ago
"It's a huge bloody Spotlight Buzz"
Yeah, the sun! Haha!
"And the heel reflection was a seperate photo session"
Of course it was!
"What happened to the quality of the video?"
Nothing?
Airbuzz 4 years ago
Aldrin the monkey swinging about on the LM ladder looked clearer the last time.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
What happened to your lack of sanity of perception?
Nothing!
michaelstmark 4 years ago
Mike! How you doing, you grumpy bastard! Haha! So what do you say, looks pretty likely that Armstrong is Groves' artificial light source!
Airbuzz 4 years ago
Groves back-traced the heel reflection to a light source a couple of feet to the right of the camera.
And actually if you look at the Hasselblad stills the reflection is not directly facing the camera but offset to one side.
So it isn't Armstrong's big suit - it's a fill light, that's how they got those perfectly exposed shots.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
The light source is "24-36" (very accurate...) cm to the right of the camera. That's about one foot and it matches Armstrong's heavily sunlit right side.
Well done Dr Groves!
I wish the poster of the David Groves video would let me use this one as a video response, but it seems he's not going to.
Airbuzz 4 years ago
It's a huge bloody Spotlight Buzz. How many times do you need to be told.
And the heel reflection was a seperate photo session. What happened to the quality of the video?
greenmagoos 4 years ago