Documentary - Moon Landing Hoax - Conspiracy Theory - part (5)

Documentary - Moon Landing Hoax - Conspiracy Theory - Did We Land On The Moon (Fox TV) -- part (5)

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• science
• Technology

[sadqadqadqad]

@QuanhShow "Mythbusters" an american show funded to have bias opinions and base their conclusions on flimsy data. don't fool yourself.

[QuanhShow]

@QuanhShow

Also watch did we really land on the Moon? Dr Martin Hendry - Science Week 2010 lecture

[BearDown815]

apollo 18!!



[skysurfer5cva]

@85bigpun Now, by way of your name-calling regarding people who know we have been to the moon, you have quite smugly claimed we haven't. It's up to you to prove that we didn't go to the moon. Without proof, your claims are nothing but a silly rant by an ignorant person. Let me give you a hint:  you WON'T be able to prove your claim because your claim can't be proved, it can't only be refuted (and easily at that).

[skysurfer5cva]

@85bigpun Just because someone isn't a good public speaker does not mean they don't know what they are talking about. The evidence for 6 successful Apollo moon landings is overwhelming and incontrovertible. You are entitled to whatever silly opinions you want, but you are not entitled to your own facts. NASA claimed we went and has provided mountains of physical evidence (moon rocks, Surveyor 3 parts, laser reflectors, photos, etc) and analysis.

[85bigpun]

the nasa spokesman at the start of this part cant even give a proper explantion on how the suits protected them all he cud say was "the suits was incrediblely tough and very resiliant to lots of difrent thing!... come on does this guy sound convincing... he sounds like hes struggling to answer the question... lol people who believe we have been to the moon are idiots!

[skysurfer5cva]

@TheX3meGuitar Taking shutter speed, aperture, & ISO into account, my 1s exposure is 750x the daytime exposure, my 1m exposure is 45,000x, & my 8m exposure is 360,000x . Thus, if you set a camera for daylight exposure (such as the astronaut's cameras), it won't gather enough light to show stars. That's why there aren't any stars in the Apollo photos. Try it: go out a night with a camera set for daytime exposure & see if you get any stars. Maybe you will learn something.

[skysurfer5cva]

@TheX3meGuitar A typical daytime exposure per the well-known "sunny 16 rule" says 1/125s at f/16 at ISO 100 for a bright sunlit landscape (incl. lunar daytime). At ISO 200 and f/2, it takes over 1s to get the brightest stars and about 1 minute to get a decent image and about 8 minutes to get a good image (I did this experiment for a presentation I gave in 2004 on astrophotography).

[skysurfer5cva]

@TheX3meGuitar Of course, there aren't any stars in the photos. Your comment indicates you know nothing about photography. The moon landings were made during lunar daytime (which BTW is a 2-week long event at any particular spot) so the cameras were set for daytime exposures, with fast, fractional second exposure times. It takes long exposures to get stars to show up.

[Andy97009814]

"I would invite NASA to get me photographs of it."

Now they have done just that! They even have photos of Armstrong's footprints!

[Fate264]

@TheX3meGuitar stars up in the night sky because your pupils have shrunk to let less light inside, and the stars are dimly lit and don't provide enough light to be seen. If you would like a video demonstration please check here:

/watch?v=pTkaf0Jhupk

At about 3:05.

[Fate264]

@TheX3meGuitar Hello again! For the waving flag, please look at my response to lmafaoatthat. If you wish for me to explain again, just ask. In terms of no stars, the moon's surface is a peculiar one because it reflects light, that is why we see it at night. So when photographing the bright moon's surface, you would have to mess with the exposure time of the camera. This excluded the dimly lit stars. It works the same with light pollution. When there are too many lights around you >