moon landing

[MID]

Why wasn't the sun striking the window for the previous several minutes of the video do you think ? What changed in that two seconds ?

The camera setting.

[kilter]

There's no reason to believe the camera setting changed, however the astronaut was preparing to move from a dark environment to a light environment when the covers were removed from the windows which they were. That would make whatever the camera was pointing at darker rather than lighter.

The covers were there as we heard earlier to allow filming outside the craft with no interference from the sun or internal light sources..

It's absolutely untenable that Michael Collins being seen very clearly beside a flood of light pouring through the window could be the result of anything but a very powerful external source of light. A source which wasn't there when the earth was being filmed against the darkness of space. No camera setting could compensate for that.

Edited September 17, 2006 by kilter

[nomuse]

31:37 (Astronaut) "That's right, we're taking back from the window and re-configuring for interior lighting." Earth zoom away, then camera begins moving; presumably being physically moved from window.

32:04 (Houston) "It appears we can see a floodlight....either that or some sun shining through the left window."

32.15 camera opens up; interior light seen becomes brighter and inside of cabin dimly visible. Houston remarks they are starting to get interior.

32:37 (Houston) "It's a little dark there, 11. Maybe a bigger f-stop would help." <-- this is a CLEAR indication that the camera settings were altered. Also, at the previous time mark the image behaves exactly as if the aperture is opened; the visible artificial light becomes brighter until it is overexposed, and the astronaut between us and this visible light fades into visibility. Adding an external light to this scene at this moment would not look like this; the interior light would be masked, and the highlighting would be from off-camera.

34:24 (Houston) "...when you take the camera over to the window where the sun's shining in tends to blank it out though."

Seems pretty straight-forward to me. Interior lights are dim, and even a distant Earth is dim, compared with sunlight. About the only thing that isn't clear just from watching this video is if only the f-stop was changed, or if there had been (I suspect there was) some sort of shuttering or masking of the sun-facing windows.

So they brought the camera back from extreme zoom and pulled it away from the window, then adjusted the f-stop. It's all clearly described, and more than that, that is what it looks like in the video.

What is it you believe was happening in this scene? And perhaps more importantly, WHY do you think they would have done it that way? Given that film since the 1930's had the ability to do on-set special effects as simple as a visible Earth, and that the behavior of light in enclosed spaces is pretty well intuitively understood by most people, why would a hoax ignore the simplest, most logical, and most convincing methods of doing this scene in favor of some confused method of cardboard cutouts and external floodlights?

[MID]

There's no reason to believe the camera setting changed, however the astronaut was preparing to move from a dark environment to a light environment when the covers were removed from the windows which they were. That would make whatever the camera was pointing at darker rather than lighter.

No reason to believe the camera setting was changed to photograph interior views?

What are you talking about?

You clearly hear Charlie Duke tell Mike Collins, once they've opened up the F-Stop a little to get a picture of the interior, "..It's a little dark right now 11...maybe a bigger F-Stop might help."

To which Mike replies, "Yea that's in work," and shortly, the interior becomes brighter and clearer.

Of course they reset the F-Stop. How else are they going to image the interior, when what they were shooting was a very brilliant blue ball out the #1 window (Us...) which required a smaller F-Stop to image it without overcoming the camera with a white blob?

There were no covers removed at this point. The star charts had been placed over the #5 window (the one on the opposite side, or left of the spacecraft), because the Sun was at that point coming directly in that window. That disrupts everyone's eyes inside a spacecraft. You never see the #2 and #4 windows, and of course #3 (the center hatch, was not covered, as was the condition with #1.

The fact is they were moving the camera and re-setting it from a very bright light situation (the Earth under magnification-- a very bright globe in the pitch darkness that had an angular size of approximately 2" at arm's length...much larger and much brighter than the Moon as we see it on a clear winter's night) to a dimmer situation where a larger F-Stop was required....not the other way around.

The covers were there as we heard earlier to allow filming outside the craft with no interference from the sun or internal light sources..

The only cover we know of, #5's star charts, was in place because without it, the interior would've been too bright for any interior photography to be made, and may have interfered with the Earth filming out the window.

It's absolutely untenable that Michael Collins being seen very clearly beside a flood of light pouring through the window could be the result of anything but a very powerful external source of light. A source which wasn't there when the earth was being filmed against the darkness of space. No camera setting could handle that.

That is an opinion, which is not based on any concrete knowledge of the Apollo TV camera or its operation. The flood of light pouring through the #1 window was what happens when the Earth's very bright light enters a camera with an opened F-Stop.

In other words, it was a very powerful external light source, especially as far as a TV camera goes. That light was the Earth. When you close up the setting, you can then image that Earth out the window and focus on it. When you open it up, the Earthlight will become diffuse and just be a bright glow.

This is a common effect, not something unusual. It was not a source of light that wasn't there when they were filming the earth...it was the same one...the Earth itself.

The Sun wasn't striking that window they shot the Earth through. The Sun was on the other side of the spacecraft in it's attitude at that time...(which was PTC stopped, a very slight drift probable, the nose of the spacecreaft pointed perpendicular ("up", as-it-were, relative to the ecliptic, with the left side facing the earth and the right side facing the Sun and Moon (the Moon being almost in line with the Sun and the spacecraft at that point).

I'm wondering what the point of all this is anyway.

This was a completely normal, somewhat routine TV transmission from the Apollo 11 spacrecraft on July 17, 1969 (starting at 1931 hours EDT...a time that is confirmed by the visual of the Earth itself, by the way..the terminator was just off the East coast of the United States, where it generally is an hour or so before sunset in those parts...).

Perhaps there is some sinister implication in these mis-conceptions of what you're seeing?

[kilter]

In this video at 3:40 Aldrin says "We shut out the sun coming in from some of the other windows into the space craft"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...+moon&hl=en

Yes, the bright light was probably the earth but not at 130,000 miles away at that brightness and especially not filling both the windows with its light, that is a very wide angle.. In the dark shot, the earth is apparently very small and no brighter than a dim internal light because both are shown together at 31 minutes forward.

"<-- this is a CLEAR indication that the camera settings were altered. Also, at the previous time mark the image behaves exactly as if the aperture is opened; the visible artificial light becomes brighter until it is overexposed, and the astronaut between us and this visible light fades into visibility. Adding an external light to this scene at this moment would not look like this; the interior light would be masked, and the highlighting would be from off-camera.".

It is no indication that the camera has been adjusted previously. The window on the left appears instantly then the one on the right as if something has been removed not due to a camera adjustment. At 32:30 the light blue of the earth is very noticable.

Mid

How is it that you are able to provide incredibly detailed scientific information about every aspect of the Apollo missions even the astronauts themselves probably wouldn't manage after thirty seven years ?

Where did you get your expertise and knowledge ?

Edited September 18, 2006 by kilter

[Trinitrotoluene]

He does thorough research when he needs specifics and analyses everything before jumping to a conclusion, unlike some people on this board.

[nomuse]

I'm noticing here that Kilter uses phrases like "it was bright," whereas MID or others use phrases like "it was brighTER." My experience -- theatrical lighting design and a fair amount of photography under unusual conditions -- shows me that the latter phrasing is useful, but the former is at best misleading.

This isn't semantics. This is how the real world works. Over the course of an ordinary day your eyes will encounter differences in illumination that are many magnitudes different; from the soft glow of a nightlight to the powerful glare of a noonday sun.

Take something as simple as a flashlight. Is it bright? Not in daylight, it isn't. Is it weak? Not in the middle of the night, it isn't. Depending on the surrounding conditions and your own dark adaption a flashlight can range from a dim orange glow to a brilliant blue-white beam. The same flashlight, as perceived against different backgrounds.

Saying that the Earthlight coming in through the windows was "too strong" is begging assumptions. Stronger than what? Stronger than the camera is set for? Stronger than cabin lights (and how powerful were they?) You can not make a blanket description like this. You must compare that light to the conditions it is seen against.

[AtomicDog]

Mid

How is it that you are able to provide incredibly detailed scientific information about every aspect of the Apollo missions even the astronauts themselves probably wouldn't manage after thirty seven years ?

Where did you get your expertise and knowledge ?

How is it that there are people that can recite the troop movements of every battle of the Civil War?

How is it that there are people that can provide the details of every baseball game that Lou Gehrig made a hit in?

[kilter]

I'm noticing here that Kilter uses phrases like "it was bright," whereas MID or others use phrases like "it was brighTER." My experience -- theatrical lighting design and a fair amount of photography under unusual conditions -- shows me that the latter phrasing is useful, but the former is at best misleading.

This isn't semantics. This is how the real world works. Over the course of an ordinary day your eyes will encounter differences in illumination that are many magnitudes different; from the soft glow of a nightlight to the powerful glare of a noonday sun.

Take something as simple as a flashlight. Is it bright? Not in daylight, it isn't. Is it weak? Not in the middle of the night, it isn't. Depending on the surrounding conditions and your own dark adaption a flashlight can range from a dim orange glow to a brilliant blue-white beam. The same flashlight, as perceived against different backgrounds.

Saying that the Earthlight coming in through the windows was "too strong" is begging assumptions. Stronger than what? Stronger than the camera is set for? Stronger than cabin lights (and how powerful were they?) You can not make a blanket description like this. You must compare that light to the conditions it is seen against.

At one moment the window shows black space with a dim and SMALL earth. Twi seconds later, light is apperntly blazing equally through both windows showing that the width of the earth is extremely large.

I am not trying to convince anyone because I have experienceof discussing these issues before and it's remarkable that ten people can be absolutely certain their version of reality is correct even of it contradicts the other nine.

Edited September 18, 2006 by kilter

[kilter]

How is it that there are people that can recite the troop movements of every battle of the Civil War?

How is it that there are people that can provide the details of every baseball game that Lou Gehrig made a hit in?

It takes no scientific training or intellect to remember sports facts, making absolute judgements on subtle issues of science does. I taught beside a number of science phd's for about 12 years and they weren't nearly as confident commenting on simple issues as people on this forum appear to be on exxtremely complex ones. A sine qua non of intelligence is knowing your limits.

[flyingswan]

At one moment the window shows black space with a dim and SMALL earth. Twi seconds later, light is apperntly blazing equally through both windows showing that the width of the earth is extremely large.

Do you actually understand the concept of camera exposure setting? Have you ever experienced light being reflected/diffracted round the corner of a window?

Try sitting in a darkened room at night. Have someone out of your line of sight point a torch at the window. Do outside light sources have to be directly visible for the window to be lighter than the walls around it?

Edited September 18, 2006 by flyingswan

[flyingswan]

I taught beside a number of science phd's for about 12 years and they weren't nearly as confident commenting on simple issues as people on this forum appear to be on exxtremely complex ones.

Are you referring to "the moon emits gamma rays - it's deadly" line of argument?

[AtomicDog]

It takes no scientific training or intellect to remember sports facts, making absolute judgements on subtle issues of science does. I taught beside a number of science phd's for about 12 years and they weren't nearly as confident commenting on simple issues as people on this forum appear to be on exxtremely complex ones. A sine qua non of intelligence is knowing your limits.

You didn't say anything about making judgements on subtle issues of science. You asked about providing detailed scientific information. A lot of times that is merely a matter of looking up flight logs and reading research papers.

A lot of the issues that HBs seem to be fixated on are extremely simple ones. The lack of stars in moon photos, for example, doesn't faze the most elementary photography student.

Edited September 18, 2006 by AtomicDog

[kilter]

Are you referring to "the moon emits gamma rays - it's deadly" line of argument?

I'm referring to most aspects of the discussion.

You didn't say anything about making judgements on subtle issues of science. You asked about providing detailed scientific information. A lot of times that is merely a matter of looking up flight logs and reading research papers.

A lot of the issues that HBs seem to be fixated on are extremely simple ones. The lack of stars in moon photos, for example, doesn't faze the most elementary photography student.

No it really isn't at all, mid makes absolute pronouncements on subjects of considerable complexity.

The stars issue isn't that simple at all, in fact it's quite complex and I haven't read one amateur science pundit who understands it. They scorn imaginary people for saying there are no stars in the (bright) photographs when the issue is that there are no stars mentioned or photographed on any of the missions (except in ultra violet) . You coud take a photograph on earth which would be much less distinct than the moon and the stars would be in the same place, but the planets wouldn't so putting forward a a photgraph of a planet saying it was taken on the moon wouldn't work.

Mathematics is the language of science and I have almost never seen an amateur 'scientist' use it . I do not now nor have I ever considered myself to be a scientist or to have any expertise in the area.

Edited September 18, 2006 by kilter

[flyingswan]

Kilter, have you ever actually taken a photo of stars?

You need an exposure time of tens of seconds at full aperture. This means you can't use a hand-held camera, it involves setting up a tripod. Why should the Apollo astronauts waste time on doing this? No-one would be interested in how much the planets move between an earth and a moon photo, because the moving earth itself provides a much longer baseline to make this sort of measurements.

Edited September 18, 2006 by flyingswan

[kilter]

Kilter, have you ever actually taken a photo of stars?

I cannot see the relevance of that.It can be done by amateurs so it could have been done by NASA on the moon. They took ultra violet pictures.

[flyingswan]

I cannot see the relevance of that.It can be done by amateurs so it could have been done by NASA on the moon. They took ultra violet pictures.

Which couldn't be done from inside the earth's atmosphere, and which did involve setting up a tripod.

What would a visual-spectrum photo have produced that would add to what you can do from earth?

The relevance is that it might have given you some insight into the relation between the quality of the results and the difficulty of gaining them.

Edited September 18, 2006 by flyingswan

[AtomicDog]

I cannot see the relevance of that.It can be done by amateurs so it could have been done by NASA on the moon. They took ultra violet pictures.

1. How are those not photos of stars?

2. Amateurs can and do take ultraviolet photos of stars.

[Lilly]

Kilter, I'm hearing some things from you that I'd like clarified.

How is it that you are able to provide incredibly detailed scientific information about every aspect of the Apollo missions even the astronauts themselves probably wouldn't manage after thirty seven years ?

Why wouldn't such detailed knowledge have been documented (it actually was)? Add this to having a sound scientific education, having worked on Apollo, doing personal research... MID's ability seems quite reasonable to me.

I taught beside a number of science phd's for about 12 years and they weren't nearly as confident commenting on simple issues as people on this forum appear to be on exxtremely complex ones. A sine qua non of intelligence is knowing your limits.

So, are you saying that *real* scientists don't ever come to a conclusion?

Mathematics is the language of science and I have almost never seen an amateur 'scientist' use it . I do not now nor have I ever considered myself to be a scientist or to have any expertise in the area.

Mathematics is indeed necessary, especially in physics and engineering. Do you think that MID and others here should be posting mathematical calculations? Do you think they aren't capable of this? And in support of what are you calling for the maths?

[kilter]

1. How are those not photos of stars?

2. Amateurs can and do take ultraviolet photos of stars.

Stars, not planets

Which couldn't be done from inside the earth's atmosphere, and which did involve setting up a tripod.

What would a visual-spectrum photo have produced that would add to what you can do from earth?

The relevance is that it might have given you some insight into the relation between the quality of the results and the difficulty of gaining them.

The visual photgraphs would have been much sharper than earth ones. They didn't mention the stars at all, it's totally bizarre but the did play golf and run about like kids on a beach. They took thousands and thousands of photographs of the most banal subjects (each other for example ) but not the stars ?

[AtomicDog]

Mathematics is the language of science and I have almost never seen an amateur 'scientist' use it . I do not now nor have I ever considered myself to be a scientist or to have any expertise in the area.

Oh. Really?

Edited September 18, 2006 by AtomicDog

[Pauly]

I thought it might be a good idea to search for radiation data pertaining to Mars as there seems to be more known about it than the Moon for some reason.

· Compared radiation measurements at Mars using the Martian Radiation Environment Experiment (MARIE) on the Mars Odyssey, with measurements at GOES. The MARIE instrument failed during a large proton event during the Halloween Storm of 2003. A destructive latch-up is suspected to have caused the unrecoverable anomaly. Other Odyssey instruments can be used with limitations (they were not built for charged-particle detection).

[kilter]

Kilter, I'm hearing some things from you that I'd like clarified.

Why wouldn't such detailed knowledge have been documented (it actually was)? Add this to having a sound scientific education, having worked on Apollo, doing personal research... MID's ability seems quite reasonable to me.

So, are you saying that *real* scientists don't ever come to a conclusion?

Mathematics is indeed necessary, especially in physics and engineering. Do you think that MID and others here should be posting mathematical calculations? Do you think they aren't capable of this? And in support of what are you calling for the maths?

I don't believe that anyone who knows what they're talking about makes absolute judgements. All science is estimation It's alright to discuss these things, speculating like a bunch of kids but real analysis of these issues would take an expert in each field Anyone claiming to have expert knowledge across these areas doesn't understand the issues.

Real scientists do not make absolute judgemenets on things outside their area of expertise.

I'm suggesting that no serious discussion of even very basic scientific issues is possible without maths.

[kilter]

Oh. Really?

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that all , I was thinking about the apollo discussions exclusively. I should have made that clear.

[AtomicDog]

Stars, not planets

The visual photgraphs would have been much sharper than earth ones. They didn't mention the stars at all, it's totally bizarre but the did play golf and run about like kids on a beach. They took thousands and thousands of photographs of the most banal subjects (each other for example ) but not the stars ?

You know, I would really like to know where this fascination that HBs have with Alan Shepard taking a couple of golf swings on the moon comes from. In post after post, I read HBs proclaiming their incredulity that he would go to the moon to do something so trivial.

NASA did not send Shepard to the moon to play golf. He had a club made to fit one of his tools and smuggled it and a couple of balls aboard in his personal kit. He figured that the end of his EVAs after all of his work had been accomplished and he had a few minutes to kill before he left the surface of the moon for the last time, he would put on a show for the folks back home.

And it worked. Those golf shots helped bring the Apollo missions down to the level that the average American could understand, and resonated with golfers all over the world. It is one of those things that almost anyone that thinks about Apollo can recall.

Are you really saying that if you could go to the moon, If you had the opportunity, you wouldn't horse around a bit?