Stars in the Apollo photographs

[dogcatcher 0]

Mr. Straydog has suggested in another thread that the Apollo astronauts just needed to open the f-stop of the lens on their Hasselblad cameras to show stars in the lunar sky.

We know this about 60mm lens used on the lunar Hassselblad cameras. It had a minimum f-stop of F5.6. The film used was either ASA100 or ASA160 (take your pick)

Now Mr. Straydog, what would be the required shutter speed to expose starlight on film given the lens at F5.6 and the ASA at 100 or 160.

Edit to correct the minimum f-stop of the 60mm lens which was F5.6 not F4

Edited December 26, 2006 by dogcatcher

[expo2 0]

Mr. Straydog has suggested in another thread that the Apollo astronauts just needed to open the f-stop of the lens on their Hasselblad cameras to show stars in the lunar sky.

We know this about 60mm lens used on the lunar Hassselblad cameras. It had a minimum f-stop of F4. The film used was either ASA100 or ASA160 (take your pick)

Now Mr. Straydog, what would be the required shutter speed to expose starlight on film given the lens at F4 and the ASA at 100 or 160.

was it anything like:

http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/projects/optical/AP7.html

??

[phunk 0]

No not even remotely.

[straydog 0]

Dogcatcher ... I'm no photographer but I know that in most astrophotography showing photographs of stars the F stop setting is usually set at f/2.8 ... and can go as high as f/3.5 ....

I didn't know that the Apollo Hassleblad camera's F stop settings were designed to only go as low as f/5.6 ... So my statement about the astronauts possibly being able to set their cameras to photograph the stars was wrong .

But my question to you now would be why on earth did NASA have the lunar cameras intentionally designed to NOT be able to photograph the stars in the solar corola , if they knew not only how beautiful they would be from deep space and from the lunar surface , but also that they would have added so much authencity to their moon pictures ?

It seems pretty obvious to me now that NASA never had any intention of ever having to deal with the Apollo astronauts photographing any stars on the way to the moon , in lunar orbit , or on the surface of moon because they knew where their astronauts were really going, that they would never be encountering any stars to photograph anyway .... That is unless NASA had decided to hang some stars from the moon set ceilings !

Thanks for giving me this F stop info .... This adds even more credibilty to the moon hoax claims of why there were never stars in the solid black lunar sky of the phony Apollo photos .... The cameras were designed NOT to photograph them ... How about that ?

[MID 364]

But my question to you now would be why on earth did NASA have the lunar cameras intentionally designed to NOT be able to photograph the stars in the solar corola , if they knew not only how beautiful they would be from deep space and from the lunar surface , but also that they would have added so much authencity to their moon pictures ?

It seems pretty obvious to me now that NASA never had any intention of ever having to deal with the Apollo astronauts photographing any stars on the way to the moon , in lunar orbit , or on the surface of moon because they knew where their astronauts were really going, that they would never be encountering any stars to photograph anyway .... That is unless NASA had decided to hang some stars from the moon set ceilings !

I'm sure dogcatcher will respond, but you've already been told the answer to this question before.

The photography on the Apollo missions was for the purpose of documenting the lunar surface activities and samples and geography. It was not designed to photograph stars in the sky. The beauty of the stars in space was not a criterion for the Apollo lunar science program. Lunar surface exploration, surface science and documentation was.

In that, the photographic assignments were useful, and very successful, as they did indeed document surface activites very well.

(Photographing stars in the solar corona would be a real trick in any case!...you've really got to watch what you're saying )

You're absolutely correct. Stellar photography was not part of the program's intent (we'd already taken millions of pictures of the stars through ground based telescopes in astounding detail before Apollo). We were going to the Moon, to explore the Moon, and document our activities there....right on the surface, an environment for which we had no such photographic record. Thus, camera were chosen with that in mind...not for stellar photography.

They knew precisely where the astronauts were going. Correct again, a brilliant piece of deduction, which also precisely explains why the camera were chosen for their specific purpose.

Thanks for giving me this F stop info .... This adds even more credibilty to the moon hoax claims of why there were never stars in the solid black lunar sky of the phony Apollo photos .... The cameras were designed NOT to photograph them ... How about that ?

I'm sure dogcather is smiling even reading that statement.

It adds credibility to the fact that the camera were utilized to photograph the lunar surface and the vehicles, equipment, and samples. They were not designed to photograph the stars because that wasn't necessary to satisfy the requirements of the lunar photography program. How about that, indeed!

If that re-enforces your idea of credibility in reference the moon hoax claims...we still have a long way to go!

Because,

As has been long ago proven (with not even remotely tenable proof to the contrary), there were no "phony" Apollo photographs...only perhaps phony interpretations of them by charlatans who claimed to know what they were talking about, or simplistic mis-interpretations by those who don't understand basic photographic principals.

[straydog 0]

Great post MID ... You really are a pro at helping NASA cover up their faked moon missions and their faked photography .

Now you are calling me a charlatan too ? ... Wasn't ridiculous and redundant enough of an insult ?

I know enough about photography to know the difference between a real planet from a moon set .... Besides NASA using the same phony looking mountain backdrops for the various different phony looking EVA scenes , they never could quite manage to recreate the effects of that little thing known as depth perception .... Check out some of those phony Apollo photos ... Those big mountains are never more than maybe 10 to 50 feet away from the foreground , instead of the 10 to 50 miles they really should have been .... And the artists didn't do such a terrific job of disguising the dividing line between the background and the foreground either .

Oh and please don't tell me that distance and depth perception looks different in the vacuum of space on the moon because I have seen real moon photos taken from the various unmanned missions and they look NOTHING like the Apollo fakes !

[MID 364]

Great post MID ... You really are a pro at helping NASA cover up their faked moon missions and their faked photography .

Thank you.

See?

I am a NASA dis-information specialist....

In reality, this overtly redundant and boring line you continually use to shield yourself means that I am really very good at showing you where you're off-kilter...so-to-speak.

But whatever...

Now you are calling me a charlatan too ? ... Wasn't ridiculous and redundant enough of an insult ?

No stray. Jack White is a charlatan.

You are merely someone who is emotionally bound to your dearest illusions and who is fixed on that position...despite the completely logical explanations of your positions and their innate fallacies.

I know enough about photography to know the difference between a real planet from a moon set .

So you say. Photographic knowledge has nothing to do with being able to recognize a lunar landscape from a terrestrial one. It is apparent that you do not know enough about the Moon to make any assessment whatsoever regarding photographs which were taken on its surface.

Oh and please don't tell me that distance and depth perception looks different in the vacuum of space on the moon because I have seen real moon photos taken from the various unmanned missions and they look NOTHING like the Apollo fakes !

I don't honestly think explaining to you that depth perception on the lunar surface is very different from depth perception on the Earth--by virtue of the fact that there is no atmosphere, a major constituent involved in terrestrial depth perception--would actually help you understand.

It's been explained many times before.

What makes unmanned lunar photos real?

They may not look much liker "Apollo fakes"...to you. But you really need to prove that the Apollo photos were in fact faked to make such a statement. That you haven't done in the least.

Youy might also tell me where, in all of the unmanned "real" photos of the Moon that you seem to believe in, that there is some comparison to high quality Hasselblad photos taken by men on the surface of the Moon, and, by extension, why they should be similar in any respect...

Just a question.

[MID 364]

[quote name='straydog' date='Dec 26 2006, 06:46 PM' post='1474437'

Besides NASA using the same phony looking mountain backdrops for the various different phony looking EVA scenes , they never could quite manage to recreate the effects of that little thing known as depth perception .... Check out some of those phony Apollo photos ... Those big mountains are never more than maybe 10 to 50 feet away from the foreground , instead of the 10 to 50 miles they really should have been ...

By the way...depth perception is a function (in part) of atmosphere. What effect could they possibly recreate when there was no atmosphere, and everything in the distance was crystal clear as a result...with no scalar refrence objects between the camera and whatever was in the distance?

Those big mountains were about 4 miles (+/-) or so away....not 10 to 50....50 miles is way over the horizon...on the Moon. What evidence can you produce which says those mountains "should've been 10 to 50 miles away"?

These are actually questions. They are not rhetorical statements....

[straydog 0]

The mountains were only four miles away ? ... I see the time has come for me to post some phony Apollo moon photos here then ..... and then we can all throw in our opinions as to how far away any of those fake mountain backdrops appear to be in any of those faked photos .

That is if I will be allowed to do this on a thread about why the astronauts could never photograph any stars while in space or on the moon .

If not , I wil start another thread about Apollo photos and their lack of depth perception and the lack of distance of the painted mountain backdrop scenery ...

I have some very interesting evidence to post from Hawkins' book 'How America Faked the Moon Landings' also .

[MID 364]

The mountains were only four miles away ? ... I see the time has come for me to post some phony Apollo moon photos here then ..... and then we can all throw in our opinions as to how far away any of those fake mountain backdrops appear to be in any of those faked photos .

That is if I will be allowed to do this on a thread about why the astronauts could never photograph any stars while in space or on the moon .

If not , I wil start another thread about Apollo photos and their lack of depth perception and the lack of distance of the painted mountain backdrop scenery ...

I have some very interesting evidence to post from Hawkins' book 'How America Faked the Moon Landings' also .

Well...four miles or so on average. Some were a bit further...some closer, but in no case as far as your prior statement indicated....

That's fine.

Although you really need to get away from the conjecture in your posts. Phony Apollo photos don't exist.

Again, that is an emotional attachment to an ideal...which is unsubstantiated.

I said before I was looking forward to your descriptions of the phantom Hawkin's "proofs".

But we already know why there were no stars in the sky on Apollo photos. It is common photographic principal, known to anyone who takes pictures on a regular basis and has studied a bit of photography along the way.

Nonethelss, I will be interested to hear the twist of Hawkins on this depth perception thing....

Edited December 27, 2006 by MID

[straydog 0]

MID ... The reason there are no stars in the Apollo photographs has absolutely nothing to do with common photographic principals ... It has to do with the fact that the Hassleblad cameras which were designed for the Apollo missions only had a minimun F stop of f/5.6 .... And of course NASA knew that it would have taken a minimun of f/2.8 to be able to photograph the stars ...

But as I stated before , NASA never had any intention of the having the Apollo astronauts photograph any of the stars in deep space or from the moon .... For the simple reason that they were no where near deep space or the moon .

You claim to not have worked on Apollo but instead were"involved" with Apollo .... You also claim that you don't believe but rather "know" that Apollo landed men on the moon .... And not to be redundant here , but the ONLY way you could possibly know that Apollo really went to the moon was if you flew on the Saturn V rocket and then on the CSM and then on the LM as it landed on the moon .... So unless you were one of the Apollo astronauts , you couldn't possibly" know" whether they really landed on the moon or not .

Edited December 27, 2006 by straydog

[dogcatcher 0]

MID ... The reason there are no stars in the Apollo photographs has absolutely nothing to do with common photographic principals ... It has to do with the fact that the Hassleblad cameras which were designed for the Apollo missions only had a minimun F stop of f/5.6 .... And of course NASA knew that it would have taken a minimun of f/2.8 to be able to photograph the stars ...

But as I stated before , NASA never had any intention of the having the Apollo astronauts photograph any of the stars in deep space or from the moon .... For the simple reason that they were no where near deep space or the moon .

You claim to not have worked on Apollo but instead were"involved" with Apollo .... You also claim that you don't believe but rather "know" that Apollo landed men on the moon .... And not to be redundant here , but the ONLY way you could possibly know that Apollo really went to the moon was if you flew on the Saturn V rocket and then on the CSM and then on the LM as it landed on the moon .... So unless you were one of the Apollo astronauts , you couldn't possibly" know" whether they really landed on the moon or not .

Mr. Straydog thank you for your replies. However with all of your posts you have still failed to answer my inital question. What would be the required shutter speed needed to photograph stars with the F5.6 lens and a film with ASA 100 or 160 film.

It seems to me that if you are going to provide critical analysis of the Apollo photographic record, you are going to need a decent background in the craft and science of photography. My question is based on a very simple fact of photography. The correct answer will provide you with the basic reason why no images of stars were taken with the lunar Hasselblads.

Next I need to correct you on a couple of points. Fiirstly, there is no problem with the Hasselblad cameras. They are fully capable of imaging stars here on earth or on the moon. After all the Hasselblad camera is simply a box designed to hold any number of interchangable lenses and any number of different interchangable film magazines. It can also be used with or without any number of interchangable viewfinders. There is no problem with the Hasselblad camera. You are incorrect.

Secondly it is the interchangable 60mm lens which has the minimum f-stop of 5.6. The f-stop of 5.6 in no way eliminates this lens from imaging stars. You would know this if you had even a basic understanding of the principals of photographic exposure. As such your statement:

"The reason there are no stars in the Apollo photographs has absolutely nothing to do with common photographic principals ... It has to do with the fact that the Hassleblad cameras which were designed for the Apollo missions only had a minimun F stop of f/5.6 .... And of course NASA knew that it would have taken a minimun of f/2.8 to be able to photograph the stars ..."

is totally without merit and factual incorrect.

It appears you are simply grasping at any straw in an effort to support a failed position.

As you can see, having a deep understanding of the craft and science of photography is required if one is going to make alteration claims or any other attempt to impeach the Apollo photographic record. As we have seen from this very small demonstration, you do not have the required database of knowlege. Might I suggest, with all due respect, that you enroll in at least an entry level photography course before you continue in your quest to find fault with the Apollo photographic record.

And finally, why is it that you beliive it was inportant to image starfields from space rather than from here on earth? Experts in astrophotography will tell you that there is very little difference in the viewing transparency of a high altitude dark sky viewing site here on earth and one in space. It is simply a strawman to say the stars would be better seen and photographed from space than on earth.

Edited December 27, 2006 by dogcatcher

[Obviousman 1,098]

MID ... The reason there are no stars in the Apollo photographs has absolutely nothing to do with common photographic principals ... It has to do with the fact that the Hassleblad cameras which were designed for the Apollo missions only had a minimun F stop of f/5.6 .... And of course NASA knew that it would have taken a minimun of f/2.8 to be able to photograph the stars ...

But as I stated before , NASA never had any intention of the having the Apollo astronauts photograph any of the stars in deep space or from the moon .... For the simple reason that they were no where near deep space or the moon .

You claim to not have worked on Apollo but instead were"involved" with Apollo .... You also claim that you don't believe but rather "know" that Apollo landed men on the moon .... And not to be redundant here , but the ONLY way you could possibly know that Apollo really went to the moon was if you flew on the Saturn V rocket and then on the CSM and then on the LM as it landed on the moon .... So unless you were one of the Apollo astronauts , you couldn't possibly" know" whether they really landed on the moon or not .

Straydog,

I presume you have read all the material regarding the selection of the camera, the film, the conditions, etc which determined such selection?

Could you post references that support your position that "...the Hassleblad cameras which were designed for the Apollo missions only had a minimun F stop of f/5.6..." ?

Also, I would like to hear how you support your statement that "... The reason there are no stars in the Apollo photographs has absolutely nothing to do with common photographic principals..."

Thank you.

[MID 364]

MID ... The reason there are no stars in the Apollo photographs has absolutely nothing to do with common photographic principals ... It has to do with the fact that the Hassleblad cameras which were designed for the Apollo missions only had a minimun F stop of f/5.6 .... And of course NASA knew that it would have taken a minimun of f/2.8 to be able to photograph the stars ...

But as I stated before , NASA never had any intention of the having the Apollo astronauts photograph any of the stars in deep space or from the moon .... For the simple reason that they were no where near deep space or the moon .

Others have addressed the camera issue for you, and adequately.

Your reasoning is faulty when you say that NASA never had any intention of photgraphing stars...because the crews were to be no where near the Moon. That is your wishful thinking, and it is flawed reasoning, and of course is devoid of any substantive proof. Thus , the logical conclusion, and the reason already stated, is alot more viable...

...because they wanted to photograph the lunar surface, experiments, landscape, equipment, crews, and samples in order to document the journeys. Not the stars.

... the ONLY way you could possibly know that Apollo really went to the moon was if you flew on the Saturn V rocket and then on the CSM and then on the LM as it landed on the moon .... So unless you were one of the Apollo astronauts , you couldn't possibly" know" whether they really landed on the moon or not

That is perhaps one of the most ridiculous comments I have heard yet.

There's only a handful of long since dead people who know that Columbus discovered the "New World" in 1492 by that standard...despite the fact that it acknowledged that he indeed did...by evidence infinitesimally lesser than the evidence that Apollo landed on the Moon in 1969-1972.

That subject is beyond argument.

[straydog 0]

MID ... This has to be one of the funniest posts you have written so far ! ... No wonder you just "know" the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon ... You also "know" that Christopher Columbus discovered the "New World" too ! ... No subject is beyond argument , as you have proven with your misinformed post .

News flash my friend .... Chris Columbus never discovered the New World , as in America ... The history books are just full of little lies , aren't they ?

America was first discovered by Mongolian explorers way before ole' Chris ever even set sail in the Santa Maria ... All Columbus ( not even his real name by the way , http://spanish.about.com/library/questions/aa-q-columbus.htm ) ever discovered was India .... His discovery of America is a myth , just like the Apollo astronauts landing on the moon in '69 is a myth ... Just a bit of American folklore for the gullible masses .

Edited December 29, 2006 by straydog

[Waspie_Dwarf 10,372]

Whilst I realise this is off topic I feel that straydogs latest "knowledge" can not go unanswered. As with Apollo I wouldn't want people to go away thinking they might learn something correct from a straydog post:

MID ... This has to be one of the funniest posts you have written so far ! ... No wonder you just "know" the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon ... You also "know" that Christopher Columbus discovered the "New World" too ! ... No subject is beyond argument , as you have proven with your misinformed post .

News flash my friend .... Chris Columbus never discovered the New World , as in America ... The history books are just full of little lies , aren't they ?

America was first discovered by Mongolian explorers way before ole' Chris ever even set sail in the Santa Maria ... All Columbus ( not even his real name by the way , http://spanish.about.com/library/questions/aa-q-columbus.htm ) ever discovered was India .... His discovery of America is a myth , just like the Apollo astronauts landing on the moon in '69 is a myth ... Just a bit of American folklore for the gullible masses .

News flash, we can add history and geography to the subjects straydog will make grand pronouncements about whilst getting the important facts wrong.

It is true the Columbus is an Anglicised version of his name. It is also true that he was not the first to discover the New World but rather re-discovered it. However the fact that he discovered India... good grief straydog!

India was already well know to Europeans who had trade routes with it. Columbus was trying to find a Western route to Asia when he discovered the West Indies.

For future reference straydog: India is the vast triangular land mass attached to Asia. The West Indies are the group of islands in the Caribbean Sea.

[straydog 0]

I stand corrected ... It was the West Indies that Chris stumbled upon accidently , thinking it was the New World ... thus his name INDIANS for the native Americans he saw later , who were actually the real discoverers of America ! ..Or something like that ... I guess I should have tried to stay awake thru all those boring history classes !

[Waspie_Dwarf 10,372]

I stand corrected ... It was the West Indies that Chris stumbled upon accidently , thinking it was the New World ... thus his name INDIANS for the native Americans he saw later , who were actually the real discoverers of America ! ..Or something like that ... I guess I should have tried to stay awake thru all those boring history classes !

I actually enjoyed history, I had to drop it to take the sciences though.

[dogcatcher 0]

I stand corrected ... It was the West Indies that Chris stumbled upon accidently , thinking it was the New World ... thus his name INDIANS for the native Americans he saw later , who were actually the real discoverers of America ! ..Or something like that ... I guess I should have tried to stay awake thru all those boring history classes !

Straydog, could you please answer my question about the exposure time required to image stars with the lumar Hasselblad camera/lens/film combo?

[Lilly 33,251]

Small historical nitpick:

People from Asia were the first to "discover" America. Discovery is, after all, a concept relevant to which group one is discussing. However, the first humans came upon the American continent during the receeding ice age, these people became the Native Americans. It is documented that Norse sailors and perhaps even others explored parts of the New World.

Unlike the other explorers, Columbus initiated two-way commerce between the Old World and the New. Any previous explorations were quite obscure. People in one hemisphere were basically unaware of the other hemisphere's existence before Columbus. But after Columbus, this became common knowledge. Hence, we say that Columbus "discovered" the New World.

Ok, enough history...I just wanted to set things straight here.

[dogcatcher 0]

I stand corrected ... It was the West Indies that Chris stumbled upon accidently , thinking it was the New World ... thus his name INDIANS for the native Americans he saw later , who were actually the real discoverers of America ! ..Or something like that ... I guess I should have tried to stay awake thru all those boring history classes !

I'll ask again Straydog, can you answer my original question? Why are you avoiding it?

[MID 364]

MID ... This has to be one of the funniest posts you have written so far ! ... No wonder you just "know" the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon ... You also "know" that Christopher Columbus discovered the "New World" too ! ... No subject is beyond argument , as you have proven with your misinformed post .

News flash my friend .... Chris Columbus never discovered the New World , as in America ... The history books are just full of little lies , aren't they ?

America was first discovered by Mongolian explorers way before ole' Chris ever even set sail in the Santa Maria ... All Columbus ( not even his real name by the way , http://spanish.about.com/library/questions/aa-q-columbus.htm ) ever discovered was India .... His discovery of America is a myth , just like the Apollo astronauts landing on the moon in '69 is a myth ... Just a bit of American folklore for the gullible masses .

News flash...

I said "New World". I did not say America. That was your embellishment. But then again, this has already been explained to you, is well understood by everyone here, and is not the point of the exercise at all. Again, you deflect things away from the point, which is that Columbus' discoveries are accepted, with but a small fraction of the documented evidence that exists in support of Apollo.

If history accepts that Columbus' voyages netted the results that he reported, which it does, how could anyone doubt Apollo, which is documented thousands of times more voluminously?

[straydog 0]

My point was , that much of the history we have been taught as being fact , really isn't .... And that also includes the myth of men having walked on the moon during the Apollo Hoax Program .

[Waspie_Dwarf 10,372]

My point was , that much of the history we have been taught as being fact , really isn't .... And that also includes the myth of men having walked on the moon during the Apollo Hoax Program .

Maybe, but showing that Columbus was not the first to reach the Americas does not constitute evidence one way or another for Apollo.

The only thing you have really demonstrated is that you will make posts with inadequate research and huge factual errors. How that helps you prove your case I can't even begin to guess at. the expression "own goal" comes to mind.

Edited December 31, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf

[nonsceptic 0]

My point was , that much of the history we have been taught as being fact , really isn't .... And that also includes the myth of men having walked on the moon during the Apollo Hoax Program .

Here is the real truth:

First landing on the moon was at Mare Imbrium on August 23, 1942 at 11:26 MEZ, using a Miethe rocket. First man on the moon was Kapitaenleutnant Werner Theisenberg of the Kriegsmarine. Actually, the Navy did most of the work on the moon shots, not the Luftwaffe. Landing took place without radio contact to the main control center at the Wilhelmshaven or the second control center located near Anzio, Italy. Ever since their first day of landing on the Moon, the Germans started boring and tunneling under the surface and by the end of the war there was a small Nazi research base on the Moon.

http://www.geocities.com/nmdecke/NazisinSpace.html

Read the rest and get a nice smile for the New Year