Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

Radagast said:

Unfortunately, a conspiracy led by Swiss banks and Swiss cheesemakers is hiding the truth that the Moon is made of cheese.

Click to expand...

It's good that we know the truth. The Swiss involvement may be motivated by jealousy over their failure to develop light emitting bacteria.

Kylie said:

Why do you think they would waste time looking back at the Earth?

Click to expand...

If you were to go up there you wouldn't want to take a look?

Tom Farebrother said:

If you were to go up there you wouldn't want to take a look?

Click to expand...

Of course, and maybe snap a pic. But seeing Earth from space was kind of old hat by then compared to being on the Moon for the first time.

Tom Farebrother said:

If you were to go up there you wouldn't want to take a look?

Click to expand...

Here's another one from Apollo 11 (taken by Collins while the other two were having fun):



... and yes, I can see my house!

Speedwell said:

Of course, and maybe snap a pic. But seeing Earth from space was kind of old hat by then compared to being on the Moon for the first time.

Click to expand...

It must still be an incredible sight. I've seen plenty of mountains, but hiking in the himalayas for the first time there were sights that took my breath away. I can't imagine the sight of earth from the moon getting old very quickly.

Tom Farebrother said:

They had did have some pretty cool camera equipment, for the time, and the film adapted for the conditions was cutting edge, particulary the super light sensitive emulsion used for some shots.

Click to expand...

Have you got a source for this information about the film being particularly light sensitive? I wouldn't have thought it was necessary, since they were in direct sunlight...

Tom Farebrother said:

If you were to go up there you wouldn't want to take a look?

Click to expand...

Yeah, but it cost a huge amount of money to send them there. If I'm paying a lot of money to send people to the moon, I want them to only take stuff that they need to do stuff they can only do on the moon, not take pretty pictures of the Earth.

Tom Farebrother said:

It must still be an incredible sight. I've seen plenty of mountains, but hiking in the himalayas for the first time there were sights that took my breath away. I can't imagine the sight of earth from the moon getting old very quickly.

Click to expand...

But apart from the astronauts, people were only seeing the photos. I can show you countless pictures of the Earth from space, but how quickly would you tire of it?

Kylie said:

Yeah, but it cost a huge amount of money to send them there. If I'm paying a lot of money to send people to the moon, I want them to only take stuff that they need to do stuff they can only do on the moon, not take pretty pictures of the Earth.

Click to expand...

But they did take pretty pictures of the Earth!

Kylie said:

Have you got a source for this information about the film being particularly light sensitive? I wouldn't have thought it was necessary, since they were in direct sunlight...

Click to expand...

Yes, some wasn't, the standard B&W was an 80 asa/iso 70mm emulsion, but they had a specially developed 16,000 film also ( the highest ISO film in common use at the time was an agfa 1,200, apart from a polaroid 3,000 which was only useful for very small prints). The colour films were adapted versions of Kodachrome and Ektachrome slide film, originally 64iso but pushed in use to 1,000.
The light source was less of an issue that the amount of light being reflected and the spread at that distance.

Kylie said:

Have you got a source for this information about the film being particularly light sensitive? I wouldn't have thought it was necessary, since they were in direct sunlight...

Click to expand...

For a source there is some info on Nasa's website.

Kylie said:

But apart from the astronauts, people were only seeing the photos. I can show you countless pictures of the Earth from space, but how quickly would you tire of it?

Click to expand...

Post #382. Imaginary scenario.

Tom Farebrother said:

Yes, some wasn't, the standard B&W was an 80 asa/iso 70mm emulsion, but they had a specially developed 16,000 film also ( the highest ISO film in common use at the time was an agfa 1,200, apart from a polaroid 3,000 which was only useful for very small prints). The colour films were adapted versions of Kodachrome and Ektachrome slide film, originally 64iso but pushed in use to 1,000.
The light source was less of an issue that the amount of light being reflected and the spread at that distance.

Click to expand...

For low-light situations, the 16000-ASA film they used was a variety of Kodak 2485, in a 70 mm width.

See https://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

Kylie said:

. I can show you countless pictures of the Earth from space, but how quickly would you tire of it?

Click to expand...

I just watched that timelapse from the L1 Lagrange point ten times in a row.

Radagast said:

For low-light situations, the 16000-ASA film they used was a variety of Kodak 2485, in a 70 mm width.

See https://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

Click to expand...

Yes it was a big leap for Kodak, producing such a sensitive but still usable emulsion, without being so grainy as to obscure any detail.

Tom Farebrother said:

Yes it was a big leap for Kodak, producing such a sensitive but still usable emulsion, without being so grainy as to obscure any detail.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

It also helps having wide film. In my younger days I shot on 61 mm width, and even poorly exposed film could be turned into decent prints.

Subduction Zone said:

The Earth rotates rather slowly. The amount of rotation in a few minutes would not be discernible to the naked eye. A picture is just as good.

Why the need for video? The video of them riding around in their "little car" proved that they were on the Moon to the scientifically literate.

Click to expand...

Excuses, excuses keep them coming so you can continue to believe the lie.

Kylie said:

You realise they went to the moon to investigate the moon, right? They weren't there for long. It's not like they stayed for a few days or anything. Why do you think they would waste time looking back at the Earth?

In any case, I note that you still haven't responded to my comments about camera lenses. Until you do, I'll take it to mean that when it comes to photography you don't actually know what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

I never addressed your camera comment, because it was not speaking to what i was talking about.

I was never talking about camera lens that have a $20,000+ price tag.

I am a poor artist, i am speaking about bridge cameras, one that the average working person can afford.

Nikon came out last september with the p1000, 125x zoom = 3000mm bridge camera ($995.00). I was saying if nikon, cannon, sony, etc.. ever come out with a 200 plus zoom it would again provide just a little more power of zoom and that possibly a little better (closer) image.

p1000, 125x zoom

Radagast said:

I can do that at home, here. It's in the air right now, as I type.

Click to expand...

Cool!

I didn't know if Flightaware tracked it or not. Usually I just see commercial, charters and business/private on there.

Our system is similar, but with a couple of new features (although it's not been launched commercially yet, so I cant talk about them).

d taylor said:

Excuses, excuses keep them coming so you can continue to believe the lie.

Click to expand...

You don't believe the Earth rotates?

You're a flat-earther, I take it.