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

[Tom 1]

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

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

 

[Tom 1]

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

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

 

[Speedwell]

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

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.

 

[Radagast]

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

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

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

 

[Tom 1]

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.

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.

 

[Kylie]

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.

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...

 

[Kylie]

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

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.

 

[Kylie]

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.

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?

 

[Radagast]

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.

But they did take pretty pictures of the Earth!

 

[Tom 1]

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...

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.

 

[Tom 1]

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...

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

 

[Tom 1]

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?

Post #382. Imaginary scenario.

 

[Radagast]

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.

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

 

[Radagast]

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

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

 

[Tom 1]

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

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.

 

[Radagast]

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.

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.

 

[d taylor]

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.

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

 

[d taylor]

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.

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

 

[Gene2memE]

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

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).

 

[Radagast]

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

You don't believe the Earth rotates?

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