The Camera Arguments??
A comprehensive set of camera equipment was carried on board Apollo 11. This included two 16mm Maurer motion picture film cameras, a color television camera in the orbiting Columbia, and a black and white TV camera outside of the lunar module to transmit to Earth Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon's surface. A Kodak stereo close-up camera was used to film the lunar soil from only inches away. Three Hasselblad 500EL cameras were carried.
Two of the Hasselblad cameras were identical to those carried on the earlier Apollo 8 and 10 lunar orbit missions. During the Moon landing one Hasselblad was left aboard the Command Module Columbia, which remained in lunar orbit. Two were taken on the Lunar Module Eagle to the Moon's surface.
The Data Camera used on the lunar surface during the Apollo 11 mission and later Moon landings was a 500EL with additional modifications
He claims the film, used was Kodak standard off the shelf 160 ASA ectachrome
Umm no it wasn’t…
Each film magazine would typically yield 160 color and 200 black and white pictures on special film. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions. On Apollo 8, three magazines were loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-168, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film. There were 1100 color, black and white, and filtered photographs returned from the Apollo 8 mission.
On Apollo 11
Two of the Hasselblad cameras were identical to those carried on the earlier Apollo 8 and 10 lunar orbit missions (as above)
Claims no Viewfinder so unlikely to be able to line up the photos correctly
Additionally, the cameras had no reflex mirror viewfinder and instead a simple sighting ring assisted the astronaut in pointing the camera.
https://www.history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html
Camera shot is from high vantage point. Claims cameras were only chest mounted.
See above list of available cameras.
He Claims rocks are totally black yet in the photo his own reference there are plenty of lit and dark surfaces.
All explained above (see Nvidia demonstration)
The camera film would have been unusable due to huge temperature variations..
Just read…
See the section called Huge, Deadly Temperature Variations Claims.
https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/apollo-moon-hoax-huge-temperature-variation-claims/
The XRays would have destroyed the film in the cameras.
Umm No…
The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between
110 mSv and 380 mSv. On Earth, that dosage is 2.4 mSv, or higher, depending on where you are exactly. Bottom line, the few days in Lunar orbit would have aged the film due to radiation between 50-150 days/ day in orbit maximum, thus it would be the equivalent of film that was aged a few years at most. The environment at the Moon is more likely to have high energy effects, which I'll get to later.
Chernobyl produced about 80 mSv/ second after the incident, considerably more than on the surface of the Moon! To this day, the dosage at the center of Chernobyl is around 10 mSv/ second.
The Apollo missions were launched near the Solar Minimum, which would tend to have more higher cosmic ray strikes, and higher overall radiation, but fewer solar storms.
Furthermore, there actually ARE signs of radiation in some of the images, if you look carefully. At the very least, it's dust in on the film, the two can be difficult to tell apart. For instance, look in high resolution at the dark portion of this image. The lines that run through it are quite possibly signs of radiation strikes, or even (gasp!) stars.
https://space.stackexchange.com/que...11-to-film-and-take-pictures-with-such-radiat
The shadows are not parallel in the photos.
I am getting tired, check out below, or ask any primary school kid that is good at art to explain the concept of Vanishing point. The parallel shadows argument is a stupid as asking why does the sides road in front of me get smaller closet to the horizon.
http://www.iangoddard.com/moon01.htm
He makes some utterly un-researched claims about the thrust of the LEM as compared to the Saturn 5 stage, as well as where is all the sound. Shouldn’t Armstrong’s voice be drowned out by the 10,000 thrust? The idiot jumps back and for the between LEM and Launch for his Argument
Well…
The ascent engine on the lunar module was by far the LEAST powerful engine (other than thrusters and ullage motors) involved in the whole Apollo/Saturn V hardware. Here are the engines in an Apollo/Saturn V stack:
F-1: Five used in the Saturn V first stage: 1.5 million pounds of thrust
J-2: Five used in the Saturn V second stage and one used in the Saturn V third stage: 232,2500 pounds of thrust (vacuum)
Apollo Service Propulsion System: (big engine in the tail of the Apollo Service Module): 20,500 pounds of thrust
Lunar Module Descent Engine: 10,125 pounds of thrust
Lunar Module Ascent Engine: 3,500 pounds of thrust
So the Ascent Engine was small, but it was enough. The ascent stage at liftoff weighed about 10,000 pounds on Earth, but in 1/6th lunar gravity it was less than 1,700 pounds, so the ascent stage jumped up pretty smartly as it left the lunar surface, as you can see from the videos posted here by others.
The ascent engine wasn’t very big. I tried to find a photo of a person standing next to an ascent engine, but couldn’t. However, this diagram of the ascent stage will give you some idea of how big the ascent engine was, compared to the astronauts. The ascent engine is the white thing in the middle.
As for his argument of why can you hear Armstrong over the noise of the thrusters?
Umm Sound needs a medium to transfer sound waves. The moon is a vacuum??
Did I miss anything??
Here is the Five part series referred to (in part) above.
). She explained the most beautiful analogy to account for all the different beliefs on earth. Once conversation and I learned understanding and tolerance.
