The Russians Are Going To Verify That The Moon Landing Was Real

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: LABTECH767

A fast aperture lets in more light you don't even know the terminology so how can you understand the process.

Pictures of the stars from the Moon with a Hasselblad would have been pointless due to NO tripod poor shutter speed range and film speed better shots could be taken from Earth with telescopes.

Even the Hubble with it's 2.4 mtr mirror has to expose some objects for days.

You should learn about a subject before making stupid claims.

Hmm I see you have edited it TWICE since posting it AFTER my reply, well let's just say I am NOT dumb (I can speak perfectly well just to correct your abuse of my language once again AND with a BRITISH Accent).

You still seem to not understand at the time of this comment however.

A FAST Aperture EXOSURE would let - LESS - light in or rather to explain it better to you.
An aperture is the small hole by which light enter's the camera while a SHUTTER is the device (Some east German camera's - Werra brand which were made by the Original ZEISS factory which had fallen under the soviet control after the war - that's WW2 just so you don't confuse yourself or anything eh! - were actually very prized and still are even by modern photographers but interestingly though they are probably no longer manufactured that way the cold war period Werra Camera's which are still among the most highly prized if in pristine condition still used a very old fashioned cloth shutter instead of a sliding mechanism) that occludes/block's the light from entering via the aperture and exposing the light sensitive chemical treated surface of the negative.
(Actually the Werra shutter was a kind of canvas)

A FAST aperture can have two meaning's, an aperture designed for fast exposure's to work in tandem with a rapid shutter in which it is actually an incorrect and NOT correct technical term and to work with high iso or very high iso film stock.

Generally speaking such a WRONGLY termed FAST aperture (Correctly high speed aperture) would consist of be a very large lens mechanism in order to rapidly catch as much light as possible and focus it on the aperture (of course you can also tailor a larger aperture to go with the larger lens but that is even more specialized camera equipment and would probably necessitate custom stock size to make use of the larger exposure area as well) but it is usually cheaper to simply use standard lens's on standard high quality cameras using a VERY high speed (iso) film stock in order to capture high speed imagery such as for example a humming bird in flight or a bullet on film, there are however specialized HIGH SPEED camera's (they are not called high speed apertures) for such tasks and for forensic and scientific analysis as well purposes as well.

Usually the term is RAPID EXPOSURE imagery.

Used a couple of Zeiss and Werra Zeiss back in the 80's, my friend whom had won a few amateur photographer magazine award's owned the equipment and worked for some 'D' or other which took him into the eastern zone and to Russia a few times were he had purchased a few Werra at what to us would seem a real bargain price, he actually preferred the Werra but I could not really see any difference except that if you are comfortable with your camera you do take better shot's with it.

In my humble opinion you can still get far superior shot's using high quality photographic film for everything from rapid exposure to ultra violet imagery but of course as CCD's become every more proficient and have ever higher numbers of sensor's on them the gap is narrowing, perhaps some day we will see CCD's that can actually rival film stock, of course it is purely objective since the human eye has a limited resolution itself and high resolution CCD's are now good enough to be indistinguishable from ordinary photographs.

You know it's only a matter of time before some amateur with a GENUINE high level of intellectual proficiency creates there own composite CCD based digital imaging telescope, imagine an acre sized array of large reflector telescopes all properly calibrated and mounted on motor's focusing huge amount's of light onto ten's of thousands of ultra high resolution CCD's, atmospheric disturbance would be the hurdle but it could potentially even create something that could see the lam site's in a good degree of detail, be used to actually look closely at orbiting satellites and even peer at mars in a fair degree of detail, there is a reason however that they used dormant volcano's and other high altitude regions - light pollution, atmospheric disturbance and other negative factor's of being on a planets surface, there is also the problem of vibration based image distortion as well which is why those space telescopes are so valuable since they escape those problems entirely until that is a frozen turd dumped from one space mission or other hit's them and break's them eh!.

Still very intriguing how you changed your post twice (you know you can always mask that and make it look like ONCE by deleting the automatically inserted edit information though it is rather more fun to put something humorous).

Here.
Fast Aperture, wrong terminology through lazy use of English by non native speakers and is slang not a technical term.
Correctly technical term a photographer with a grasp of the English language would use is HIGH SPEED APERTURE which is a high diameter aperture - usually it refers 'erroneously' however to a large diameter lens and the actual aperture itself remain's a standard size for mechanical reason's such as control of the shutter speed etc so there is really no FAST aperture it is a slang term probably coined state side - we usually get by when confused by saying to ourselves I know what he mean's and don't pull one another up on it but sometime's it irk's.

And yes I suppose I am a bit Dumb BECAUSE I should have quoted you BEFORE you edited your post hahaha.


Here is more on that Werra Camera's according to this which I did not know the best were made in the 1950's, I do remember my mate saying that quality was an issue but if you got a good one so his were probably later model's - they were still Zeiss just the east German version and had superb lens.
www.shutterbug.com...

originally posted by: buddha
Why could they build Saturn 5 rockets then but Not now?
Saturn 5 rockets Never failed to get men into space!
they kept one in a museum or have they erased it?
Its still here for now.
so they can reverse engineer it?

They could build them now, if someone gave them the money to do that and if they dusted off the blueprints that do still exist. The priorities of lunar missions have changed and technology has moved on, they are trying different things.

How can they use FILM in space?
the radiation would mess the film up a LOT.
Look that up...
they even took the film out of the camera and put new film in.
they did Not have lead shielding on the ship!

And your evidence for this is? Any proof that this is definitely the case? The claim about shielding is particularly ill-informed, lead would make the situation worse because it is so dense that any incoming radiation would then create more as it hit other particles. Material does not need a label on it saying "radiation shielding" to make it a radiation shield. All it needs to do is be between a source and a target.

They did not take film out of the cameras, the film was in magazines that they could swap over as required. 5 probes in the lunar orbiter series photographed the moon using film cameras in the mid 1960s with no issues from radiation.

I think only one man who went to the moon died of cancer.
at a very old age!!!
so it there radiation in space or Not???

I think some one went up in the rocket.
then came back later.
I bet he died of radiation.

They all went up in rockets and came back later. Again, where is your evidence that they did, or would, suffer a fatal dose of radiation? There have been all manner of probes sent to the moon and most of them have measured radiation. None of them have come to the conclusion that astronauts would die. There is radiation in space but I've had more radiation this year from PET/CT scans than an astronaut going to the moon would have. The main risk is solar flares, and Apollo were lucky in that respect.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: KansasGirl

Have you heard of shadows ?

I have, and that was my first thought, but they don't look like shadows, they look like image manipulation or artifacts or something. Zoom in- looks like inky blots.

So, if they are shadows and they look off because of the pixels or whatever the hell, fine.

But there was no need to be sarcastic to me. Do you feel so awesome about yourself?

What you're seeing is part shadows and part disturbed ground around the objects on which they were working.

originally posted by: stonerwilliam

originally posted by: gortex

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

That's very kind of them but I don't need their confirmation , the evidence is on the Moon.

LoL, the evidence is over 380,000 kms away... how convenient.

The evidence is still being used today , the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment was left on the Moon by the Apollo missions to give an accurate reading of the distance between the Earth and the Moon.

www.famousdaily.com... 1962 bouncing lasers of the moon

You can bounce radio and laser signals off the moon. The difference with the LLR experiment is the strength and quality of the return signal, a signal that is returned from exactly the spot that the reflectors were placed.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I even posted pictures and you are trying to tell me what I showed, a fast Aperture as YOU keep refering to is a low f number the Aperture controls the AMOUNT of light that travels to the sensor or film , the SHUTTER controls the length of time that amount of light hits the shutter or film.

My first manual SLR had a cloth focal plane shutter it traveled horizontally across the frame there was a gap between that and the second curtain which determined the shutter speed some then had metal shutter blades that travel vertically.

As for your comments re CCD and telescopes again you are WAY behind the times.

3.2 Gigapixel Camera


You are also wrong re fast aperture

Lens speed refers to the maximum aperture diameter, or minimum f-number, of a photographic lens. A lens with a larger maximum aperture (that is, a smaller minimum f-number) is called a "fast lens" because it can achieve the same exposure with a faster shutter speed. Conversely, a smaller maximum aperture (larger minimum f-number) is "slow" because it delivers less light intensity and requires a slower (longer) shutter speed.

Aperture is a ratio plain and simple and fast aperture means a LARGER opening compaired to the focal length ALL three elements of the exposure triangle work together use a higher f say going from f4 to f8 number guess what you will have to change iso or film speed same if you go from f8-f4

English is my language and my post was edited to show the pictures and as you can see you can expose for the Moon and stars won't show.

Care to explain this that you said

HIGH SPEED APERTURE which is a high diameter aperture - usually it refers 'erroneously' however to a large diameter lens and the actual aperture itself remain's a standard size for mechanical reason's such as control of the shutter speed etc

Fast lens or Aperture ALWAYS refers to small f numbers be it a 135mm f2.8 lens or a 300mm f2.8 lens

Yes I HAVE edited it again I was looking for something you said on a previous post

the Aperture speed is the time the lens has the shutter out of the way of the film

That is rubbish as already explained. Aperture controls amount of light the shutter controls how long that amount of light hits the sensor / film

a reply to: wmd_2008

Actually on that last part you are correct, Shutter speed is how long you expose the film, Aperture is the diameter of the opening onto the film.
But you still altered your original post and was wrong at that time so come on man up and admit it you know you'll feel better right.
By the way I have nothing against you but sometime's I disagree with your argument's so remember this is just a site we both like to frequent not the real world or our real lives OK so stop taking it so personal and so shall I were bigger than that man (haha I definitely am around the waist).


So much so I think I may have my own micro-gravitational field - I mean I must have I have no waist anymore so how the hell do my trousers stay up it has to be gravity right (no I AM being serious honest).

a reply to: wmd_2008

By the way nice new post, I would love to see a full acre of high resolution CCD's each with it's own very high magnification reflector telescope of course and all mounted to a nice little computerized motor with a lovely composite image of the night sky.
You know atmospheric distortion is always going to be a problem but for nearer celestial object's such an array and the composite image it could create would be magnificent, It actually boggles the mind how many sensors they have been able to fit onto the latest CCD's as well.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: stonerwilliam

originally posted by: gortex

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

That's very kind of them but I don't need their confirmation , the evidence is on the Moon.

LoL, the evidence is over 380,000 kms away... how convenient.

The evidence is still being used today , the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment was left on the Moon by the Apollo missions to give an accurate reading of the distance between the Earth and the Moon.

www.famousdaily.com... 1962 bouncing lasers of the moon

You can bounce radio and laser signals off the moon. The difference with the LLR experiment is the strength and quality of the return signal, a signal that is returned from exactly the spot that the reflectors were placed.

By men or by machines is what people wonder especially the Hughes corp well this is a conspiracy site and people have viewed Diamonds are forever and wondered

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Interesting final paragraph.

Earlier in November, Mr Rogozin revealed plans to start building a base on the moon after 2025, with the project exceeding the US Apollo programme of the 1960s and 1970s in terms of scale. The programme will put its first humans on the moon by 2030 or 2031.

Aye key words there "Programme" and "its"

The Programme will put "its " first humans on the moon!
that does not mean in general that no human has ever set foot on the moon
it means exactly what it says

a reply to: stonerwilliam

And as I explained in a previous post, the equipment is where it's supposed to be, we have tv and photography of them doing it complete with time and date specific images of Earth, along with equipment that could not be set up by robot.

a reply to: firerescue

Yeah, OneBigMonkeyToo pointed out the Russian mission on page 5, which to be honest, I was totally unaware of.

Still though... Apart from the Apollo missions, no human has ever gone beyond low earth orbit, correct?

a reply to: LABTECH767

Sorry alter the original I edited it to add the pictures which show the assumptions re Moon images & stars claimed by hoax believers.

So why don't you explain what you think I changed like I saif I have been taking pictures for almost 40 years if I took them the way you claim I dread to think how they would have looked.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Their suits had no rediationprotection.....
Big buzzer goin off....with a really low tone

Yep....and we should have seen a glint from Earth as they made their way inorbit......we got squat......

Ya know, they would !eft a video cam pointing back at the Earth as they left it for the last time

The way you type gives me a brain aneurism. PUNCTUATE.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Still though... Apart from the Apollo missions, no human has ever gone beyond low earth orbit, correct?

Wrong

Apollo 8 Lunar orbit

Apollo 11, 12 landing

Apollo 13 - circumlunar abort

Apollo 14, 15, 16, 17 landings

Only flat earther fruit loops beleive otherwise

Duplicate posts

Duplicate posts

Didn't Russia already verify the moon landing occurred when it occurred?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Russia was trolling people with this latest statement.

a reply to: firerescue

To be fair those are all Apollo missions.

WTF? Russia - Russia, mind - is going to be the arbiter of whether they lost the race to the moon or not?
Give me a break.