T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #61
true indeed. mates of mine take -on average- about 10000 photos per shoot. of those 10k, about 20 find their way into release.
true indeed. mates of mine take -on average- about 10000 photos per shoot. of those 10k, about 20 find their way into release.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #62
Originally posted by Testin da Cable
I'd argue that a Hasselblad is a very special camera in it's own rightd'you happen to know what lenses they took with them?
No I don't know offhand.
Hasselblads are "special" in that (a) they atr bloody expensive, (b) they take square pictures, (c) the winder is on the wrong smegging side.
My dad has a set of Hasselblads, they are not all that uncommon.
T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #63
I happen to like them I also love my mamiya
I also love my mamiya
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #64
O
old.D0LLySh33p
Guest
- Thread starter
- #65
There's a moon??!
T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #66
pity the "interviewer" instantly says "did you get that on camera?".
*weep for america*
*weep for america*
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #68
Another example would be the SR-71 (Blackbird) had its first flight in 1964, yet this is still the fastest aircraft to date.
W
Will
Guest
- Thread starter
- #69
D
Daffeh
Guest
- Thread starter
- #70
But computational power has increased exponentially.
The whole 'the computers were as powerful as modern pocket calculators', i just cant fathom that. I realise these people were just about the greatest minds alive at the time, but the maths/physics/everything is just mind boggling even with todays super computers.
S
Sar
Guest
- Thread starter
- #71
This is true - I was an amateur astronomer when I were a lad, and took some star pics with my dad's old SLR.
The minimum time needed for exposure to get even the brightest stars was about 45 seconds.
So a quick snap won't get any stars at all.
C
Clowneh!
Guest
- Thread starter
- #72
dont the professional (astronomer) people use massive cameras on satellites which follow the stars as the earth rotates?
they get loads and loads of stars that way or summat
they get loads and loads of stars that way or summat
T
Tom
Guest
- Thread starter
- #73
The computer wasn't really there to do anything more than calculate trajectories, orbital paths, etc. It's not like it had to run mediaplayer 9 is it? All it had to do was some basic sums, and if you read about the missions you'll discover that most of the calculations were actually done at the ground station, by people with pens, paper, and charts. Most of the switchgear and controls in the module were electrical systems, not computer controlled. The astronauts certainly had their work cut out.
Think about it - you had a gigantic rocket, to boost the module up into orbit, then you had booster rockets, to fire the module on its way, then you detached the lander at the correct altitude and angle of entry (once the orbiter was in orbit), and a skilled pilot controlled its descent. In theory, if you have the correct equipment, its not that difficult.
Oh and I think the only reason we haven't seen shots of the gear left on the moon is that all our long range equipment cannot focus on an object so close, otherwise you'd have the internet full of pictures of satellites and other space stuff.
1
1tchy trigger
Guest
- Thread starter
- #74
I like to believe that NASA did indeed land men on the moon ... and I think the conspiracy goes a lot deeper.
It's what they found up there that they don't want us to know about which intrigues me - and what better way to hide the truth than to create and publicise your own conspiracy (i.e. moon landings were faked) to divert the attentions of the public.
Could it be evidence of life? Or maybe of a war that raged through our solar system many millennia ago?
Science fiction? Maybe - but sometimes the truth is more extraordinary than the fiction.
And don't even start me on some of the pictures from Mars ....
Glass tunnels
...and the rest
It's what they found up there that they don't want us to know about which intrigues me - and what better way to hide the truth than to create and publicise your own conspiracy (i.e. moon landings were faked) to divert the attentions of the public.
Could it be evidence of life? Or maybe of a war that raged through our solar system many millennia ago?
Science fiction? Maybe - but sometimes the truth is more extraordinary than the fiction.
And don't even start me on some of the pictures from Mars ....
Glass tunnels
...and the rest
C
Clowneh!
Guest
- Thread starter
- #75
my opinion for what it matters:
yes they did land on the moon.
no i dont care enough to call people retards about it.
yes they did land on the moon.
no i dont care enough to call people retards about it.
M
mank!
Guest
- Thread starter
- #76
I miss the X-Files.
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #77
I actually once had a really good debate with a Hari Krishna dude who was hassling people around Halifax. I had an hour and a half to kill before meeting someone in town and since I'd been shopping already that year the prospect didn't appeal. Consequently I was almost pleased to be accosted by a Hari Krishna chap. After I'd debated every point he'd raised in a very friendly manner for about half an hour he came to the subject of the moon and I can't remember how we got to it but he ended up telling me that he was taught that the moon was actually further away than the Sun and belief to the contrary was evil propaganda to confuse you about the true nature of the universe. Being of reasonable intelligence I naturally countered with "HARHAR - HOW DO U EXPLAIN TEH SOL4R EXCLIPZ !1"
After thinking for a while he remembered that he'd been taught that Solar eclipses were caused by another body which just looked similar to the moon. Naturally I offered him a wager that if he followed the moon from now until the next Solar eclipse and could provide photographic evidence of the moon racing away to be replaced by a doppleganger then I would offer my soul to his religion and bow down before the Maharishi. He walked away soon after. He was ******dly smiling but inwards I sensed "Sarcy over-educated cunstick
".Unfortunately I still had 40 mins or so to kill so I sat alone in a drinking establishment like a trainspotter.
Happy days.
O
old.Fweddy
Guest
- Thread starter
- #78
Arguing with fanatics/idiots has to be one of the funniest pastimes ever.
C
Ch3tan
Guest
- Thread starter
- #79
If anyone wants a medium format camera and can't afford a hasselbhad, try and buy a Holga. Cheap Chinese made 120 camera, fixed to f8 at 1/100 with a simple focusing ring. YOu can get them for 20US dollars from http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh2/co...Search=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=holga
The one without a flash has a hotshoe, the one with a flash can't except an external flash.
The one without a flash has a hotshoe, the one with a flash can't except an external flash.
T
Tom
Guest
- Thread starter
- #80
How do you control the exposure? ND filters? I haven't ever messed with anything other than video or 35mm.
T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #81
Tom, you can't
it's a 'click and hope you get lucky' type camera
it's a 'click and hope you get lucky' type camera
A
Ash!
Guest
- Thread starter
- #82
There was a thing on Channel 4 about 18 months ago. Weighing the whole Wat it a fake wasnt it Scenario. I have an open mind to it. However it did raise one interesting point. Considering the moon has no atmosphere how come the flag was blowing in some of the footage.
Some of the other points it raised was all to do with the background scenery and shadows. C ant remember now
Some of the other points it raised was all to do with the background scenery and shadows. C ant remember now
P
pcg79
Guest
- Thread starter
- #83
We've been over this. The flag wasnt blowing. It was creased from being folded up and stuff.
C
Ch3tan
Guest
- Thread starter
- #84
It would be nice if people bothered reading the other posts before throwing their tuppence in. :/
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #85
Because it was not blowing.
Here is the footage concerned from Apollo 14, you can clearly see that as Astronaut Shepard fixed the flag pole the loose end waves about in 1/6th gravity, rather like it is blowing about, but prior he holds the flag vertically downwards, if there was a slight breeze it would have moved.
Most conspiracy "evidence" only shows the final part.
F
Furr
Guest
- Thread starter
- #86
personally i think they did it .
mainly because of the reasons stated but also because
I feel that if it was faked by america (or the american government) they woulnt want to emphasise the whole affair to much due to the fact that to create such an elaborate hoax would hold huge flaws and cracks in it. Instead they use it as one of their crowning achievements and show the whole thing in well documented detail where any flaws would be obvous.
also the fact that the only *hoax proof* they have is basically from the images taken there. if such a thing was a hoax wouldnt the proof come from the other more likely areas like government documents , people etc. Rather than just some minor flaws in the pictures that are easily explained.
well thats what i think anyway.
mainly because of the reasons stated but also because
I feel that if it was faked by america (or the american government) they woulnt want to emphasise the whole affair to much due to the fact that to create such an elaborate hoax would hold huge flaws and cracks in it. Instead they use it as one of their crowning achievements and show the whole thing in well documented detail where any flaws would be obvous.
also the fact that the only *hoax proof* they have is basically from the images taken there. if such a thing was a hoax wouldnt the proof come from the other more likely areas like government documents , people etc. Rather than just some minor flaws in the pictures that are easily explained.
well thats what i think anyway.
R
Rubber Bullets
Guest
- Thread starter
- #87
I had always been slightly dubious about the whole thing, mostly because in my ignorance I had the idea that the Van Allen belts protected us from cosmic radiation and not contained it!
So thanks to this thread I am now wiser, and have found this link that explained it to me a bit better
s
So thanks to this thread I am now wiser, and have found this link that explained it to me a bit better
s
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #88
As I mentioned before, the one overriding factor in the case of the hoax would be the Russians.
America and Russia nearly went to war over Cuba seven years before the moon landings, also during and after that period Russia and America were vying for power all over the world, backing opposite parties in any conflict, you can cite the Israeli-Arab wars, Korea, Vietnam as examples.
In short, they were fierce enemies.
Before and after that time there was a "space race" going on, the Russians were the first to put a satellite in orbit, to put a man in space, and to put a TV robot on the moon (the Americans were first with a camera robot though). To this end the Americans started the Apollo program with the express aim of getting a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s, this required absolutely huge investment, but they were determined to beat the Russians.
As it happened the Russians never actually had a moon landing program, concentrating on a space station instead, but the Americans still used the idea of a "race to the moon", unfortunately this is often used as another clip of ammunition for the conspiracy theorists.
When the Americans finally landed on the moon, the Russians admitted defeat and did not question it. They knew it was perfectly possible and had look into it themselves, the best they ever got was a couple of moon explorer robots in the years after Apollo 11.
Even after the moon landings, America and Russia continued in their cat and mouse game of international politics, so how come if the whole thing was such a glaringly obvious hoax that even an amateur can spot, they never even raised an eyebrow over it ?
I could possibly accept the photos, videos, the American media, etc, where all duped by the hoax, but the Russians ? To pull off such an international conspiracy on such a scale involving the deadliest enemy is beyond even the scope of the moon landing project itself !
In these post Communist days it is easy to forget the often violent confrontations between America and Russia in the past, and even harder to explain to those who have grown up without the spectre of nuclear war between the superpowers. That's basically why this theory gains weight.
America and Russia nearly went to war over Cuba seven years before the moon landings, also during and after that period Russia and America were vying for power all over the world, backing opposite parties in any conflict, you can cite the Israeli-Arab wars, Korea, Vietnam as examples.
In short, they were fierce enemies.
Before and after that time there was a "space race" going on, the Russians were the first to put a satellite in orbit, to put a man in space, and to put a TV robot on the moon (the Americans were first with a camera robot though). To this end the Americans started the Apollo program with the express aim of getting a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s, this required absolutely huge investment, but they were determined to beat the Russians.
As it happened the Russians never actually had a moon landing program, concentrating on a space station instead, but the Americans still used the idea of a "race to the moon", unfortunately this is often used as another clip of ammunition for the conspiracy theorists.
When the Americans finally landed on the moon, the Russians admitted defeat and did not question it. They knew it was perfectly possible and had look into it themselves, the best they ever got was a couple of moon explorer robots in the years after Apollo 11.
Even after the moon landings, America and Russia continued in their cat and mouse game of international politics, so how come if the whole thing was such a glaringly obvious hoax that even an amateur can spot, they never even raised an eyebrow over it ?
I could possibly accept the photos, videos, the American media, etc, where all duped by the hoax, but the Russians ? To pull off such an international conspiracy on such a scale involving the deadliest enemy is beyond even the scope of the moon landing project itself !
In these post Communist days it is easy to forget the often violent confrontations between America and Russia in the past, and even harder to explain to those who have grown up without the spectre of nuclear war between the superpowers. That's basically why this theory gains weight.
C
Ch3tan
Guest
- Thread starter
- #89
Tom, as long as you can estimate if the camera is at the correct exposure your fine. PLus you can rip em aprt and customise them. Just google for websites.
Low light shots come out ok with highspeed film as well. Its worth buying just to play with.
Low light shots come out ok with highspeed film as well. Its worth buying just to play with.