Debunking Gary Fong/Apollo Detectives - Cameras CAN work on the moon
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 06. 2024
- Addressing the many skeptics arguments about the ability of Apollo using cameras on the moon, as well as analyzing the videos made by Apollo Detectives & Expat Taffy in response to my recent video.
Gary Fong Video: • Apollo 11 Moon Landing...
Apollo Detectives Video: • THE APOLLO DISCUSSIONS...
Expat Taffy Video: • Video
Please consider supporting the channel by making purchases through my Amazon affiliates: geni.us/Affiliate
PATREON: / davemckeegan
MERCH: teespring.com/stores/dave-mck...
INSTAGRAM: dpmphotographs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapters:
00:00 - Introduction
02:05 - Camera modifications
03:53 - The Zeiss lens
06:04 - Dark slide & Dust
09:02 - Radiation on film
12:10 - Film in a vacuum
15:40 - First Apollo Detectives lie
20:48 - Temperature of the film
27:05 - Apollo 11 press conference
33:52 - Exposing Apollo Detectives video
48:47 - Expat Taffy
#moon #nasa #moonlanding #fakemoon #apollo #apollo11 #apollodetectives #expattaffy #garyfong - Věda a technologie
Don't call them "Sceptic's", they are deniers. A Sceptic is some one who goes by the supporting evidence, and draws their conclusions from that. Deniers start with their conclusions, and cherry pick "evidence" to backup their position. A Sceptic will change their mind with different evidence, a denier will never change their position.
I do call them septics, as in septic tank.
@@Kualinar A “septic” is also what we Glaswegians call all cretins! I think “septic tank” actually originated in London though, from Cockney rhyming slang.
Either way it’s a perfect description of moon landing deniers and flerfers’ poisonous bullsh*t.
@@terrypussypower And I also tend to call them crétin.
@@Kualinar Ha! Crétin! I’ll keep that spelling in mind! It has a certain “je ne sais quoi”!
… just like ball believers.
Can we just appreciate for a second the sheer amount of love that doggo has for this man.
Yeeesesssss!!! ❤
I see it. Puppy loves dad.
My dog does that to me
The loving look that the dog gives Dave is heart melting, this is why I love Spaniels soo much
No >:C Fuck that dog!
Imagine risking your life just to walk on the moon, only for people to say you faked it afterwards 🤦♂️
Astronaut: "I've been to the moon"
Some random youtube channel: "no you didn't"
Astronaut: "wait, wha-"
random channel: "you see it was all a coverup for the overlord lizard aliens"
Astronaut: "I don't want to live on this planet anymore. can I go back to the moon ?"
Just give them a Buzz Aldrin left hook and shut them up!
@@simonmoore8776 I saw the video of that, it was awesome
You can't go back to where you've never been.
@@14lou And you can't see the lizard aliens either. Suspicious.
@@goosegas2087 Simple minds never can
I have been making a video to counter the Gary Fong disaster. Funnily enough, I have just reached the point in his video where he shows a complete ignorance of lunar temperature. I think that I'll just refer to your analysis, if that's all right with you. I have not seen a better one anywhere.
I made 3 videos analysing one of Marcus Allen's presentations. If you've never come across him before, they will give you some context. He claims to have been trained in photography and has worked as a pro photographer. His videos show why he couldn't make a living as a pro.
Scott Henderson is a cross between Expattaffy and Marcus Allen. He sees boulders on the lunar surface and reckons that they are cars. A smaller rock is apparently a golf bag.
Expattaffy is a lost cause. He claimed that the purge valve on the A7L suit is a mini compressor, amongst other things. He also has a book, under his real name, telling about his contacts with aliens.
All-in-all, you have done a wonderful job, here.
Thank you for your comment. I also saw the Gary Fong video and found his concept of lunar temperatures laughable. He reinforced this by ridiculing people that seemed to have a better understanding of heat transfer. It was actually insulting and just indicated that Gary was ignorant about radiative heat transfer.
Anyone (like myself) that has worried about thermal radiation in vacuum vessels or cooling to the night sky would understand the importance of albedo and the emissivity of coatings. Things in a vacuum, with minor conductive heat paths, will have their temperatures dominated by radiative heat transfer and will be in radiative equilibrium with their surroundings. Most of the incoming thermal radiation on the moon would be sun light which is in the visible, just plain white paint is good at reflecting this. Of course the rest of the sky is a good heat sink so the camera can radiate heat away to the sky. All in all it's a slightly complicated problem. Sunlight adding energy, the moon reflecting sunlight and radiating thermal energy, reflections from the astronauts space suit, radiation to the night sky.
All this info is available with just a bit of searching. There are lots of people that can help with this info. There is no reason to fight the understanding of this the way that Gary has.
@@charlie2640
I think that what you wrote "All this info is available with just a bit of searching. " has got the point exactly. Gary Fong is too tied up in his purported world-wide fame to need to research anything.
@@peterpoop7760 Agreed. What I find interesting in these people is their rock solid confidence in their own, largely uneducated, opinion. Others will actually demonstrate more understanding of a subject and they are just dismissed. It's fairly basic Dunning Kruger. It should be a huge red flag when someone insults and belittles others as a response. For that matter it is also a big red flag when someone spends time telling you how great they are, all the truly brilliant people I have know never talk themselves up. The ability to tell the difference between people with actual knowledge and those claiming knowledge seems to be lacking in many people.
@@charlie2640
There are a couple of clues in the ID they choose. Any ID which has "truth" in it for example is a pretty strong indication that their posts contain anything BUT the truth
They have this absolute trust in the outpourings of people like Bart Sibrel and never bother to check if they're being fed garbage.
"when someone spends time telling you how great they are"
Ahhh, Expattaffy. He refers to himself in the third person and anoints himself as the "brilliant Expattaffy".
Analysing Gary Fong's video, he gets nothing right - not bad for a world famous 20-year Hasselblad user.
I got all my evidence from the same people who lie to me.
You're a brave man, taking on Expat Taffy. That man has more time on his hands, than he has sense to know what to do with it.
Thanks for taking the time to do this. As someone that's worked in the space program (shuttle in my day) and has seen tons of Apollo-era hardware and known plenty of engineers from the Apollo era, the moon landing deniers annoy me to no end. Besides, if we had faked anything, the Soviets would have been all over it. It's not like they weren't watching.
America also kinda maybe was the first to send something to space with the manhole nuke
Lol
USSR was part of the "they" that would have been creating the fake. Like in Orwell's 1984, all governments are in collusion to create artificial conflict between them for public consumption.
This should be the top point to anyone denying the moon landing. Did they forget the political environment around the space race? The Soviets were having many accidents, failures, and deaths trying to get to the moon, spending billions they barely had - and they would’ve been all over the US if they faked it, they would have continued their moon program and anyone else who had space programs like China would’ve done everything in their power to discredit the US. What did they do? They accepted that the moon landing was infallible and couldn’t do anything about it, and shook hands with the US ending the space race, understanding the sheer amount of resources the US expended to get to the moon and conceded that they don’t have those resources to get to the moon itself since the goal was already reached. The KGB definitely looked into it if it was fake, and had spies on the ground to watch every second of the moon landing, yet nothing came out of it. They would’ve easily tracked that the rocket went up, and then came right back down if it was faked.
You’re assuming the soviets care. They faked theirs as well so two liars wouldn’t out each other 🤪
Excellent video. While watching Fong's video, I kept yelling at the screen. Dust is a much bigger problem when there's wind, and an atmosphere to blow the dust around. In the vacuum (or as near a vacuum as the lunar surface provides) It's not really an issue. The lunar regolith was found to be extremely abrasive, and being positively charged, it tended to stick to the suits, boots, gloves, and other surfaces. If an unsealed camera was used for day upon day upon day, I could see it being an issue, but the film was well protected being rolled into the sealed magazines. Aldrin and Armstrong weren't loading bulk rolls into magazines, they were already pre-loaded. All they had to do was to swap pre-loaded magazines. Fong also misrepresented the temperature issues in a near vacuum. Since the black coating was removed from the camera bodies, the silver surfaces would be excellent reflectors of solar radiation. Without an atmosphere of gasses inside the camera bodies, there wasn't any efficient mechanism for transferring "heat' to the rolled film inside. Only with an atmosphere inside to provide convective transferring to the film would overheat the film inside the magazine and camera body.
czcams.com/video/T_Xbpg14mcQ/video.html
One small step for the like button, one giant leap for critical thinking skills. A giant leap over flerfs is a small step for those leaping.
My thought exactly. If you dropped a roll of 120 film into a glass vacuum bottle like a Thermos and sat it out in the sun for 6 hours, I think the temperature of the film would remaine fairly stable. The inside of the silver Hasselblad camera would work much the same way.
Dust was indeed a problem even without air as very fine particles were easilly kicked up into clouds around the astronauts that very slowly drifted back to the surface. You can see these fine dust particles scattering blue halos around the astronauts in shots with certain lighting conditions.
The astronauts would have been blown away by the stars they saw while in the shadow of the moon. It would have been unlike anything we could see on earth. Collins in particular as he was in the orbiting module the whole time the other two were on the surface…. Therefore when asked a specific question about stars, it is very strange indeed that he does not mention the incredible star show he would have undoubtedly seen. I’m sure he would have also attempted to photograph the sight.
Absolutely brilliant examination of the evidence for the Moon Landings, and debunking and exposing of the dishonesty and confirmation bias of the Apollo "detectives" and the "unbrilliant" expat taffy.
Well said 👏
Hahaha he’s an idiot who believes anything. He’s actually arguing with someone who made the cameras and even he said the photos couldn’t be have done.
Yeah, if Taffy isn't just a Troll/Poe his behavior just screams extreme narcissism and Dunning-Kruger.
Loving these vids, making a mockery of …… hmmm how can i put this politely … i cant the ignorant 💁♂️
@@kevinwagstaff7906 There's no reason to be polite to conspiracy nuts lol
Brilliant video Dave. My father helped to develop the film emulsions for the films, in the late 60's and early 70's. He worked for a company called Howson-Algraphy in Leeds (UK) and, my mother used to entertain the American contingent at our house, I have no idea as I was around 2 at the time.
I've just recently discovered you, and I love it. I live vicariously through people like you, scimandan, ftfe etc. simply because I can't be bothered to actually speak to these people. It's the one form of eliteism I gladly use any time someone in person brings up the moon landings, just an 'are you an engineer, no? well I could explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you, so I'm not going to try stop talking'.
😅😅😅
In other words, you have no thoughts of your own and need to be guided by a cult leader. Why didn’t you just say so?
Original! I like it. 😂😂
I felt sorry for Gary Fong. He came across as simply needing things explained - until he started mocking someone for using the word 'albedo'. Then I gave up. I'm glad you addressed his basic mistakes.
Excellent video. Thank you.
I feel sorry for you. The guys a professional and you’re listening to a buffoon that can’t comprehend how basic triangles work. He’s not called Dave triangles mckeegan for nothing
Also, anyone who calls it fake, is absolutely pissing on the memories of Grissom, Chaffee and White
Absolutely, yet some have the audacity to suggest they were murdered as part of a cover up 🤦🏻♂️
Dave, the Internet breeds all kinds of despots! It makes you wonder what these folk actually do for a living to be to mental 🤣
But it is fake when you start to scrutinize the story. We’ve never been there and we never will. Keep believing the lies.
How’d they get past the Van Allen Radiation belt? Why is it so painful for them to make 60’s technology that they claim they destroyed? Why’d they destroy it? It goes on and on and on but instead of looking into it and asking (oh no!!) questions you guys just believe the story they tell you, no questions asked because they are (smart) scientists….don’t question the science….because….that’s not how science works but whatever. It’s not like they don’t have billions of dollars to gain by perpetuating this nonsense with pictures of salami and claiming its galaxies or cgi rendered images to fool the sleepy masses. Foolish people.
@@greysuit17 we get it... you're trolling for the clout. Just stroll into the sea until your hat floats off your head 💀🤣
Working through your back catalogue so thanks for adding MORE examples of how much grift is going on with the Apollo Detectives. Corridor Crew did a CGI debunk a while back and Phase52102 has forensically obliterated the detectives and ExpatTaffy for years now. At one stage I even made some 3d models of the "studio"you would need to construct to film this caper (and the underwater ISS) I sort of gave up after I started factoring how feasible it would be to hidethe bodies of all the construction and consulting staff at Area51...
This was so convincing, the Apollo Detectives were forced to lie through their teeth in an attempt to save face in front of their flerf audience...
Ya gotta lie to flerf...
CZcams has been removing all the video denying moon landing.
It always amazes me and makes me a little sad when I hear about people casting doubt on the Apollo flights. This was human kinds greatest achievement and lead to many technological advances.
All on tv not in the real world.
Not wars, not the Atom Bomb, our escape from the cradle of earth to walk on another celestial body was such a gigantic achievement and people disregarding it as fake just seem so sad and boring to me.
@@TheJUNGLESURFER You are only on my cellphone, and not in the real world. You are faked. Prove to me you exist.
Sorry about that, I rolled into my phone while sleeping.
@@TheJUNGLESURFER Just because you are incapable of comprehending the science doesn't mean it didn't happen Nancy.
Hey Dave, really appreciate your clear technical explanations about these historical endeavours.
It’s very important that observations and findings are presented in straightforward way, which allows the individual to make their own assessment.
I grew up in an era of ‘its all a conspiracy’ and a lot of the evidence presented to support these theories was plain wrong.
I like how, without fanfare or drama, you’re explaining what’s happening on a technical level and the implications of this, rather than support an agenda or call out people as idiots for disagreeing with you.
I will always have slight reservations about how these events actually transpired, both from a technical point of view as well as the political motivations that supported them, but I thank you for your sound explanations and point of view. Really great to listen to.
Best,
Seb
Thank you Seb
Maybe if you have reservations you could voice them in a way that they can be addressed, with evidence that might be convincing for you.
If Only Gary Fong had taken 15 min to research rather than claim, the photos weren't taken on the moon.
@@paddyofurniture3988 Research, for the conspiritards, consists of reading posts and watching vids by other conspiritards. They would never go near a NASA website as they have been convinced that NASA is the Devil incarnate. It's like an echo chamber in their world of deluded beliefs.
@@DaveMcKeegan Seriously though, its well put and backed up with easy to follow explanations, trying to explain why it could be seen another way. clarity and openness that doesn't seem to be reciprocal
You’re my favorite of all “flat earth/fake moonlanding” debunkers
It’s sad that we live in a world where you have to debunk this stuff but, I have to admit that it’s all educational and entertaining
Thanks (but no thanks) to all these debunkers, our knowledge has grown and information about the Apollo landings we would have never known has been revealed. In their effort to debunk them, it strengthened them instead. The steps and the engineering that was mustered to achieve this is still outstanding. It was not done overnight, but thru gradual and fearless steps. Astronauts lost their lives as well, but in the end it was achieved.
We live in an era when every "official" organization in government, science, education and industry is supposed to be lying to us. This has been Fox "News" mission for nearly 20 years. Massive conspiracies are needed for Flerfs and their ilk to exist.
The earth is not flat. And we did not go to the moon.
@@DARTHNEWS the earth is not flat and we DID go to the moon. See! I can do that too 😂
@@dougbelford4565 lol u took the bait. I just wanted a response. Have a good one
Film has been used in vacuum for decades in the field of electron microscopy and particle physics, it survives vacuum for literal decades, i have used film which had been in a vacuum desiccator for 20 years, which worked fine, i have also processed film which was exposed to high vacuum for 20+ years (it was unclear when it was placed into the camera) which also didn't have any problem with data on it.
Film has been used in vacuum since at least the early 20th century (around 1920 and possibly before). I should also add that the films i have used in vacuo where both specialty film AND REGULAR OFF THE SHELF film, both of which worked just fine.
It would help some flerfs to read up on the subjects they are claiming to know things about.
I dont even understand the argument? Why would they even think a vacuum would effect the electromagnetic waves/particles/photons of visible (or other) light from reaching and exposing the film?
But nope...these entire industries and fields with millions of people are all faked because "that looks fake/like CGI to me!" (For the "space is fake" and flat earthers, less so but still significantly so for the moon landings.)
Every scientist, astronomer, astronaut, aerospace industry employee, pilot, navigator, mariner, artilleryman, sniper, geologist, surveyor, etc etc etc would have to be "in" on the "secret". And entirely consistent the whole time. All for...what?!
There are plenty of real conspiracies. We dont need to go making them up.
And film for long exposures is 'vacuumed' then exposed to nitrogen or a mix of gases to reduce reciprocity failure. Of course the doubters have never worked with such processes
and really have never done anything except non scientific 'experiments' or regurgitate other nonsense. Never a true thought of their own. - Cheers
@@joeshmoe7967 interesting, i never consciously checked reciprocity failure of the evacuated film. Ill also look into the nitrogen and gas mix reciprocity failure reduction. Thank for telling me about it.
@@joeshmoe7967 as for flat earthers, it amazes me how many disciplines one must be totally ignorant in to believe the earth is flat. Even a cursory exposure to aviation, navigation (especially navigation), physics, astrophysics, artillery, satellites, photography, sailing, weather, rocket science, electromagnetic theory, radio, communications, etc etc etc would convince a reasonable person that the earth can not be flat and still have all the assumptions that go into these fields actually work! EVERYone who applies any of these assumptions to do their job in any of these fields would have to be "in on it".
Nice video Dave,
I worked on CGI equipment in the 1980's and it was pretty primitive back then, and was in no way able to create the types of images that the astronauts took during the flight and on the moon walks.
I watched the moon landings early in the morning and it was amazing, the achievement for mankind was awe inspiring.
I was working at the Mayo Clinic in 1980's We used the latest CGI and we also developed gloves to hold 3D objects and move them.
As for the faking using CGI for Apollo. I don't think so. I think this was all setup using practical methods. A movie called 2001: A Space Odyssey was in 1968. Much of the
methods used looked to be like on the moon. In truth I know the only reason people love the moon landing idea is it is a positive and inspired people to shoot for the stars. I am right along with them. However After many college fields I woke up and realized that if this was achieved we don't normally stop. I push to do more. We strive like moon bases. This never happened. The only logical reason is we never went.
@@primemac3dstudio18 As a visual effects artist, there is no way they would have been able to create the footage we see. 2001 took years upon years to produce and it still has very visible compositing artifacts and color issues (since optical compositing was the only way to do it). For longer and far more complex "shots" in the footage, it would've been a monumental undertaking that would've taken every optical printer in Hollywood to even start doing. You'd have also needed an army of people working frame-by-frame. It would've easily been just as expensive as building it for real, and you'd be able to see issues which are not visible.
Why did we stop? Because there was no reason to spend that much money anymore. Life doesn't work like an RTS or game where each "achievement" is a tier upon which the next level is built. Its a fallacy to assume that "we wouldn't stop", it happens all the time. Plenty of islands were charted and never visited again. It depends on the reasons you went and why you'd want to keep going. And from congress's point of view, Moon landings were a waste of money. Only starting around 2010 has congress even been "for" returning to the Moon, they opposed it strongly through the 70s, 80s and 90s. And killed all followup missions. All Apollo hardware work was done in batches which made it very easy to simply not pick up the next batch and let that cancel things.
The goal of beating the USSR was achieved and even the last few missions didn't have the funding to fly. Congress considered the WHOLE space program "over" and only reluctantly went along with the Space Shuttle with its drastically reduced budget. This was stupid, but its what congress wanted and thats politics. They cancelled habitats and engines because they simply feared they might lead to Moon bases or Mars missions- they didn't want to spend the money.
The only reasons we can go back now is that they finally found a way to do the mission at a mere fraction of the cost of Apollo, theres no more Space Shuttle, but most importantly, Congress is actually FOR it.
What a bouth light source.same light source moon and earth.why moon so dark.its a night footage or day fotage..
@@primemac3dstudio18 You need historical perspective - 2001 looked like what it was, a sci film.
Even by 1968 Apollo had become controversial with the public and congress, which is one reason why Lyndon Johnson and then Richard Nixon killed anything in the future; Johnson because he was having problems with the Vietnam War and the Great Society and Nixon because he was a good politician and saw that the Moon could harm his presidency and he began cutbacks during a widescale retreat from technology projects, and of course Nixon never liked Kennedy and didn’t want to prolong his legacy.
There was/is no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time. Even Apollo astronaut Frank Borman said. 'Any idea that the Apollo programme was a great voyage of exploration or scientific endeavour is nuts. People just aren't that excited about exploration. They were sure excited about beating the Russians.’
@@lalherapb9627 Check your vision as soon as possible.
My father knew Neil, knew him well enough that Neil gave him the negatives of three pics Neil took on the moon of Buzz descending the ladder. NASA had given him a ton of negatives, apparently.
I was a kid in the 70s and never really knew what was hanging on our wall, or the inscription from Neil to my Dad under them.
Dad sold them a few years ago for about 8k.
By '85 or so, I got the significance of owning the actual negatives that were on the moon. My Dad was a pretty cool dude in the 60s.
RezRising What you would have had was a copy neg. They used transparency film (slide film) on Apollo, not negative. Also, Neil most likely never got to touch an original. But I am sure he could have gotten or maybe were just given copy negs or copy transparencies.
@@williammann9176 Maybe, probably. In the end, someone smarter than me threw down eight thousand for them, the inscription and signature were real, and I have good memories of both my parents and sister talking about them hanging out in FL.
Truth, dad was probably trying to get Neil to go in on a business deal or three. 🌖
@@MrRezRising If they were autographed then that would sure add value to them. But NASA greedily keeps a tight chain of custody on all film stock.
@@williammann9176 I think I stated up above ya wouldn't believe me.
Neil's autograph is worth about $500, btw.
Be well.
Be well.
And these "debunkers" are trying to take away all the achievements of folks like your dad?
One think that is funny and usually forgotten is that the Apollo 11 astronauts had and used a light meter. Minolta was very proud of the fact that a Minolta spot meter was used. When the hoax people ask "how could they get the photos so perfect?" well training and equipment. Like a light meter.
Thanks Dave - perfect description of the modifications made to the ELM bodies! I used ‘Blads exclusively for commercial, macro and ariel photography from 1975 right through to 1991 when we moved into digital imaging and even then Kodak had a digital back for them. I figured out the issue with the dark slide as that etched photogrammetry glass would need to be in full contact with the film emulsion and acting as a second pressure plate to avoid any chances of distortion. Nicely explained! Cheers, David Myers of Digital Masters Australasia.
What a brilliant video! I just watched Gary Fong's video before finding yours' and being a scientist (a natural sceptic) and a keen amateur photographer, I thought he made some interesting points that I would need to look into. I also remember watching the Apollo 11 landing with awe when I was an 8-year-old child sitting on my father's lap in the early hours of the morning and I see no reason whatsoever to doubt the validity of the Apollo moon landings and think those who do are idiots. I believe it would be harder to fake the moon landings than to actually have done them considering the visible and verifiable logistics that were involved in the project. But Gary Fong's video raised questions I thought I would have to consider. But, no, you just went ahead and brilliantly addressed them all! Many thanks! And love the dog! I'll be watching your more normal videos from now on!
I also saw Gary Fong's video, and found his assertions to be really irritating. When he started going on about the temperature, it was obvious that he did not even understand that a moon day is 28 earth days, so they would not have experienced night at all, and they obviously would not have planned their trip for midday. Dave's response in this video is exceptionally well presented.
Thank you very much Nic
It's frankly alarming that Gary's video has attracted so much attention despite all his assertions being wrong ... And people wonder where misinformation comes from 🤦🏻♂️
Nic I saw Gary's video first and then found this gem from Dave, I have attached my comment to Dave and Gary for your information below.
Wow what an amazing video Dave. I watched Gary "Wrongs" video before finding yours as I wanted more and better information, basically I didn't believe a word of what he said. You did an amazing job of explaining things much better and I have attached a copy of the comment I made to Gary.
I have subscribed to your channel in the hope of seeing more videos like this one. Keep up the good work and well done for not lowering yourself to Ex Pat Taffy's level of insults.
Gary, you are just another conspiracy theorist and from watching your video I think you really don't believe that astronauts have walked on the moon. In spite of your apparent intelligence and consistent bragging about how clever you are and your qualifications, have you ever wondered why NASA has never defended itself regarding conspiracies about the Apollo missions? Its because they don't have to and they won't lower themselves arguing with idiots. Case closed.
czcams.com/video/fMcpKJ18nmo/video.html
@@scott-o3345 That Bart Sibrel, has blocked comments on his youtube video, because he does not want people pointing out how stupid he is. If there are 2 light sources, there will be 2 shadows, so his studio lighting theory is crap. The moon surface is not a smooth level plane like the road in his photo. This will make shadows appear to not be parallel.
I'm a film photographer, and I've had a ton of film go through airport x-rays. Unless it's very high speed film, it's fine to do it a couple times. I've had 1600 iso film make it through an x-ray without any obvious change, and they used 100 iso on the moon.
The moon has up to 200% more radiation
The carry on x-ray machines are safe because of their lower power so film is unaffected for the most part. The x-ray machines used in the luggage area are much more powerful and can cause fogging.
Was it 100 ISO on the Moon or 64?
@@oscans7084 The medium format film used was slow ASA 64 Kodak Ektachrome MS SO-368 estar.
Also B&W Kodak Pan-X 164 ASA..
The 16mm stock was 64 ASA reversal.
They also had a Kodak 35mm stereo close-up camera for close-up lunar surface work and on later missions UV stock for star field photography from the Lunar surface.
@@oscans7084 Not enough difference to alter the argument.
Just curious, do you, or anyone else know why the Apollo "Detectives" keep claiming the the Downey Studios where built in 1962?
When they were actually built in the early 2000s, and demolished in 2012 due to site contamination.
No idea why they'd claim the studios were built in 1962
The site used to be a NASA facility which was used during the Apollo & Shuttle programs - later turned into studios
Perhaps the Detectives are just up to their usual trick of taking 2 unrelated pieces of information and fabricating the story between them
@@DaveMcKeegan - I'm just stunned, as usual, that their followers, who praise them to the sky, have never bothered to check what the ADs claim. This or any of the "information" they pass off as "fact".
@@Phase52012 Agreed, the irony in their statements is so hilarious yet their followers completely miss it
Their latest video, Marcus claims I need to provide evidence that the Apollo film wasn't regular ...except they just palm off all evidence as being fabricated by NASA
Whilst they repeatedly claim the film was regular, consumer stuff with absolutely no evidence to support it
Not as hilarious though as their genuine claims that NASA must have watched their videos and then immediately changed all the available information lol
Great video. I previously saw the Fong video (a self-declared expert who's a musician who used to shoot wedding photos in the 80s) and I was so annoyed I wrote a long response; it is quite easy to debunk, and when he goes from claiming he's held a data camera to claiming the controls were fused, it just shows he's a liar, he clearly didn't know there were 3 control levers. Everything else you mentioned, like the Reseau plate and the need to remove the dark slide before to avoid scratching it (hence the warnings). It is also worth mentioning that on a later Apollo mission, an astronaut is on video changing the cartridge, and indeed he removes the dark side first, and then once installed he winds it forward, telling the controller that he's now on slide 5. You mentioned the other points like the length of the lunar day and the deliberate decision to land in the lunar morning. The recent Chinese missions did some detailed radiation measurements too, and it was concluded human can survive on the surface around 2 weeks without extra protection, after which they need some shielding from a lunar base, something as simple as covering the base with lunar soil, and for the sake of solar flares, a lower more shielded room is required.
At one point in mentioning the current NASA mission to test radiation exposure on human simulants, which are female since they intend to send female astronauts, and previous lunar astronauts have all been men, his mocking tones about "ooh my boobies" was cringeworthy and embarrassing.
great video and werll presented Dave :), Mythbusters did a video some time ago ref some of the "questions" over the photos being "fake" and came back with roughly the same answers as I remember, very difficult to fake :)
Mythbusters was pure comedy.Pure garbage to defend Nasa but aall intelligent people know its all Disneyland lies.
czcams.com/video/T_Xbpg14mcQ/video.html
Ok, So "very difficult to fake" More difficult than Actually Going to and landing on the Moon?
I Believe Not!
@@kennethrhodes7143At the time .... probably yes, as it happens. What is your knowledge and understanding of computer processing and applications?
When I'm feeling down, I come back to watch this brilliant video and I feel better.
Love your content and sarcasm Dave. Never change.
I'll admit, I like your arguments, but I'm just here for the dog. 😂
Dave's videos are great, though part of the reason I watch them is, like you, because of the dog!
Appreciate all of the effort here. It’s a shame you will never convince the “skeptics” … no evidence given will ever be enough. They pretend they are interested in the truth, but they aren’t.
Dave, I love your matter-of-fact-ness and natural & confident delivery. Your arguments are fully-fleshed out but these clowns will never admit that - as you rightfully pointed out they ironically posited that admitting fault to one thing would mean they have to re-examine all the other arguments they make too.
The pseudo-science (or just plain BS) these people spew shamefully misleads people who lack the instinct to seek actual truth (happy to draw lines to reinforce their own beliefs - the confirmation bias they again ironically mentioned), but as you sort of explained, there are too many other important things going on in life to be hung up so much on this.
It would be nice to know what they're hoping to achieve by proving this conspiracy anyway, but frankly we are surrounded by inconsequential arguments so hopefully you can move on from this... although the aspects of your argument regarding the camera, film & techniques used were quite fascinating!
What is Dave and your experience of what happened back then ?
Physical evidence please ?
@@Hellndegenerates Ok, firstly, what are you even asking, try and make a legible sentence, and what do you want evidence of? If you’re arguing that we never went to the moon but demanding evidence from them, what’s your evidence for whatever you believe?
@@iamacatperson7226The burden isn’t with him. It’s with the individuals that claim to have shot thousands of images in just a few days with a camera that can’t withstand temps of supposed space while having multiple light sources ….which isn’t possible. Zero dust on the lander. How did that full sized vehicle get there? Who filmed the lander leaving the moon from the moons surface? Why did Buzz say they all saw stars yet the one man that stayed with the ship in the dark side of the moon admitted he saw no stars. He’s the only one that absolutely should have seen them. It’s a silly hoax and only children believe these little fairytales.
@@johnnydough8841 the burden IS with him. When you make a claim that something is wrong, you have to provide proof as to why. He's also asking for physical evidence (which he doesn't have either, at least that's my assumption). Also if we were to fake the moon landing, firstly why would independent people from other nations claim to have gotten our radio signals (I believe that was it) from the moon, and perhaps most damning, the Soviet Union admitted it as well, our space race rivals. If anyone would want to go against us and say we didn't, it would be them, but they didn't, and as for the camera stuff I can't speak on it because I don't know the camera used, nor it's specifications
@@johnnydough8841 I think perhaps the most important thing to think about...why lie? What does it get anyone to lie and pay absurd amounts of money to make people be quiet, and even then people *ALWAYS* mess up, especially with the amount of people that would need to have been involved. My main reason for this is the same as me believing flat earth is nonsense: What difference does it make if the conspiracy were true?
It's also worth pointing out that the glass reseau plate (on which you can see the fine reticules or crosses) had to be in physical contact with the film in order to produce pin-sharp crosses. There were so many modifications to the moon 'blads and your video does a great job in both (a) describing them, and (b) debunking the lies and rumours surrounding these truly priceless cameras.
Wow, thanks I did not know that. Makes sense, though.
One thing the conspirationalists say is that you don't need a reseau plate, because you can superimpose the marks after developing the film...
Excellent point
I also believe they coated the plate with a conductive film to deal with the static that it would generate when the film was winding over it
Changed the record Taffy
I'm not scared to face you, I'm just waiting for you to prove the most basic fundamental for the moon landings being fake:
What lighting did they use to create those images in a studio
If the lighting can't be created on Earth then the photos MUST have been taken on the Moon
If the photos were taken on Earth then "the brilliant Expat Taffy" should have absolutely no problem showing the world a working lighting setup ...
@expattaffy1 Anyone who was stuck with your brains would have to have their meals through a straw, because if you had any brains you'd be able to answer the most fundamental question "how was the studio lit to create those images
But we all know you won't because it can't physically have been lit that way in a studio, instead you'll just continue trying to drag arguments out of nonsensical shite
@expattaffy1 As I've told you before, I've answered several of your questions while you've answered NONE of mine
So you're getting no more answers until you start giving some
Excellent video! Very informative. As with your other related video, I learned quite a bit. Keep up the great work. 😊
I find it hilarious.
"But how did you deal with dust? You have no dust protection"
"Yeah it was a problem. But we coped."
The astronauts actually were concerned about their space suits, as the dust was razor sharp and cutting through the fibre of their space suits.
i just love how your dog is staring at you.
Power to you brother!.. Appreciate all the hard work you put into these videos.
They're very much needed to educate the people and steer them away from false theories.
Off-topic note* - much respect for helping out a Ukrainian family. I can’t even imagine the trauma and stress Ukrainians everywhere are feeling.
This is an amazing example of epistemology in action…I am a glutton for this kinda $hit, I know nothing about cameras yet can follow every bit of information presented. This is what the best of CZcams can be or Nebula if they add a little more creator/viewer interaction capabilities. Great job as always!
Completely agree thank you for opening your doors I would love to do that but I already have 10 people in my house eight dogs seven cats lizards Turtles tortoises I have a zoo for people and animals
@@oregonmodding wanna add a idiot?
There will be no Ukraine in 2024. This is what they get for electing a comedian as president. Russia is taking what’s theirs and nato doesn’t have the courage to stand up. Meanwhile we have a guy that can barely mumble in office lol
@@johnnydough8841 Hey, it’s you again! =D It’s good to see you consistently representing the worst of humanity, just in case there was any confusion over your integrity or values.
@@TukaihaHithlec I notice you’re not denying the fact that you enjoyed the profile photo. Meanwhile I’m opposing it. It’s not what you say. Sometimes it’s what you don’t. I don’t expect you to grasp that concept. You seem a little shallow and I’m miles ahead of you as most are I’m sure
Brilliant and easy to understand explanation and details. Thank you for showing the science and truth to debunk the ridiculous conspiracy idiots out there.
I'm glad you enjoyed it
Good work Dave. I'm sorry I didn't see this before I wasted time responding to Gary Fong's video a week ago. Great to see clear thinking at play, very rare on the 'net unfortunately.
3:31 oh good! I was hoping someone that could explain how the cameras were real! That video that all the Hasselblad camera professional photographer people were screaming about how they wouldn’t work in space. Right away you would think that out of everything NASA would need to do to fake an entire space program they would just skimp on the very famous cameras?? Thank you for explaining this!
Great video mate. I love your methodical, calm approach to debunking and exposing these idiots.
Once again, fantastically polite, and - unlike your critics - an amazing job sticking to the topic, the material, and not wasting viewer time putting on a show and dance (or cackle) of calling people names.
It's unfortunate you had to waste your time with these people, but as always you used the opportunity to deliver excellent science lessons using misunderstanding (contrived or genuine) as the reference point needing correction and clarification.
To be honest, I'd be fascinated to know what the pink flamingo head was supposed to be doing there in their logic. Was there a flamingo on set? Was it a toy? Why was it left there?
Here's my explanation:
"That day on set the Director had brought his dog Buster with him. Buster was playing with the actors in their funny astronaut suits, who were taking turns throwing Busters favourite pink flamingo toy for him to fetch. 'Buster, get over here! Aaand action!' shouted the director. The astronaut gets on the ladder and then proceeds to climb down it, just like rehearsed. As he steps off the last rung there is a loud squeak as he steps on the flamingo that had fallen into the base of the lander prop. Everyone laughed so hard they forgot to check the footage. 'That's a wrap!' shouted the director. Less than month later he sees the flamingo head in the photos that NASA was releasing. In a panic he packs his things and flees the country. He did not get far."
Excellent. You must be a great 'people watcher' I'm sure the stories I make for them are more interesting than their actual lives. ( And ditto in return for the ones that watch me)
Funny though that NASA was not the first to make vacuum rated film, because the NSA got Kodak to make them vacuum film for the early Keyhole satellites, and also for the balloon cameras they sent across the USSR. That film also was, due to the failed balloons, used by the USSR to take the first images of the back side of the moon, though that process was done with a sealed enclosure, as they had to expose the film, develop it with what was essentially a enclosed mini lab that used wet chemistry in foam rollers that contacted the film direct ot apply them, and then the film was scanned by a CRT and photodetector to send the data back. Keyhole and the balloon film was exposed to vacuum, or very low pressure, and then had a high pressure and temperature return to ground level, and that film was very good when developed and analysed.
"Thanx for laying that out" double thumbs up!
.
I am subscribing. This was very well done. Even if there are no more videos like this one and none of the others catch my eye this is good enough to subscribe for in hopes of more videos like this :)
THANK YOU, SIR! I so enjoy listening to someone who takes the time to make rational reasoned arguments, in reply to what I view as bizarre nonsense from conspiracy loons.
Totally brilliant 👏👏👏👏 and I did make it to the end! Respect for keeping your cool and not joining the “caps party” under severe provocation...
I watched the Gary Fong video and immediately looked up the Hasselblad camera and saw that the control rings are not locked together, he claimed to have looked at it in the museum, not sure if it went to the moon, but showing pictures of the camera that avoid showing the other levers seems dishonest as do the defectives
I believe the camera he is referring to seeing is the one in the Smithsonian, which didn't go to the moon itself (all the surface cameras were left on the moon)
That particular one was one that the astronauts used as part of their training before missions
@@DaveMcKeegan Reminds me of arguing with Flat Earthers, you will never change the minds of most of them because they want to disbelive anything that disproves their cherished belief, I guess you may convince people who are just curious about the claims and don't know the facts.
I'll take that as a win 😁
My apollogy. I did subscribe to your channel. I've never seen such a clear and maticulous debunking vid. Thanks for that.
Thanks Dave. Much appreciated.
I have a flattie SEMontreal who is dead keen on the vacuum and film thing.
I took one look and guess pretty much all the points you came to have doing many deep dives.
Thanks again.
Great videos on your channel. I especially enjoy them because you don't just combat ignorance, but also never turn to the ad-hominem and/or personal attacks that other channels use. Very respectful even with people that are not respectful themselves. Cheers.
I think your video here of almost an hour (yes, I did 'get through every moment of it), could not have been any shorter in explaining all the material you covered. Personally, I think the biggest problem we face in our world of sound bites and video clips, is that it has seriously eroded peoples' attention span....
Thanks Dave - well done. It is worth mentioning that Gemini astronauts and Apollo astronauts used film cameras as to make photos while Earth orbit while outside of their respective capsules. These conditions would be pretty much be the same as conditions on the moon with respective to radiation, temperatures and the rest.
I sometimes wonder why certain individuals try so hard to destroy the incredible accomplishments of so many talented, dedicated and creative individuals (400,000+ individuals). I suppose its because these individuals are themselves incapable of accomplishing much of anything positive at all.
My daughter did a 30 day mission trip to Venezuela and took 10 rolls of slide film in her carry on. The security people assured me that they could x-ray it without damage. She went through this in PDX and again in Miami going and coming. The film held up. and the slides came out fine.
I must say that is a very sweet pupper you've got there.
Great video, all points thoroughly addressed. Only someone who's thoughts on the Apollo Missions is truly dogmatic rather than rational would be unable to acknowledge that not only are you correct on all these points, but with such knowledge of photography, including angles and post-processing, you're probably a pretty good professional photographer.
Also of note that you did not mention about heating or cooling of the film in the camera body...most of the heat that is transferred from the outer camera body to the film on earth will do so through the air moving about inside that camera body,, the air will take heat from the inside walls of the body which will make thermals and the hot air will replace the cold air making movement and transporting the heat directly to the film,, BUT on the moon, in a vacuum, the camera body will work like a thermos flask as there will be a labyrinth of body parts between the outer case and the film and it will take many times longer to transport the heat to the film
With conspiracy theories the old adage fits "Every accusation is a confession" as they KNOW they are dishonest about at least part of their evidence and they CANNOT imagine anybody else to not be just as dishonest.
Do moon landing deniers think that the scientists and engineers wouldn't rigorously test the equipment (cameras, film, etc.) before sending it be used on the moon?
"Glad you said that" thumbs up!
"Do moon landing deniers think?" No, they don't think. That's the source of their trouble. Thinking is anathema to them.
I found about your work when you a sit down with MC Toon. Your work is authoritative, and please keep it coming.
Thank you 😊
A well put together video. you explain things so clearly.
I believe the NASA press conference was only the 99 th press conference from around the world tour. I think they were worn out and wanted to just go home and be with there family’s. I don’t understand everyone wanting to ask them how they will return to normal! Really, let them go home for a rest. Then you can ask dumb ass questions later. If you watch their faces, they really don’t want to be there. Compare the pre launch press conference with this one. Wow, what a difference. Armstrong is humbled in the first one. He said they were privileged in attempting to land on another heavenly body! That was a statement!!
I see you have endless source of patience. Please keep this way.
Dave, as a former photo industry professional, I really enjoy how you shred the arguments from the moon landing deniers into pieces. Nothing beats knowledge!
Isn't it funny the nonbelievers never have worked in the field with equipment or processes.
I too was in the industry and also an avid amateur photographer and astronomer, still am.
- Cheers
I can't believe your patience in dealing with all those nutcases, but I can perfectly understand why you won't waste even a bit of your scarce spare time arguing with them online. In the time you would need to answer only one of their objections, they would throw ten more at you.
Thank you very much for your videos, they're very interesting and necessary.
I seem to remember prediction the Bacofoil Beret Brigade would be all over the comments when you released the original. I can't say I'm pleased to have been proven right.
As I said then, glad to see that you're not bonkers.
Dave, I really appreciate your expertise and attention to detail. At this point I am just so bemused by moon landing deniers -- amusing to see the lengths they will go to to make their points, and the levels of hypocrisy (everyone lies but them - even when caught in a lie). Somehow also very sad how much energy they waste chasing ghosts and shadows. I also thank you for just calmly and cooly addressing the issues without devolving into name-calling or otherwise falling to their level of behavior. I look forward to more of your work.
Before the Apollo missions, Kodak had years of experience developing film to be used in space. Lookup the Carona project.
Gary starts his vid by referring to the "Apollo 11th" mission. Yeah, that is just an innocent pronunciation error, but he left it in. That kinda says something about the reliability of these "detectives." Or maybe not. But your thorough explanation of the long list of their false statements certainly does. Thank you, Dave. The world needs to see your work.
Apollo ONE-TEEN!
Ahh 12 minutes in and this is brilliant- I had to stop and comment- the dog interaction pushed me over the edge.
This is just what we needed, very concise, articulate, very scientific and well actually, just downright entertaining.
I knew that other guy was jumping to conclusions all over the shop and your vid leaves me with much more confidence on the details.
Excellent stuff.
That other guy being Fong.
I was wondering have you seen that claim that the backdrop hills were used twice on two different locations and whether you had any opinion on that?
Knockout.
I won't be clicking on the deceptives if I see them- cognitive dissonance springs to mind.
As for expat taffy. Clearly mad.
Let's keep our minds open.
I particularly liked your explanation of lunar temperature and Armstrongs baseline nervousness, with answers about the stars.
Now all I need you to do is explain what all those foo fighters were in ww2 👽
Which KODAK Film stock did they use for the Still Images and the 16mm Movie.
Google it. I am sure that info is available. Ok, so I googled, here it is:
Films selected for use on the historic Apollo 11 mission were Kodak Ektachrome EF film SO-168 (ASA 160), in 16mm and 70mm; Kodak Ektachrome MS film SO-368 (ASA 64) in 16mm, 35mm and 70mm; and 70mm Kodak Panatomic-X recording film SO-164.
At 37:53, which shadow line is the duplicate one, the one caused by the 'inter-reflection'? Is it the outer or inner one? Here's the image AS12-48-7026, would provide a link but its YT.
Next April 1st send them an email saying "OMG you were right about the fake moon landing!" and just don't follow up or respond to them. 😂
Genius 🤣
Met Gary Fong a few times at the PhotoPlus Expos in NYC pre-Covid. Have used his products, specifically his Lightsphere. Personable chap who knows wedding and event photography, but clearly in over his head regarding the moon landings, kind of ‘out there’-a real ‘space cadet’, as we said back in the 70’s.
Sounds like a cool person if you don't talk about the moon (or just agree so he doesn't start a argument)
Hey Dave love your vids!! One question, around 39 mins you talk about the double shadows. I understood your point. However, why wouldn’t there be a ghost duplicate on the entire image of it was taken through the window? I understand why there’s duplicates of the shadow itself and duplicate craters but would like to understand that more about why not the entire image thanks!! Or if anyone else can explain
Came back to watch this again, it's such a great treatise on the subject. Regarding Armstrong, Richard Feynman wrote in one of his books about being assigned to the committee investigating the Challenger accident. Described meeting 'this guy that I'll be working with, walked over to me and said, 'Hi.... I'm Neil'" A rather humble person with a job to do, just got down to doing it.
I've watched a few of your videos where you do this sort of thing and they are all brilliant. Well done. You have much more patience than me to deal with those morons.
Nice one, I've had one or two exchanges with Gary as well over this video, and you don't have to push too hard to find the limits of his arguments .
I came of age during the exciting NASA Moon Missions and remember it vividly. I find deniers like the Apollo "Detectives" to be insulting ignoramuses. They deserve only scorn and laughter. I'm thankful that people like you exist who have the time, and are willing, to debunk these Dunning-Kreuger idiots. Keep up the good work!
So excellent Dave!
I’ve always admired the bravery of astronauts. Just imagine standing on the ground and looking around you, seeing a much lower horizon and a completely black sky. That would be too scary for me.
What temperature was there inside the camera ? I heard someone say, the film material would be as brittle as glass at "such low temperature".
How about that ? Please enlighten me !
Tia Herzele
Professional cameras of all kinds, are built to be used in harsh conditions, from hot to cold.
Film, even frozen is NOT anywhere as brittle as glass. We freeze film to make it store longer. Pro photographers shoot in winter all the time. Could there be instances where the cold was an issue? Certainly. Is it, instantaneous and catastrophic all the time every time?
No, no it is not.
Their lack of actually working with cameras and film, leaves them to conclude things that are just not true. The whole 'vacuum' argument, is laughable. There are several processes where the film is put into a vacuum condition, on purpose, because of the GOOD it does for the process at hand.
Non believers tend to have zero hands on experience with the thing they are arguing about.
Don't be one of them.
Thanks Dave. I had to visit those links to satisfy my curiosity. My brain hurts due to their sheer stupidity. Rusty is cute.
A very well researched and backed up presentation. So many completely uninformed people online who will never take the time to examine any first-hand accounts. I never doubted the veracity of any of the photographs, but thank you for going to the trouble to put together such an interesting film.
You do good work, Dave, and make great videos. Very entertaining. I had forgotten about Taffy's pausing in the middle of sentences when he speaks. I suspect it is to gather his thoughts, but who knows. It could be more enjoyable to follow. Or maybe not.
Only tangentially related, but I always liked Fuji 35mm cameras because they unrolled the entire roll of film when you first put it in the camera, then as each picture was taken it stuffed it back in the can to reduce the likelihood of lost pictures due to inadvertent back opening. Outstanding idea.
Also, that way you knew exactly how many shots you were going to be able to get, cause it counted up as it installed and then counted down to 0 as you took each picture.
I really like your channel man! So well researched and presented. I have friends and family who have fallen for the moon conspiracy and flat earth stuff. There's nothing I can say that will change their minds.
When I see the Apollo fairy tale being conflated with flat Earth nonsense, I know exactly what that's all about.
Flat Earth nonsense has been around a long time. However, for the longest time, it was fringe and not on hardly anyone's radar. Then, circa 2014, just as Apollo skepticism was gaining traction, and good points were being raised (no, not stupid strawman arguments), suddenly there's this flat Earth revival, and all these questionable, attention seeking characters began popping up to proclaim the Earth is flat, and sought to hitch their bandwagon to Apollo skepticism.
And CZcams promoted these goofballs big time, back then, with the algorithms. If you wanted to research Apollo skepticism, the search results would inevitably lead you to flat Earth foolishness.
The agents of CZcams, and all these propa ganda platforms, have since used all this as a means to stifle anything that doesn't correspond to what their "official" narrative is with regards to many other topics. See how that works?
You have no idea how many levels there are to this deception, and what tactics are employed.
Ever learn about the William Casey quote about what the American public believes? Former Director of the C. I. A. He was talking about how "they" will know their program is complete. I've given you enough information. Find the quote for yourself.
That's because it's not based in evidence, it's mased on doubt and you can doubt anything for no reason at all.
Dude your videos are very thorough and informative. I've been skeptical of the moon landings, but you have done a great job at providing reasonable answers for a lot of the things I questioned about them. I'm becoming more convinced that we actually went to the moon.
Good for you for your willingness to listen to the explanations and change you mind. Even more so for saying so publicly.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
Awesome video!
I got a question, I don't understand why the ghosting of the picture only happens to the shadow and few craters? Can someone explain that to me?
The ghosting is most pronounced on large subjects. Smaller objects create smaller shadows, where the difference may be difficult or impossible to differentiate. The position of the object also plays into how the ghosting appears. You also can get ghosting a from secondary reflections that act as another light source. ONLY the shots through the windows have this effect. The landings happened. The non believers just have no clue as to how things work. Don't be one of them.
Appreciate the explanation!
I fully believe the moon landing happened don't worry xD I just didn't understand the ghosting. @@joeshmoe7967
I don't know why CZcams decided to reccomend your video today, but I am glad it did. The more I hear people trying to prove the moon landing was fake, the more I am sure it happened.
The "Where are all the stars in the lunar photos?" is my favorite argument. As an amateur photographer I understand that the dynamic range in light levels between light and shadows is very narrow for film. Hence the use of graduated neutral density filters to be able to get land shadow detail without blowing out sky detail. Ektachrome had a very narrow dynamic range of 4-5 stops. Nowhere near enough to capture lunar details, and show stars.
Finally, someone debunked Gary's video. I watched his video and was impressed by his scientific illiteracy. Although, I must admit that his narrative was well packaged and to other scientifically illiterate consumers it may sound very logical and appealing (I call it "susceptibility to belief and nonsense). Yet he presented himself, directly or indirectly, as someone who understands physics & co. Surely the truth lies far from that. The usage of argumentum ad verecundiam (Argument from authority) itself at the beginning of any presentation, his too (in the form of "I am a photographer with decades of experience....") automatically implies that offered arguments tend to be a carefully selected compendium of cherry picked information. Which it was.
Therefore, i am very pleased that someone dissected Gary's and Co nonsense about photography in extraterrestrial environment, since there are many of us who would like to do that by ourselves, yet lack in resources (time, well established channel, production,...you name it) to execute it properly.
Dave, really solid video. I especially loved you calling out the so-called "Apollo Detectives" on their crap. You also nailed Expat Taffy's craziness perfectly.
One small thing, and I know you got this on a prior video --- it's LM, not LEM. I know it's pronounced the latter way, but they changed to LM 3 years prior to Apollo 11 (June, 1966)
Blame Ron Howard and Apollo 13 for my habit of calling it LEM 🤣
@@DaveMcKeegan 😆😆😆😆
I've always like LEM - the astronauts kept calling it that.
Back in the Apollo days, I remember the vehicle was always referred to as the "Lunar Module" or the LEM, short for Lunar Excursion Module. I don't remember hearing about a "LM" until the past few years. Of course it's been a long time and the Mandela Effect is possible.
Thanks for all your well thought out details researched and expressed in your videos!!!
I've got to share this anecdote by Neil Gaiman:
Some years ago, I was lucky enough invited to a gathering of great and good people: artists and scientists, writers and discoverers of things. And I felt that at any moment they would realise that I didn’t qualify to be there, among these people who had really done things.
On my second or third night there, I was standing at the back of the hall, while a musical entertainment happened, and I started talking to a very nice, polite, elderly gentleman about several things, including our shared first name*. And then he pointed to the hall of people, and said words to the effect of, “I just look at all these people, and I think, what the heck am I doing here? They’ve made amazing things. I just went where I was sent.”
And I said, “Yes. But you were the first man on the moon. I think that counts for something.”
Flerfers: Do their own experiment, using the wrong film, the wrong conditions, and the wrong development techniques, ALL biased heavily in their favor, and STILL fail to adequately prove their hypothesis
One think that is funny and usually forgotten is that the Apollo 11 astronauts had and used a light meter. Minolta was very proud of the fact that a Minolta spot meter was used. When the hoax people ask "how could they get the photos so perfect?" well training and equipment. Like a light meter.
I find it funny there's often a stark difference in the quality of videos produced by the conspiracy guys and the debunks.
Don't know if anyone else had an overt amount of ads. Basically, double set of ads every 5mins or so. That said, I really enjoyed the content, as long time photography lover, my first camera was an Zenit E the Hasselblad detail was super cool. The Apollo Remastered is epic as are the Blad images. Top work Dave.
Thank you, I can only apologies on behalf of YT about the ads, seems they automatically choose where and when to put ads in a video these days
@@DaveMcKeegan Indeed. 🙄 This presentation was swamped!
So surprised Gary F has got involved (from the wrong direction), has his flash modifier ( I've got one, looks daft but works well) gone bad? Lol
I am impressed by your calm in the face of outrageous lying and slandering of your good works. You are a great example to us all.
Excellent work. I am blocked from commenting on the Apollo detectives/Apollo Deceptives/Appalling Defectives, whichever, as they prefer an echo chamber. Expattaffy has made a number of videos naming me in the titles, some are still up on his channel but I am not allowed to comment on them.
I suspect I'll experience a similar fate of being blocked ... While they continue to complain that people talk to them 🤣
@@DaveMcKeegan You won't be blocked on the Apollo Detectives channel unless your comments contain vile and hateful insults, as was the case with the liars who are complaining to you now.. The trolls who were blocked after being allowed to post hateful ridicule for several years are CLERIC 58, Justin Cox, Cornelius crewe and Phase52012, along with a few other trashy trolls, who mistakenly thought that school yard bully name calling equated to rebuttals.. The Jan Strzelecki troll is allowed to post comments, since his silly mind games and lies have never included the type of hate speech the other trolls enjoy so much.
So if you would like to continue our polite debate on Robert's channel, I can assure you that you will not be blocked.. Btw, I had no idea you were such a photography "expert".. I never would have guessed it, considering the comments you've posted so far. 😉
@@DaveMcKeegan Dave, out of interest, do you know what the near, mid and far focus paddle settings were in terms of feet and how they were marked on the 60mm Biogon lens? I have been unable to get clear information on this but I suspect 74 feet was far. This relates to an aspect of a new AD video where they cannot understand a requirement to be 74 feet away from something.
@@CLERIC_58 I don't know the figures off the top of my head but I'm sure I've seen them referenced in one of the documents somewhere, I'll try and route it out when I can
Likely it would be a guide to ensure that depth of field was deep enough to reach infinity
The photos of the data camera that I can find show the lens focus markers in meters rather than feet and has them at 8m, 15m and then infinity
So I would guess the advice was to aim the focus to the mid point between 15m and infinity
@@DaveMcKeegan Cheers Dave, no rush.
I've never paid too much attention to the whole moon landing debate, but when one side presents rational arguments and the other resorts to misrepresentation and name calling, really it's a wonder there's any debating at all. It's still fascinating to hear both sides, though.
What's super fun is that the Apollo Detectives block all oppostion in the comments on their channel because (lol) we pro Apollo folk never present facts or arguments, only name calling.
Absolutely, unfortunately some people can be rather convincing in their misrepresentations - and many people are too quick to believe things at face value rather than digging into topics themselves to see
You are doing exactly that my good man.
@@DaveMcKeegan You are doing exactly that. The only way that you came to that conclusion is by recognizing it in yourself. ❤️
Because there are people out there that are so “antiestablishment” that they have to be contrarian about literally everything regarding objective reality.
If a person in a position of authority said the sky was blue on a clear and sunny day, the flerf/moon landing denier/etc., would disagree and would proclaim that the sky is neon orange just to be a contrarian, and would be incapable of supplying supporting evidence to back their claim, evading ever discussing their claims and instead making absurd strawman or other fallacious arguments against objective reality in an endless cycle of attacking reality while avoiding ever discussing their claims in any detail ever when it is brought up.