General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

H. de Jong
Curious Droid
comments

Comments by "H. de Jong" (@h.dejong2531) on "How One Camera Changed NASA and How We Saw the World" video.

That's incorrect. Anyone who does objective research finds out that none of the moon landing deniers' claims hold up.
9
Actually, it doesn't. Fong didn't do his homework, and every question he asks has a factual answer that makes it clear none of his arguments hold water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXHrQ1Keac
8
Incorrect. Despite 50 years of trying, no denier has ever been able to debunk any of the Apollo photos.
7
@americanknow8232 If I dig up rocks from two sites 100 km from each other, I get different rock types. That doesn't mean one of them is fake. Thousands of geologists have been studying Apollo samples for 50 years, and found that they were not from Earth. The lunar samples show structures not seen on Earth
7
The evaporation rate of the film they used was low enough that the film wasn't damaged during the short Apollo missions.
7
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
7
No, they'll be the second country to do so.
7
That is incorrect. All of the arguments used by the deniers fall apart when you examine them. There are exactly 0 photos that have been 'debunked'.
7
We've analyzed the photos and video, and proved conclusively that they can't be made on Earth. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXHrQ1Keac
7
No, it won't. The size of Earth or the moon, or any object in a photo depends on the lens you useThe Apollo crew carried lenses with a short focal length because they were mostly taking photos of nearby objects. So Earth appears small in these photos. If you would take a photo of the moon from Earth with the same lens, the diameter of the moon would be 4 times smaller than that of Earth.
7
@petethewrist You still don't understand. Using the zoom lens on my camera (i.e. a lens with a variable focal length), I can make the same object appear large or small in my photos. So the only comparison you can make is between photos made of Earth, while standing on the moon using the Hasselblad with 60 mm Biogon lens, and photos made of the moon while standing on Earth with a Hasselblad with 60 mm Biogon lens. You don't have that comparison, so any opinion you have on how large Earth should appear is based on nothing.
7
@petethewrist The curvature of the horizon shown in lunar photos is consistent with the known size of the moon. It's also consistent with the apparent size of Earth. You should be measuring instead of making baseless claims.
7
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
7
@americanknow8232 As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
6
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. In 50 years, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of the contrary.
6
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
6
@luizotavio5241 I can prove that the moon landing videos show movement consistent with 1/6 G and no atmosphere. That combination cannot be faked convincingly on Earth
6
@luizotavio5241 I can prove that the lunar photos are lit by a single source very far away: the sun. I can also prove there is no infill from Earth's atmosphere. This combination means the photos cannot be taken in a studio, and they cannot be taken outdoors on Earth.
6
What you were seeing is an optical illusion. The reseau plate contains very thin lines, and is suspended in front of the film. It can't touch the film, because that would damage the film. So light can bleed into the areas covered by the cross markings, making them even thinner. In very dark areas, the marking is no longer distinguishable from the photographed subject. So no, you didn't see reseau markings going behind the photographed subject.
6
@petethewrist Again, focal length matters. A lens with a short focal length will capture the view over a wider angle than a telescopic lens. I.e. with a short focal length, a. you see more of the horizon, so a larger amount of curvature is apparent, and b. faraway objects will look smaller.
6
All photos are available in public archives, and you'll see dozens of misaligned shots, some 'I accidentally clicked while moving' shots, exposure bracketing, etc. They chose film and exposure settings that would provide decent shots most of the time, with the option to correct underexposure during development.
5
@ohfft That information is incorrect. The only recording unavailable today is one videotape of the Apollo 11 landing and first steps, recorded at Honeysuckle Creek, where the TV signal was received. We still have other recordings of that broadcast. The Honeysuckle Creek recording was at a higher quality (it avoided one step of conversion and quality loss) so it would have been nice to have. All the original Apollo film can be found in the Film Archive (Building 8) at Johnson Space Center (JSC). Look for 'March to the moon'.
5
False. On Earth you can't convincingly simulate an environment with 1/6 G and no atmosphere.
5
False. None of the photos used spotlights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix1WofdJ2uw
5
@americanknow8232 False. Unedited originals remain available in public archives. And NASA recently published a complete set of new scans with much higher resolution, again unedited.
5
@americanknow8232 You want me to go through all of the books published on the Apollo project between 1970 and 1990 to find one photo? Just give me the image number.
5
@americanknow8232 False. We're getting real images from Artemis 1 regularly. We also have independent parties tracking Artemis 1.
5
The Apollo crew exposure over the whole mission was in the region of 1 Rad (1.14 R).
5
@petethewrist You don't know how large or how far away the landmarks on the lunar horizon are, so they are not usable to judge the size of Earth.
5
None of those are actual arguments.
5
@16sputnik7 Those 1369 uSv was the total exposure for the mission, most of which was spent with the film inside the pressurized CM or LM. The radiation dose the film was actually exposed to is low enough that you can count the particle hits by counting the bright streaks in the photos. The number of hits is small enough that no photo was ruined by radiation.
4
@fred24715 convincingly to anyone who can measure distances. Every falling object across hours of video, from the hammer and feather to clods of dust, falls at a speed consistent with 1/6 G.
4
The Apollo 11 mission took 1400 photos in total. At 732 photos per minute, that means you think they spent 2 minutes on the surface. In fact Apollo 11 spent 8 hours on the surface.
4
Yep, that (like all Apollo TV broadcasts) was live. Delay from sending from the Moon to Earth: about 1.2 seconds. Then the receiving station converted the slow-scan TV to NTSC. Some broadcasts were done while the USA had no line of sight to the moon, so they were received in e.g. Australia. They had to convert to NTSC (1 frame of delay, about 1/30 s) and send the signal via a geostationary satellite to the US (0.2 s delay). From a central location in the US the signal was forwarded to TV networks (either through satellite, cable or microwave links) where it was broadcast.
4
Every single 'point' made by Fong is based on a lack of knowledge, and has already been debunked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXHrQ1Keac
4
'nothing up there' refers to space, not the surface of the moon.
4
The earliest satellites didn't use cameras; they used various scientific instruments to measure the environment. That may have set up a legacy of not wanting to use cameras.
4
The only 'editing' they did was basic stuff that doesn't change the content of the image: color calibration, removing reseau marks and dust marks.
4
The location of the horizon depends on the size of the planet you're standing on. On Earth, the horizon is about 4 km away from us. On the Moon, it's half that. Secondly, your perception of distance is unreliable on the moon: you are used to our atmosphere which makes faraway objects blurry. The moon has no atmosphere. The moon also has no landmarks of known size you can use to judge distances. So "my town doesn't do that" is a clear indication that those photos cannot have been taken on Earth. Thanks for helping prove the moon landings are real.
4
@petethewrist Because there are few objects of known size on the moon, it's hard to estimate distances in photos. But it's still pretty obvious they were using lenses with a short focal length: every photo shows a wide scene of nearby objects.
4
In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. By 1962, we had enough data to figure out how to deal with them: In the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
4
That is incorrect. Problem #1 with your idea: they took video as well as still photos. That video clearly shows humans moving in the suits. #2: there are photos where the visor on the suit is raised, and you can see there's a person inside, not a dummy. This is the problem with all of the 'evidence' brought up by moon landing deniers: it's all crap that falls apart when you examine it.
3
1. that's incorrect. They used a film developed for high-altitude reconnaissance photography, which has a wider temperature range than consumer film. 2. Radiation damage is present in many images. Some examples: AS11-40-5866, AS11-40-5867, AS11-40-5874, AS12-46-6742. 3. NASA feels it is necessary how the Orion capsule handles radiation before allowing it to be used for manned flights.
3
To give you an example of the 'quality' of American Moon: it asks the question, "Can you explain why NASA – despite everything van Allen had written on the dangers of radiation – has sent the first astronauts through the radioactive belts without any specific protection, and without even a monkey first, in order to evaluate the effects of radiation on a biological organism as complex as the human being?" Answer: The warnings Van Allen gave in the articles highlighted in American Moon were based on an initial estimate of radiation intensity which was out by a factor of a thousand. After writing the articles Van Allen co-authored a paper in 1962 where he admitted “our 1959 assumptions... are seen to be invalid”. Rather than 10¹¹ electrons per cm²/sec, there were only 10⁸. The radiation was much less dangerous than Van Allen had thought. In fact, as NASA knew perfectly well, "The shielding provided by the Apollo space capsule walls was more than enough to shield the astronauts from all but the most energetic, and rare, particles". So American Moon cherrypicked its information. The van Allen belts were discovered in 1958, and half a dozen missions between 1958 and 1962 contributed information. AM uses the incomplete information known in 1958 as its argument.
3
That's incorrect. All of the photo negatives and 16mm film is still stored in a NASA lab. Several recent books got access to that lab to make new high-resolution scans directly from the originals.
3
Anyone who does objective research finds out that none of the moon landing deniers' claims hold up.
3
It wasn't easy at all in the 1960s. It took 5% of the US Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was, which is why we haven't been back yet.
3
@jamessheppard4372 Apollo 11 spent 8 hours on the moon, the EVA was 150 minutes. They took a number of photos from the LM, driving down the average further.
3
@DANTHETUBEMAN Every single argument in 'a funny thing happened on the way to the moon' has been debunked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aP_z8F10oQ
3
A fast lens is one that gathers a lot of light in a short time, so you can use short exposure times. This is known as the aperture (opening) of the lens. The aperture is adjustable. On a fast lens, the opening is adjustable to a large size to let in a lot of light. In lens specifications, this is indicated as f=..., and counterintuitively, the lower the number, the larger the opening. f=0.7 is quite extraordinary.
3
Fisher developed that pen with its own money, NASA buys them for $10 ea. The Russians quickly found out why you shouldn't use pencils in zero gravity: all of the graphite that comes off the pencil floats around the cabin and becomes a menace, causing shorts, getting into people's eyes etc.
3
Every single argument in 'a funny thing happened on the way to the moon' has been debunked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aP_z8F10oQ
3
After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS). Learning how to live in space for long period is the key to manned exploration of the rest of the solar system. I count 6 unmanned lunar missions from the USA since 1972.
3
You can try it yourself: tonight, take photos of the sky with an exposure time of 1/60 second. No stars will show up. You underestimate how dim the stars are: you need an exposure time of more than 1 second to get them to show up in photos. The scale of the Earth in a photo depends on two things: 1. the distance and 2. the focal length of the lens. If you took a photo of the moon from Earth with the same lens used for the Earthrise photos, you'd find that the moon is 1/4 the size of Earth.
3
Fong's arguments have been debunked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXHrQ1Keac
3
You continue to be wrong. No, the photos of Earth from the moon are not composites. None of those photos show any sign they have been tampered with. In addition to photos, we have 16mm film showing Earth from the Moon. If the images were a composite, you'd have to answer the next question: how did they get an accurate closeup of the Moon? They'd have to go there and take photos, that's how. And once you're there, you can snap an actual Earthrise, no need to make composites. So your argument is logically unsound.
3
@horyzengaming3935 The truth is that the Apollo missions are real.
3
@horyzengaming3935 No, you haven't educated anyone. You haven't told us why you think the photos are fake, haven't presented any evidence. We're just supposed to believe you, when countless others have examined the photos and found them to be real.
3
@horyzengaming3935 No, you have claimed the photos are fake, without presenting evidence for your claims. Explaining how photos could be faked is not evidence that this photo was faked.
3
@andrewfischer8564 You should read that article more carefully. The only video that was erased is one tape of the Apollo 11 landing and first steps, recorded at Honeysuckle Creek, where the TV signal was received. We still have other recordings of that broadcast. The Honeysuckle Creek recording was at a higher quality (it avoided one step of conversion and quality loss) so it would have been nice to have. For all other landings, higher-quality footage remains available as can easily be verified in various archives. None of the 16mm film footage was lost. None of the photos were lost. None of the TV broadcasts are lost.
3
@looneytoons2878 We figured out how to get through the van Allen belts in 1962. In the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY
3
@looneytoons2878 Most of the radiation in the VA belts is alpha and beta particles. Alphas are stopped by a sheet of paper. Beta particles are stopped by a few mm of aluminium.
3
@looneytoons2878 Those shooting stars are individual cosmic particles. The radiation exposure is determined by how many of those there are. Our measurements of the radiation environment on the moon tell us humans can live on the moon's surface safely for about 6 months before they run into the (conservative) radiation limits set to make sure they don't get cancer.
3
@looneytoons2878 Incorrect. Read again what I wrote. The hull protects against alpha and beta radiation - and most of the radiation in the VA belts is alpha and beta. Higher-energy particles get through, but the number of high-energy particles in the VA belts or on the lunar surface is small enough that they don't pose a danger for missions of up to 6 months.
3
@looneytoons2878 Radiation damage is visible in some photos as bright streaks. General fogging and quality degradation also occurred. This manifests as a reduction in color range. This could mostly be compensated for in the development process.
3
@16sputnik7 I've seen several tests where the film type used by Apollo was subjected to the conditions you find on the moon, with minimal film damage as a result.
2
@16sputnik7 The film magazine was attached to the back of the camera, with an (obviously) light-tight connection. I.e. the film was surrounded on all sides by metal.
2
@MattyEngland You don't know your history, I see. From 1962-1967 NASA spent millions on failed contracts, with 6 different suit designs that all failed in testing. The Apollo EVA suit became known as A7L because it was the 7th design they tried. That's how things work when you're on the cutting edge of technology: you try a bunch of different approaches until you find one that works, learning from every mistake you make. For the Artemis suits, the requirements are far more stringent than for Apollo. For example, the suits have to last for months, instead for 3 days. With the abrasive dust on the moon, that is a problem. And finally, your lack of knowledge includes the problems the Apollo astronauts had with their suits, which included tears and leaks. They were lucky none of those problems were catastrophic.
2
The radiation level outside the atmosphere is low enough that film is okay if the mission isn't too long, i.e. for missions of up to two weeks you're fine, for a 6-month mission you might have problems.
2
The radiation levels in space are lower than in an X-ray machine. You see radiation damage on some of the Apollo photos as bright streaks as a single high-energy particle went through the film.
2
Aldrin trained with the camera. Since there were no problems during their EVA, taking the photos was left to Armstrong.
2
Oh, excellent. I've been using the Lunar Surface Journal, but those are low-res scans in comparison.
2
Your guess is worthless.
2
The radiation levels in space are lower than in an X-ray machine. You see radiation damage on some of the Apollo photos as bright streaks as a single high-energy particle went through the film.
2
@DANTHETUBEMAN As I said, light can bleed under the reseau marks. In bright areas, that bleed can be enough to wash out the marks.
2
@DANTHETUBEMAN There is no evidence of that happening in any of the Apollo photos though. 1970s era photo manipulation is pretty obvious, and no signs of it have ever been found in Apollo images.
2
Paul was right. NASA tended to use photography and film for engineering purposes, and had to be convinced of the value of regular 'pretty picture' photography.
2
@cokemachine5510 You're still arguing from ignorance. The Van Allen belts are toroids, centered on Earth's equator. The highest radiation levels are at the center of each belt. The Apollo missions were launched from 28º North, into a trajectory that took them to higher latitudes. That means they missed the center of the belts entirely, and spent 3 hours in lower-radiation regions. But I guess you rather stay ignorant than learn something.
2
@cokemachine5510 There is a big difference between muscle deterioration after 6 months and "we can't leave Earth's magnetic field". If you can't see that, you need to step away from the keyboard and learn how science works first.
2
@cokemachine5510 I don't have to wonder, I know. The Moon missions ended because they were expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS). Making the Space Shuttle reusable meant it became a large, heavy spacecraft, which couldn't carry enough fuel to escape from Earth orbit for lunar missions.
2
The Apollo samples were not more radioactive than rocks found on Earth. The radiation creates the occasional isotope, but most of those are short-lived and decay quickly.
2
That's incorrect. Radiation damage is visible on a number of Apollo photos, in the form of streaks that were caused by single high-energy particles going through the film. Airport scanners use much higher radiation levels than are found on the surface of the moon, to be able to see through all of the material in a suitcase.
2
The 'film is damaged by airport scanners' is more complicated than that. Signs at TSA security checkpoints indicate film below 800 ISO will not be affected by the x-ray scanner. The new TSA CT scanners will damage unprocessed film.
2
@annunaki06 No, that's the other way round. The radiation level in airport scanners is higher, and they use X-rays, compared to the mix of radiation (with lots of easily-stopped alpha and beta radiation) you find in space.
2
Apollo 11 took about 600 photos on the surface, not 5000. When your information is off by that much, no wonder your conclusions are incorrect.
1
@palimpalim5291 They weren't there to take selfies.
1
@palimpalim5291 They had a second Hasselblad on board the LM, this wasn't intended for surface use so had a black finish rather than silver, but in the event of a malfunction of the DAC they could have used this.
1
@palimpalim5291 The documentation of Apollo 11 was perfectly adequate. And the number of US sample return missions to the moon: 0.
1
@palimpalim5291 We have him on TV and on high-res film. Selfies are overrated, we already know what he looks like.
1
They kept using a pure O2 atmosphere during missions. The Apollo 1 fire was so bad because they pressurized the CM to 1.25 bar at 100% O2. During the mission, the cabin pressure was 0.25 bar, which reduced the fire risk. For high-pressure tests on Earth thee may have switched to O2/N2 mixes.
1
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
1
The Moon missions ended because they were expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was, and nobody else could afford to spend that much.
1
That's incorrect. Complete TV recordings are available for every mission, in addition to all the film footage they took and thousands of photos. All easily accessible in public archives. What they threw away was engineering telemetry: readings off every sensor on the rocket and spacecraft. NASA filled 700,000 tapes during the Apollo missions. This information was vital during the missions, but became obsolete when the Apollo program ended. Then those telemetry tapes were reused for the Landsat program during a budget crunch in the 1980s.
1
@cokemachine5510 You are incorrect. There is no data that says that, just wishful thinking from moon landing deniers. If you're looking for grift, look at the deniers: they sell books and videos, making money off their false, already-debunked claims.
1
@guff9567 Incorrect. The Apollo project money went into producing rockets (several of which can be seen today in museums) and spacecraft. As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
1