First of all, NASA's info or images posted have been discredited by FEs, and somewhat doubted by GEs from what had happened to the moon landing movie making. Anyway, I advised you questfortruth not to use NASA images or posting. It doesn't help.
For example, your Apollo 8 image of the earth that was taken by one of the astronauts Anders could not be confirmed to be authentic as it was posted by NASA in its website. And by ordinary observation, the earth just appears to be just the size of the moon as we viewed it from earth at his full moon condition, and the size of the moon is about 1/3 that of earth from a distance of something like 238,900 mi. It's a bit puzzling because the photo was taken at 240,000 miles away from earth while they orbitted the moon (they were really pretty near the moon surface at this orbit distance)... and yet they saw an earth image just the same size as that of the moon. Direct calculation and common sense dictate that it should have been 3 times the size of moon image as seen from earth. Further, I came across websites that calculate the size of an object's image given the object's size, distance of the object from the camera or observer with known focal length, etc. and the image size of earth from Apollo 8's report came out to be much smaller as expected... I did this just for curiosity's sake. No need to debunk, hehe... With that image size, the distance from the observer came out to be much more than 240,000 mi that seems to be an unrealistic result already.... well, seems not reliable enough... :)
I am curious.
The information I have is that the camera used was The onboard cameras for the Apollo 8 mission were modified Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, with 80-millimeter and 250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lenses.
The film was 70 mm sprocket film with gate dimensions (from what I can drag up) of 55 mm x 55 mm.
On the 1920 x 1920 pixel photo I have the earth image is 287 pixels wide, or 55 x (287/1920) = 8.22 mm wide.
If the 250 mm lens was used this makes the angular size of the earth 2 x atan((8.22/2)/250) = 1.88°
If we take the diameter of the earth as 7,918 miles, this makes the earth to moon distance of 241,728 miles. Looks about right to me. So let's see your working.
Mind you I think you are terribly naive (or think yourself smart). I really think that if NASA was trying to put one over on you would not have fallen into such a simple trap!
As soon as FE'ers can't come up with an answer which excludes 'fake' or 'lie', the topic fades away. Do you think NASA would have been afraid of a flat earth movement starting when they were clearly showing pictures of a globe earth from space, and then they would actually have the foresight to think ahead to make sure that their dimensions matched so perfectly as proved by Rabinoz above? Methinks not!
I'm curious cel has a "motto" of "STOP BEING DECEIVED. BE A TRUTH SEEKER", yet when caught out trying to NASA is faking a photo (probably ignorantly) we hear no more from him.
I really think thing that cel should "STOP BEING DECEIVED. BE A TRUTH SEEKER."
As soon as FE'ers can't come up with an answer which excludes 'fake' or 'lie', the topic fades away. Do you think NASA would have been afraid of a flat earth movement starting when they were clearly showing pictures of a globe earth from space, and then they would actually have the foresight to think ahead to make sure that their dimensions matched so perfectly as proved by Rabinoz above? Methinks not!
I'm curious cel has a "motto" of "STOP BEING DECEIVED. BE A TRUTH SEEKER", yet when caught out trying to NASA is faking a photo (probably ignorantly) we hear no more from him.
I really think thing that cel should "STOP BEING DECEIVED. BE A TRUTH SEEKER."
Wow, rabinoz! you're too fast to think falsely about my absence in this forum (i have reason that is none of your business!). No wonder that you're not getting anywhere but going around the circle just trying to rebut anything posted that is against your GE propositions/belief. Anyway, why couldn't you control your urge to demean and insult people here who do not conform 100% to your belief? In the interim period I was out here, have you read any postings from me in other topics? Presumptive conclusions done in haste are often either deceitful, ill-motivated or ignorantly wrong! Is that how you reason out? Who the hell will believe in your insinuations and/or arguments then?
Re the NASA photo thing, it's perfectly normal for one who wants the real truth to be skeptic after all the reasonable presentations of arguments, proofs, facts, testimonies, etc. about the NASA's faking the moon landing or Apollo 11 or the rest of the Apollos. Until this time, all such documentary accounts/presentations have not been rebutted successfully by NASA or by you perhaps (as agent of NASA, probably) to convince millions of people that Apollos, e.g. Apollo 11, was undoubtedly real. How can you let people believe in something whose authenticity had been tainted by deceitful politics? Don't forget or you should know well the backgrounder before you judged people's stand on the matter. Btw, there's nothing surprising about the formula or calculation you've presented, it's the normal thing to do. In fact, you can just use online calculations without having to go into manual computations. I have a question to you, is it possible to take a still picture of studio earth model and come up with a negative earth image the same size as that of the earthrise? Can the earthrise negative be authenticated and verified? To prove something to be genuine, every step of the way should be verified to be genuine, right?