Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

What is lighting up the interior of the capsule, given the sun is behind it? Can't be the suit, no matter how bright.

View attachment 71290

You can't see the interior of the LM in this photo, as the EVA hatch is mostly closed and the window is reflecting a view of the ground. But there was this new technology in the '60s called the "electric light", which was used to illuminate the interiors of the LM and the CSM.

Still curious about the details of your stellar photography. You've said it was quite easy to achieve, so shouldn't it be easy to explain your methodology?

 

[Vixen]

One of the best examples of that has to be "how did they fit the moon buggy into the lander?" - asked rhetorically, as though it's already established that it couldn't have fit. One can find the answer in a matter of seconds, including 3D modeling and even actual video of how the LRV was stowed and deployed.

Speaking of the moon buggy sequence in Apollo 15 - or was it 17 - as you know, there is no spreading effect on the dust thrown up by wheels on the moon (lack of any wind and all that) yet it shows a classic 'rooster' tails sequence after it - which we expect to see on Earth - but we'd want to see the parabolic pure physics version, ceteris paribus, on the moon, i.e., no 'rooster tail'-style line of flying dust behind the buggy.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

What is lighting up the interior of the capsule, given the sun is behind it? Can't be the suit, no matter how bright.

View attachment 71290

The moon's surface is lighting up the astronaut, obviously. You can see from the shading that the light is coming from underneath. IIRC, the Mythbusters reproduced this effect.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Speaking of the moon buggy sequence in Apollo 15 - or was it 17 - as you know, there is no spreading effect on the dust thrown up by wheels on the moon (lack of any wind and all that) yet it shows a classic 'rooster' tails sequence after it - which we expect to see on Earth - but we'd want to see the parabolic pure physics version, ceteris paribus, on the moon, i.e., no 'rooster'-style line of flying dust behind the buggy.

So utterly wrong, again, Vixen.

You can spread dust around all you want in a vacuum. What we won't see in a vacuum is dust being suspended in the air. The "rooster tails" are the dust being thrown up in a ballistic arc by the LRV wheels, which, being steel wire mesh, are especially good at lifting it off the ground, which was why the fiberglass fenders were so important that when one was partially broken at one of the geology station stops, it had to be repaired with an improvisation using clips and a laminated map. But because there's no fluid medium, that dust falls back to the ground exactly as fast as if it were a handful of ball bearings - exactly like we see in the 16 mm DAC film.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What is lighting up the interior of the capsule, given the sun is behind it? Can't be the suit, no matter how bright.

View attachment 71290

What interior?
Do you think the interior would be dark?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Speaking of the moon buggy sequence in Apollo 15 - or was it 17 - as you know, there is no spreading effect on the dust thrown up by wheels on the moon (lack of any wind and all that) yet it shows a classic 'rooster' tails sequence after it - which we expect to see on Earth - but we'd want to see the parabolic pure physics version, ceteris paribus, on the moon, i.e., no 'rooster'-style line of flying dust behind the buggy.

Hurrah!

 

[Vixen]

Disappointingly late to this party, but to add a few things on the usual canards (apologies if they've already been done):

The Soviets could and absolutely did monitor the missions in every way you can think of. They also had access to US meteorological satellite imagery that would have matched their own and shown that the views of Earth were accurate. They had all the evidence they needed (see here https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/ch5/7/zond.html ).

Baysinger was not the only source of mission FM transmissions - it was a bit of a hobby for many radio hams and transmissions from many of the missions were intercepted (see https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/ch5/11/remote.html ).

What's often not mentioned in the images of Aldrin (and the much claimed 'hotspots' that allegedly prove studio lights) is that the foreground is disturbed by them walkng around. This completely changes the way light is scattered compared with the completely undisturbed background.

Images from China, India and Japan all verify the presence of humans on the moon.

Marus Allen was a grifting fraud. He showed no respect to anyone when he was alive, he doesn't deserve any now he's dead.

There are absolutely no questions about the Apollo missions that can't be answered by the tiniest amount of research and logical thought. Most of the people "Just asking questions" have already decided on their answer, are demanding evidence they hope doesn't exist and then move goalposts when they find it does, and rely very heavily on a self-penned zoo management handbook. They'll happily cite 'experts' (real or otherwise) with a PhD in laundry systems management but dismiss the expertise of actual rocket scientists They'll quote from self-published books that rehash the same badly researched garbage because, hey, in it's in an actual book, but completely ignore the thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers and first-person accounts of the actual participants in every aspect of the program you can think of.

What's been hilarious about the Artemis missions is the desperate scrambling by usually knee-jerk contrarians to retro-fit any kind of hoax claim into it. The misison is genuine and proves Apollo was hoaxed, the mission is hoaxed and therefore Apollo was hoaxed. They did things the same therefore Artemis was hoaxed. They did things differently therefore Apollo was hoaxed. The astronauts didn't take photos with one trouser leg rolled up while reciting potry, therefore the photos are faked. Anyone with a grift is latching onto the clicks for cash and their marks just suck it up unquestioningly while calling the rest of us sheep.

For one brief minute, Artemis gave us some joy in the face of some pretty damned awful global news, just like Apollo did. Some people just don't want that.

The argument 'the Soviets would have spotted it if it never happened' isn't a good one, and China, India and Japan were never scrambling for the model blueprint. It's a poor argument because 'would, could and should' can bring all kinds of rationalisations into play. But rationalisation is not the same as establishing facts. I mean, it could be said the Soviets in the Cold War were themselves 'faking it', what with supposedly 'crashing' a Luna module on the moon just immediately before Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins set off. It could be said, Russia knows and has blackmail against the US over it. We did see Trump coming out of the Helsinki summit - no aides present, no US witnesses - looking ashen-faced and Putin looking like a fox in a chicken coop at the 2018 Helsinki summit. We KNOW Putin has something on Trump, which is why Trump refuses any aid to Ukraine, which would be the morally correct thing to do.

As I am not American, there is no compunction on me to be patriotic nor any fear 'the Man come and take you away'. I can remain objective and independent in this matter. No hero-worship of astronauts or PR spin.

As for 'rolled up trouser legs', Aldrin took a Masonic 33-degree flag up with him and says he held Holy Communion on the Moon. Certainly makes the Moon a part of the USA, then, especially with the law passed that Tranquility Base is now a 'No Fly Zone'. Only in America ("USA, USA!")

 

[Andy_Ross]

The argument 'the Soviets would have spotted it if it never happened' isn't a good one, and China, India and Japan were never scrambling for the model blueprint. It's a poor argument because 'would, could and should' can bring all kinds of rationalisations into play. But rationalisation is not the same as establishing facts. I mean, it could be said the Soviets in the Cold War were themselves 'faking it', what with supposedly 'crashing' a Luna module on the moon just immediately before Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins set off. It could be said, Russia knows and has blackmail against the US over it. We did see Trump coming out of the Helsinki summit - no aides present, no US witnesses - looking ashen faced and Putin looking like a fox in a chicken coop at the 2018 Helsinki summit. We KNOW Putin has something on Trump, which is why Trump refuses any aid to Ukraine, which would be the morally correct thing to do.

As I am not American, there is no compunction on me to be patriotic nor any fear 'the Man come and take you away'. I can remain objective and independent in this matter. No hero-worship of astronauts or PR spin.

As for 'rolled up trouser legs', Aldrin took a Masonic 33-degree flag up with him and says he held Holy Communion on the Moon. Certainly makes the Moon a part of the USA, then, especially with the law passed that Tranquility Base is now a 'No Fly Zone'. Only in America ("USA, USA!")

Are you drunk?

You do know the Apollo missions were tracked all the way there and back by people all over the world, in real time.
People could listen to the transmissions from the moon surface.

 

[JesseCuster]

Aldrin took a masonic flag to the moon, meaning he actually went to the moon right? But the photos of Aldrin on the moon, were not photos taken of Aldrin when he was actually on the moon? They went to the moon, complete with masonic flag, but staged and faked the photos somewhere else?

 

[JayUtah]

What is lighting up the interior of the capsule, given the sun is behind it? Can't be the suit, no matter how bright.

The window panes are angled to face downward and outward. You're seeing the reflection of the sunlit lunar surface in the window pane and mistakenly believing you're seeing through the pane.

Speaking of the moon buggy sequence...

No one was speaking of it. You're just galloping down the list of long-debunked hoax claims.

as you know, there is no spreading effect on the dust thrown up by wheels on the moon (lack of any wind and all that)

You're assuming what causes rooster tails.

but we'd want to see the parabolic pure physics version...

Simplistic expectation.

I can remain objective and independent in this matter.

You're neither objective or independent. You're obsessed with conspiracy theories and not independent enough to research on your own what makes them bad theories.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh Great. More "ceteris paribus" bullcrap again, in a pitiable attempt to sound erudite.

 

[Foster Zygote]

As I am not American, there is no compunction on me to be patriotic nor any fear 'the Man come and take you away'. I can remain objective and independent in this matter. No hero-worship of astronauts or PR spin.

It's funny how being a prolific producer of poor arguments doesn't result in any ability to correctly identify them.

No one is arguing that Apollo was real "because NASA said so!" or because "USA!!! USA!!!", but go ahead and flog that straw man all you want. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus among experts in many fields from all over the world that Apollo really landed twelve people on the moon, and there has been for the last half century.

 

[Vixen]

Disappointingly late to this party, but to add a few things on the usual canards (apologies if they've already been done):

The Soviets could and absolutely did monitor the missions in every way you can think of. They also had access to US meteorological satellite imagery that would have matched their own and shown that the views of Earth were accurate. They had all the evidence they needed (see here https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/ch5/7/zond.html ).

Baysinger was not the only source of mission FM transmissions - it was a bit of a hobby for many radio hams and transmissions from many of the missions were intercepted (see https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM2/ch5/11/remote.html ).

What's often not mentioned in the images of Aldrin (and the much claimed 'hotspots' that allegedly prove studio lights) is that the foreground is disturbed by them walkng around. This completely changes the way light is scattered compared with the completely undisturbed background.

Images from China, India and Japan all verify the presence of humans on the moon.

Marus Allen was a grifting fraud. He showed no respect to anyone when he was alive, he doesn't deserve any now he's dead.

There are absolutely no questions about the Apollo missions that can't be answered by the tiniest amount of research and logical thought. Most of the people "Just asking questions" have already decided on their answer, are demanding evidence they hope doesn't exist and then move goalposts when they find it does, and rely very heavily on a self-penned zoo management handbook. They'll happily cite 'experts' (real or otherwise) with a PhD in laundry systems management but dismiss the expertise of actual rocket scientists They'll quote from self-published books that rehash the same badly researched garbage because, hey, in it's in an actual book, but completely ignore the thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers and first-person accounts of the actual participants in every aspect of the program you can think of.

What's been hilarious about the Artemis missions is the desperate scrambling by usually knee-jerk contrarians to retro-fit any kind of hoax claim into it. The misison is genuine and proves Apollo was hoaxed, the mission is hoaxed and therefore Apollo was hoaxed. They did things the same therefore Artemis was hoaxed. They did things differently therefore Apollo was hoaxed. The astronauts didn't take photos with one trouser leg rolled up while reciting potry, therefore the photos are faked. Anyone with a grift is latching onto the clicks for cash and their marks just suck it up unquestioningly while calling the rest of us sheep.

For one brief minute, Artemis gave us some joy in the face of some pretty damned awful global news, just like Apollo did. Some people just don't want that.

Re the recent Artemis II mission. I am curious to understand the following. First, compare and contrast the arrival of Apollo 11 astronauts at Space Station (see at about 2:17 mark):


...with the Artemis II crew:



Clue: spot the difference between Trump and Obama:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2055218279816307106

Yes, we have the Apollo !! crew bounding down dem steps like Obama on speed. Yet the Artemis crew needed physical support just to stand up because of the gravitational effects of doing a 'fly by', without ever stepping out.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, we have the Apollo !! crew bounding down dem steps like Obama on speed.

Speaking of galloping...

 

[Foster Zygote]

Oh Great. More "ceteris paribus" bullcrap again, in a pitiable attempt to sound erudite.

She's just upholding the tradition. Bill Kaysing was fond of implying that he was an expert engineer, saying things like, "well, when I worked at Rocketdyne..." or tossing out some technical terms that he used in the wrong context, when in fact he had a bachelor's degree in English and ran Rocketdyne's publishing department.

 

[LondonJohn]

You're neither objective or independent. You're obsessed with conspiracy theories and not independent enough to research on your own what makes them bad theories.

Not to mention the disastrous combination of a) being grossly scientifically illiterate, while b) believing oneself to be scientifically literate (even to the extent necessary to tackle the most complex elements of something like a moon-shot).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The argument 'the Soviets would have spotted it if it never happened' isn't a good one

It's a considerably better one than 'the Soviets wouldn't have spotted fakery, or wouldn't have called it out if they did'.

... and China, India and Japan were never scrambling for the model blueprint.

What would they have done with it if they had? Unlike the Soviet Union they had no heavy space launching capability in the 1960s.

... I mean, it could be said the Soviets in the Cold War were themselves 'faking it', what with supposedly 'crashing' a Luna module on the moon just immediately before Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins set off. It could be said, Russia knows and has blackmail against the US over it.

It could be said. Do you want to say it? Do you think it will finally be your unassailable gotcha that blows the whole Apollo conspiracy wide open? It could be said the moon is actually a large cheese floating through the sky under the crystal firmament. Do you want to say that instead?

 

[Foster Zygote]

It's a considerably better one than 'the Soviets wouldn't have spotted fakery, or wouldn't have called it out if they did'.



What would they have done with it if they had? Unlike the Soviet Union they had no heavy space launching capability in the 1960s.



It could be said. Do you want to say it? Do you think it will finally be your unassailable gotcha that blows the whole Apollo conspiracy wide open? It could be said the moon is actually a large cheese floating through the sky under the crystal firmament. Do you want to say that instead?

All those dead Cosmonauts were "crisis actors".

 

[JesseCuster]

It's funny how being a prolific producer of poor arguments doesn't result in any ability to correctly identify them.

No one is arguing that Apollo was real "because NASA said so!"

In fact, Vixen is being told the exact opposite. She is being told not to take for granted of third party people online, but to do the research herself, there is an absurd wealth of material available for anyone who wants to actually research the Apollo program.

Instead she will stay as far away from primary sources as possible, relying on the claims of hucksters who clearly don't know what they're talking about. She will insist upon their honesty, professionalism, expertise, inquisitiveness, etc. and that whatever they claim is trustworthy as a result, while handwaving away and ignoring any criticism of them, because she's not interested in "personalities".

 

[Vixen]

She's just upholding the tradition. Bill Kaysing was fond of implying that he was an expert engineer, saying things like, "well, when I worked at Rocketdyne..." or tossing out some technical terms that he used in the wrong context, when in fact he had a bachelor's degree in English and ran Rocketdyne's publishing department.

JayUtah refers to Kaysing as 'Cat Lady' * but as of this moment in time, I can't help thinking Kaysing had a point about their merely orbiting earth for eight days but maybe he was exaggerating just to make a point.

*This is a good attribute to have, not a negative one.