Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

Obvs no random variables that could affect the fixed variables, which would be including correcting for the Moon's gravity being one-sixth of that of earth, like-for-like vehicle, like-for-like-weight, direction, speed and velocity. A random variable could be the weather or temperature, which could possibly change our expectation of the end result. For example, you could test acceleration due to gravity in the fall of an object, e.g., particles of dust and pebbles thrown up by the wheels of a buggy, by testing on earth in a lab with say, an AC vibrator and tickertape for the accceleration due to gravity and then observe the various forces that cause such dust to linger in the air behind observed said vehicle. On Earth, this would be wind that causes the 'rooster tail' effect, rather than the detritus falling in a parabolic wave. But there is no wind on the Moon. On the Moon, the lack of wind is a fixed variable and we should never see a 'rooster tail' effect, regardless of weather, temperature or other random variables such as weight or type of dust. The fact we DO see a 'rooster-tail' effect on the Apollo buggy shots of the dust whipped up behind it, indicates it was filmed on Earth, not on the Moon.

You appear to be confused about what a 'rooster tail' describes. It literally does mean a spray of debris following parabolic paths rather than fine dust becoming suspended in air. You also appear to be confused about what the film shows, as it certainly does not show clouds of suspended dust.

 

[LondonJohn]

Good heavens! Ladies running around with tripods and cameras! Whatever next? "Make me a cup of tea, luv, and stop trying to appear to be erudite. This is the <fx lowers pitch> Man's Room thread for people who know what they're talking about when it comes to the Moon landings, and/or who have sufficient scientific knowledge to be able to understand the people who know what they're talking about, and who know just how ridiculous the Moon Hoax theories are on their face."

FTFY

(And by the way, lowering one's voice pitch is not listed in scripts/screenplays as an "fx")

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There's a better picture here:

Forgotten Moon Camera Found Tucked Away in Neil Armstrong's Closet

After Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, passed away in 2012, his widow contacted the National Air and Space Museum. Carol Armstrong had

petapixel.com

Apparently there are twelve other Hasselblads left on the Moon <phew!>

Perhaps you could show us where in the picture you think you see a 'dusty old Hasselblad'.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps you could show us where in the picture you think you see a 'dusty old Hasselblad'.

Vixen's a "creative writer", dontchakno. She's therefore fully permitted to add this sort of much-needed colour to dry text.

 

[LondonJohn]

Obvs no random variables that could affect the fixed variables, which would be including correcting for the Moon's gravity being one-sixth of that of earth, like-for-like vehicle, like-for-like-weight, direction, speed and velocity. A random variable could be the weather or temperature, which could possibly change our expectation of the end result. For example, you could test acceleration due to gravity in the fall of an object, e.g., particles of dust and pebbles thrown up by the wheels of a buggy, by testing on earth in a lab with say, an AC vibrator and tickertape for the accceleration due to gravity and then observe the various forces that cause such dust to linger in the air behind observed said vehicle. On Earth, this would be wind that causes the 'rooster tail' effect, rather than the detritus falling in a parabolic wave. But there is no wind on the Moon. On the Moon, the lack of wind is a fixed variable and we should never see a 'rooster tail' effect, regardless of weather, temperature or other random variables such as weight or type of dust. The fact we DO see a 'rooster-tail' effect on the Apollo buggy shots of the dust whipped up behind it, indicates it was filmed on Earth, not on the Moon.

When a person on Earth exhales cigarette smoke, in totally still air, do you think that the "lack of wind" makes the smoke particles remain in suspension in the air rather than fall to the ground immediately at 9.8 m/s²?

 

[LondonJohn]

"Fixed variable" LMAO

 

[Vixen]

Now you're just being histrionic to distract from your lie. Don't pretend that gender has anything to do with this, and don't you dare imply that I ever implied that it does. Don't get angry with someone else because you've trapped yourself in another lie.

You only said that photographing stars was "no problem" in an attempt to defend the claim that there should be stars in the Apollo photos. Like so many conspiracy theorists, you rely on your own erroneous intuition about how you think things work, rather than actual knowledge. You mentioned a tripod, so you must have done a post hoc search for "how to photograph stars" and realized that it's much more involved than simply pointing a camera at the night sky and pressing the shutter release.

For goodness sake, just wait for a clear starry night, go out to the countryside far from city lights polluting the atmosphere. Set up your SLR with appropriate lens on your tripod, select a slow shutter speed and wait for the night skies, accordingly. I took a pic of the moon and Jupiter in town on my smart phone, just t'other year.

9 Oct 2022 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

I was into photography once. I had all the gear, different lenses, flash bulbs, filters, trendy Ilford black & white film, ultra-violet, infra-red, etc. I even won a section in an annual photography competition in the Camden New Journal once.

No, I didn't need to do 'a post hoc search for "how to photograph stars"'. How insulting.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

When a person on Earth exhales cigarette smoke, in totally still air, do you think that the "lack of wind" makes the smoke particles remain in suspension in the air rather than fall to the ground immediately at 9.8 m/s²?

What about when a rooster exhales cigarette smoke?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I was into photography once.

Then you will once have known that a camera with its exposure set for objects in full sunlight would not succeed in photographing stars in the night sky. So there is no mystery to solve there at least.

 

[Vixen]

When a person on Earth exhales cigarette smoke, in totally still air, do you think that the "lack of wind" makes the smoke particles remain in suspension in the air rather than fall to the ground immediately at 9.8 m/s²?

On Earth, you are pushing out the smoke by simple exhalation (a force), that is why it doesn't hang in the air. You can blow rings by shaping one's mouth.

There is no breathable oxygen on the Moon so smoking a cigarette would be extremely unwise! Especially in a space suit.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Obvs no random variables that could affect the fixed variables, which would be including correcting for the Moon's gravity being one-sixth of that of earth, like-for-like vehicle, like-for-like-weight, direction, speed and velocity. A random variable could be the weather or temperature, which could possibly change our expectation of the end result. For example, you could test acceleration due to gravity in the fall of an object, e.g., particles of dust and pebbles thrown up by the wheels of a buggy, by testing on earth in a lab with say, an AC vibrator and tickertape for the accceleration due to gravity and then observe the various forces that cause such dust to linger in the air behind observed said vehicle. On Earth, this would be wind that causes the 'rooster tail' effect, rather than the detritus falling in a parabolic wave. But there is no wind on the Moon. On the Moon, the lack of wind is a fixed variable and we should never see a 'rooster tail' effect, regardless of weather, temperature or other random variables such as weight or type of dust. The fact we DO see a 'rooster-tail' effect on the Apollo buggy shots of the dust whipped up behind it, indicates it was filmed on Earth, not on the Moon.

The wheels throw dust and pebbles up, surely you expect them to come down again?

 

[LondonJohn]

On Earth, you are pushing out the smoke by simple exhalation (a force), that is why it doesn't hang in the air. You can blow rings by shaping one's mouth.

There is no breathable oxygen on the Moon so smoking a cigarette would be extremely unwise! Especially in a space suit.

*slaps forehead*

 

[Andy_Ross]

Here:



Obviously, given the Hasselblad 'has been left on the moon', they can hardly display that.

It's not one of the Hasselblad cameras used on the moon surface.

It's one of the 16mm film Data Acquisition Cameras.

It isn't a camera that went to the moon.

Did you even read it?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Here:



Obviously, given the Hasselblad 'has been left on the moon', they can hardly display that.

The Hasselblad was a 500-EL 70 mm still camera. The camera mentioned in the article and shown in the photograph is a Maurer 16 mm movie camera, called the Data Acquisition Camera, or DAC, for the Apollo missions. The DAC was used, for example, to shoot the video of the LRV in action in the footage that you're referencing in your attempt to butcher physics.



All of the Apollo crews were issued cameras, both Hasselblads and Maurers, to take home with them and were encouraged to make frequent use of them to gain experience with them. And in the article you linked it says "Most of the artifacts Carol Armstrong had made available to the museum prior to her closet find, weren’t any actual flown artifacts, but were still exciting,” Needell told CNN".

 

[Darat]

For goodness sake, just wait for a clear starry night, go out to the countryside far from city lights polluting the atmosphere. Set up your SLR with appropriate lens on your tripod, select a slow shutter speed and wait for the night skies, accordingly. I took a pic of the moon and Jupiter in town on my smart phone, just t'other year.

9 Oct 2022 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

I was into photography once. I had all the gear, different lenses, flash bulbs, filters, trendy Ilford black & white film, ultra-violet, infra-red, etc. I even won a section in an annual photography competition in the Camden New Journal once.

No, I didn't need to do 'a post hoc search for "how to photograph stars"'. How insulting.

Faked - there's not one star showing.

 

[Andy_Ross]

For goodness sake, just wait for a clear starry night, go out to the countryside far from city lights polluting the atmosphere. Set up your SLR with appropriate lens on your tripod, select a slow shutter speed and wait for the night skies, accordingly. I took a pic of the moon and Jupiter in town on my smart phone, just t'other year.

9 Oct 2022 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

I was into photography once. I had all the gear, different lenses, flash bulbs, filters, trendy Ilford black & white film, ultra-violet, infra-red, etc. I even won a section in an annual photography competition in the Camden New Journal once.

No, I didn't need to do 'a post hoc search for "how to photograph stars"'. How insulting.

Now do it in sunlight or with a bright light in the frame.

How would that change your camera settings?

Your picture doesn't show any stars.

 

[Vixen]

Then you will once have known that a camera with its exposure set for objects in full sunlight would not succeed in photographing stars in the night sky. So there is no mystery to solve there at least.

That then brings us back to the problem of glare and the effects of radiation on the film.

Visors and Glare: Because there is no atmosphere to scatter light, the direct and reflected sunlight on the Moon is overwhelmingly bright. The astronauts wore extravehicular visors coated with gold to protect their eyes from the intense solar radiation. Quora

Obviously, there is no point debating this, as it has been done to death, albeit, never actually 'debunked', as claimed.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Neil Armstrong is a notable historical figure but does the narrator really have to gush in such an embarrassing manner, like a star-struck schoolboy?

You obviously aren't familiar with Adam and his love of spacesuits

The first video is interesting, it shows the pressure suit under the familiar white outer suit.

 

[Vixen]

The wheels throw dust and pebbles up, surely you expect them to come down again?

Yes, in a smooth parabolic motion.

 

[LondonJohn]

That then brings us back to the problem of glare and the effects of radiation on the film.



Obviously, there is no point debating this, as it has been done to death, albeit, never actually 'debunked', as claimed.

It's been 100% comprehensively debunked.