Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Good gods, just everything in that post is so incredibly wrong that it's hard to know where to start.

People have actually timed the fall of the dust and shown that it matches the acceleration of lunar gravity. The LRV wheels were steel wire mesh, and were thus especially prone to throwing dust up, especially as it was 1/6 g. The dust doesn't become suspended in anything, every single grain falls back to the surface at 1.625m/s².

Do you really think that millions of engineers and physicists all over the world for the last half century are so stupid that they couldn't figure out what you've broken wide open with a half dozen search engine queries and a couple of YouTube videos?

 

[Darat]

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.

You really couldn't post more comedic stuff if you tried - you don't know what that "intense solar radiation" meant?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

So not an SLR, not ISO 160 film, and one of the brightest objects in the night sky. Did you miss the part where Jay said that modern CCDs are enormously more sensitive to light than film?

Gee, if only one of the Apollo astronauts had thought to pull out their smart phone and snap a pic of Jupiter to prove that they were really on the moon.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes, in a smooth parabolic motion.

Which is what we see in the Apollo video

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

You clearly don't even understand what "suspended in the air" means. Tell us, does the smoke from the cigarette fall immediately to the ground at 9.8m/s² if it isn't being exhaled?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

If you care to make a specific claim, you will find debunking it again is not a problem. You've learned in this thread what range of exposure settings were available and the film speed used. Maybe you can tell us whether you think this would not have coped with the 'overwhelming' sunlight, and which particular type of 'radiation' concerns you.

You are aware I suppose that, here on earth, problems of 'overwhelmingly bright' sunshine and glare are not considered particularly unusual, and a common solution is a technology called 'sunglasses'.

 

[Foster Zygote]

If you care to make a specific claim, you will find debunking it again is not a problem. You've learned in this thread what range of exposure settings were available and the film speed used. Maybe you can tell us whether you think this would not have coped with the 'overwhelming' sunlight, and which particular type of 'radiation' concerns you.

You are aware I suppose that, here on earth, problems of 'overwhelmingly bright' sunshine and glare are not considered particularly unusual, and a common solution is a technology called 'sunglasses'.

And given that earth's atmosphere is about 98% transparent to visible light at sea level, the sunlight on the moon isn't discernibly brighter than it would be on a clear day in Flagstaff Arizona.

 

[Foster Zygote]

If you care to make a specific claim, you will find debunking it again is not a problem. You've learned in this thread what range of exposure settings were available and the film speed used. Maybe you can tell us whether you think this would not have coped with the 'overwhelming' sunlight, and which particular type of 'radiation' concerns you.

You are aware I suppose that, here on earth, problems of 'overwhelmingly bright' sunshine and glare are not considered particularly unusual, and a common solution is a technology called 'sunglasses'.

Ha! Sunglasses wouldn't fit over the astro-not's helmets! PWNED!!1!

 

[Andy_Ross]

Anti glare visor you say?

Why would anyone use one on Earth?






My helmet works differently, instead of a removable overlay it has a flip down anti glare inside the helmet.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, in a smooth parabolic motion.

That is what the 'rooster tails' are.

 

[catsmate]

Good heavens! Ladies running around with tripods and cameras! Whatever next? "Make me a cup of tea, luv, and stop trying to be erudite. This is the <fx lowers pitch> Man's Room."

So as usual you're going to spew nonsense rather than answer the questions?
Pathetic, as usual.

 

[catsmate]

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?

In any case, Armstrong's second wife, Carol, discovered a 'dusty old Hasselblad' in Armstrong's NASA bag after he died ...

You're lying again.

 

[JayUtah]

...a 'dusty old Hasselblad' in Armstrong's NASA bag after he died ...

No, that's the 16 mm Maurer motion picture camera.

 

[catsmate]

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.

You're lying again.

 

[JayUtah]

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

No, neither you nor the authors you're relying on has any idea what the the effects of radiation are on film, nor what kinds and amounts of radiation there are in space.

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

Yes, it has been fully debunked. Your unwillingness to debate subjects on which you are patently ignorant doesn't mean some ignorantly imagined controversy gets to persist.

 

[Darat]

Anti glare visor you say?

Why would anyone use one on Earth?


View attachment 71365



My helmet works differently, instead of a removable overlay it has a flip down anti glare inside the helmet.

Look at the intense solar radiation hitting every square centimetre, how on earth did they manage to take that picture - why isn't the intense solar radiation destroying the CMOS sensor - fake photo

 

[Darat]

No, neither you nor the authors you're relying on has any idea what the the effects of radiation are on film, nor what kinds and amounts of radiation there are in space.

Yes, it has been fully debunked. Your unwillingness to debate subjects on which you are patently ignorant doesn't mean some imagined controversy gets to persist.

She thinks the intense solar radiation is going to destroy film in a camera! That extra 20% sure does make a difference. If only there was a way to block the intense solar radiation so it doesn't destroy film in a camera we could have had over a hundred years of people being able to use cameras that used film right here on earth!

 

[JayUtah]

On Earth, this would be wind that causes the 'rooster tail' effect, rather than the detritus falling in a parabolic wave.

Wind doesn't cause a rooster tail, and here's no such thing as 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...

You don't need wind to get a rooster tail. You just need air into which the particles can preferentially aerosolize according to their sizes.

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.

No. This is just utterly ignorant.

You're not seeing a rooster tail. You're just seeing something you can't understand because you lack the capacity to think about it correctly. In a vacuum each individual particle will follow a parabolic trajectory regardless of size or mass. That doesn't mean a parcel of ejecta follows one parabolic curve. Barring post-ejection collisions among particles, the parameters of the parabola of each individual particle will be different and will depend solely on its departure conditions (direction and velocity). The departure conditions are different for each particle, even for each of a pair of adjacent particles as they come off the wheel. The aggregate effect seen from a distance is not a parabola. There will be an aggregate effect because similarly departing particles will follow similar parabolas. And we see plenty of the aggregation in the film.

What we do not see in the film is aerosolization. It's clear all you people who want to see "rooster tails" have never actually motored in a desert. I live in one, and during the period in which I shot that video I was part of Search and Rescue. You cannot drive any sort of vehicle at any sort of speed through dust without producing a cloud of aerosol that is visible for several minutes. This can be seen for miles, and is, in fact, sometimes how we locate people from miles away.

For physicists and desert dwellers, the Grand Prix film gives us everything we expect from motoring in a vacuum, and nothing we expect from motoring in air.,

 

[JayUtah]

Good heavens! Ladies running around with tripods and cameras! Whatever next? "Make me a cup of tea, luv, and stop trying to be erudite. This is the <fx lowers pitch> Man's Room."

Don't be sexist.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You need to remember that classic paper on vehicular movement: The wheels on the bus go round and round..

Don't you mean rotae borum rotantur et rotantur?