Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[The Common Potato]

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 rest of the Moon?

 

[The Common Potato]

Gishes for me, save all your Gishes for me,
Well we went to the Moon and we're going back there sooooon...

Gishes for me, save all your Gishes for me...

 

[The Common Potato]

I was forced the see 'em in Southport (where the racist rioters go to!) , when I was about twelve or 13. One the plus side, I was also forced to see Cannon and Ball.

 

[The Common Potato]

Crikey!

 

[Carrot Flower King]

The rest of the Moon?

The whole of the moon, shirley?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Thought this might interest people

Rocketdyne promo film about the development of the H1 Saturn engines in the late 50s

 

[Trebuchet]

Why did you mistakenly think the camera found in Armstrong's belongings was a Hasselblad?

Not just a Hasselblad, but a dusty one. Did she think he brought it back from the moon despite never having gone there?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It shows one of Jupiter's satellites alongside Jupiter. In any case, if Collins [IIRC] can call Venus a star it's okay to refer to heavenly bodies as 'stars' colloquially.

As mentioned, Venus appears in some of the Apollo EVA photos. So by your own admission, then, "stars" *do* appear in those photographs. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

As mentioned, Venus appears in some of the Apollo EVA photos. So by your own admission, then, "stars" *do* appear in those photographs.
You can't have it both ways.

Ermmmmm, are you completely sure that this won't be the case? History is not on your side.

Where have all the old skool CT-ers gone? This re-, re-, re- (you get the picture) hashing of long discredited, de-bunked, un-bunked, never credited, etc, etc, etc is distinctly lacking in imagination and originality.

As pointed out, it is the work of several posters inproviding a public education service which makes this thread worthwhile, for which many thanks!

 

[Vixen]

Yep. In other words, you pulled the phrase ceteris paribus from the book Latin Phrases For Dummies as if it would give your gibberish some sort of smarts-sounding educational value to impress other. Fair enough, we've all done it (in primary school!).


Does this mean your position has changed from 'it is undeniably factual it all happened' to 'the Apollo buggy shots of the dust whipped up behind it, indicates it was filmed on Earth, not on the Moon'. Because we wouldn't be wanting to be debating with a CT loon.

I wrote what I meant to write. I speak four languages and in old school England using Latin phrases was and still is perfectly every day speech. I am sorry it upset you but I had no way of knowing in advance it would have such an effect on you. I must apologise though for slipping into Economics jargon having been an accountant all these years; for 'fixed variable' just read 'constant'. There is no wind or atmosphere on the Moon. This is factual. A moving vehicle creates wind behind it and it is this wind that uplifts the dust behind it to remain airborne for a period causing the 'rooster tails' effect. This cannot happen on the Moon; there is no wind behind the moving Rover and any dust thrown up by the wheels would immediately fall directly to the ground in a parabolic arc. This is factual. I have no intention of upsetting you or dissipating your fond beliefs. Even NASA describes the clouds of dust behind the buggy as being 'rooster tails'; whoops! Therefore, even NASA inadvertently admits that sequence was shot on Earth. You are quite welcome to disbelieve this fact and I do hope I haven't accidentally upset you.

 

[Vixen]

Post the camera settings for that pic. The ISO is going to be in the thousands and the shutter time was probably in the order of 1/10sec, nothing like the ISO 160 film and 1/250s shutter speed of the Apollo lunar surface photos And worth noting that the moon in your photo is completely overexposed and blown-out.

As I said that was taken by my old smart phone, obviously crappy compared to my old SLR's and Leica lenses. It was a few years back but I still have all the old negatives and slides - too many thousands to have the time to dig them out. Strangely, many old professional studio photos taken in the early 1900's have remained in better condition than some more modern ones.

 

[Vixen]

Using ceteris paribus when it should be mutatis mutandi is such a rookie mistake.

Thanks for your assistance but ceteris paribus is what I intended.

 

[Vixen]

This video here is very interesting. It has the three Apollo 11 astronauts at a press conference, not ever seeming to be able to confirm anything. Just vague references to 'commitment'.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A moving vehicle creates wind behind it and it is this wind that uplifts the dust behind it to remain airborne for a period causing the 'rooster tails' effect. This cannot happen on the Moon; there is no wind behind the moving Rover and any dust thrown up by the wheels would immediately fall directly to the ground in a parabolic arc. This is factual.

You keep posting this.

It's exactly what we see in all the Apollo rover video.

 

[JesseCuster]

As I said that was taken by my old smart phone, obviously crappy compared to my old SLR's and Leica lenses.

So post the settings - ISO and shutter speed and tell us how it compares to the settings for the pics taken on tge moon. I guarantee the ISO is in the thousands and the exposure time was a lot longer than 1/250s. And you got the exposure all wrong for the moon.l anyway, it's all blown out completely overexposed and you even then you only captured one of the brightest planets, none of the actual stars.

How do YOU think it's possible to take a photo on the moon during the way that's correctly exposed for both the extremely bright when sunlit lunar daytime surface while also exposing the faint stars.

 

[catsmate]

I wrote what I meant to write. I speak four languages and in old school England using Latin phrases was and still is perfectly every day speech. I am sorry it upset you but I had no way of knowing in advance it would have such an effect on you. I must apologise though for slipping into Economics jargon having been an accountant all these years; for 'fixed variable' just read 'constant'. There is no wind or atmosphere on the Moon. This is factual. A moving vehicle creates wind behind it and it is this wind that uplifts the dust behind it to remain airborne for a period causing the 'rooster tails' effect. This cannot happen on the Moon; there is no wind behind the moving Rover and any dust thrown up by the wheels would immediately fall directly to the ground in a parabolic arc. This is factual. I have no intention of upsetting you or dissipating your fond beliefs. Even NASA describes the clouds of dust behind the buggy as being 'rooster tails'; whoops! Therefore, even NASA inadvertently admits that sequence was shot on Earth. You are quite welcome to disbelieve this fact and I do hope I haven't accidentally upset you.

No.

 

[catsmate]

As I said that was taken by my old smart phone, obviously crappy compared to my old SLR's and Leica lenses. It was a few years back but I still have all the old negatives and slides - too many thousands to have the time to dig them out. Strangely, many old professional studio photos taken in the early 1900's have remained in better condition than some more modern ones.

So you won't be posting the settings?

 

[catsmate]

This video here is very interesting. It has the three Apollo 11 astronauts at a press conference, not ever seeming to be able to confirm anything. Just vague references to 'commitment'.

Pathetic, hypocritical and nonsense. A new low.

 

[JesseCuster]

As I said that was taken by my old smart phone, obviously crappy compared to my old SLR's and Leica lenses.

What does you owning Leica lenses in the past gave to do with anything? Try demonstrating your understanding and knowledge of photography explaining why the stars would be visible given in the Apollo photography what the settings were and your knowledge of photographing stars.

Nobody is buying your attempts to pretend you know what you're talking about because you waffle on about gear you used to own, when it's clear you're bluffing.

 

[JayUtah]

I speak four languages...

Physics is not one of them.

There is no wind or atmosphere on the Moon. This is factual. A moving vehicle creates wind behind it and it is this wind that uplifts the dust behind it to remain airborne...

No, that is not how aerosolization works. You can have an aerosol in quiescent air. Ejecta from wheelslip produces aerosol clouds and "rooster tails" even if the vehicle is not moving.

... any dust thrown up by the wheels would immediately fall directly to the ground in a parabolic arc.\

Which it is observed to do in the film, as described previously.

Even NASA describes the clouds of dust behind the buggy as being 'rooster tails'; whoops! Therefore, even NASA inadvertently admits that sequence was shot on Earth.

What kind of tortured playground logic is this?

As I said that was taken by my old smart phone, obviously crappy compared to my old SLR's and Leica lenses. It was a few years back but I still have all the old negatives and slides - too many thousands to have the time to dig them out. Strangely, many old professional studio photos taken in the early 1900's have remained in better condition than some more modern ones.

Yet through all of this irrelevant rambling you cannot speak intelligently about the actual numbers of film exposure and what it would take to expose stars at the same time you're photographing a daylit object. You fell for the "no stars in the photos" argument as a knee-jerk and now you won't admit you were wrong.

This video here is very interesting. It has the three Apollo 11 astronauts at a press conference, not ever seeming to be able to confirm anything. Just vague references to 'commitment'.

"Astronauts don't behave exactly the way I think they should, therefore fake." No, body language is not an accurate predictor of deception. People trying to dissect the press conference for every nuance of meaning is one of the saddest attempts at argument. The physical and historical evidence is overwhelming, so they have to resort to pop psychology.

Research on Non-verbal Signs of Lies and Deceit: A Blind Alley - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It's also a cherry-pick. Hoax claimants set up the "analysis" by saying that these men just got back from the Moon and therefore they should be giddy with excitement. The Apollo 11 press conference took place on August 12, 1969, not right after the mission. This was after three weeks of quarantine in a glorified caravan with a doctor and an engineer. I've spent some time in one of the Apollo MQFs. It's cramped and spartan.

Hoax claimants pull this same cherry-picked nonsense with the famous MQF interview. They post pictures of the crew listening attentively to Pres. Nixon. They all have allegedly dour expressions, which the "experts" say is wrong. But they don't show you the other pictures of the Apollo 11 crew smiling and waving excitedly to photographers and crew on the aircraft carrier through the MQF window. You have to go find those yourself.