Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[The Common Potato]

Pre-punk:

 

[The Common Potato]

I was 17 and the YS-500 has lots of knobs and switches, so it must be good, yeh?

 

[PSXer]

It doesn't matter how good you are at something. As long as you own the most expensive gear, you become the preeminent expert on everything.

 

[The Common Potato]

It doesn't matter how good you are at something. As long as you own the most expensive gear, you become the preeminent expert on everything.

Reminds me of a beginner skier in Val d'Isère. She bought the whole Salomon S7 (S7?) kit because she liked the colour. They were blue, which is a nice colour. With yellow bits.

 

[Helen]

Reminds me of a beginner skier in Val d'Isère. She bought the whole Salomon S7 (S7?) kit because she liked the colour. They were blue, which is a nice colour. With yellow bits.

I am sure she became an excellent skier!

 

[The Common Potato]

I am sure she became an excellent skier!

It was 30+ years ago, Helen.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It was 30+ years ago, Helen.

Okay, then I'm sure she's well on her way to it.

 

[The Common Potato]

Okay, then I'm sure she's well on her way to it.

 

[Helen]

It was 30+ years ago, Helen.

Yes, but still; with a great outfit like that, she's probably still winning gold in the winter Olympics!

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Yes, but still; with a great outfit like that, she's probably still winning gold in the winter Olympics!

You're just biased 'cause she's flying your colors.

They were blue, which is a nice colour. With yellow bits

 

[JayUtah]

Do you need a basic primer on different types of ionizing radiation, and what can be expected in the cislunar environment?

I gave her one.

The film magazines were adequately shielded, even when they were on the lunar surface.

Because people don't understand the cislunar radiation environment, they don't understand how little it takes to protect film from it. When people think of "radiation shielding" they're thinking about nuclear reactors and bomb shelters.

They didn't need to focus the lens. The lenses they were using were almost always set to ∞. As long as the subject wasn't within two or three feet it would be in focus.

I explained this in the video. The answer has been there since Post One. NASA didn't invent zone focusing. Photojournalists did. Yet these "professional photographers" don't know anything about it.

The focus zones are typically given as 3 ft, 6 ft, and infinity. The Biogon cannot focus any closer than 3 ft, so the zones are actually

1. 3-6 ft
2. 6-15 ft
3. 15 ft to infinity

The 15-foot figure is a little shaky since whether the zones overlapped depended on the f-stop. But yes, you had three detents: near, medium, and far.

The lenses were fitted with tabs that made them easy to adjust.

Again explained in the video. In your picture, the top squarish silver tab is for the aperture, the f-stop. The paddle on the bottom is the focus. The shutter speed tab is on the side of the lens facing away from us and can't be seen in this picture.

Are you claiming that all film photographs taken in space are fake. Do you know how many that is?

Using Hasselblads in space goes back to the Mercury program. That was an off-the-shelf model. The process of modifying Hasselblads for better use in space continued all through Gemini. You have to ignore an awful lot of space history to believe that the Apollo cameras suddenly sprang up unprecedented and are somehow suspicious.

Well the coating part is correct, for the surface cameras, anyway. They we're silvered to reject heat energy. They had other modifications as well, such as lubricants that wouldn't boil off in a vacuum.

I'm trying to imagine how far up your own keister you'd have to be to simply dismiss the notion that these allegedly pressing questions actually have answers that are relatively easy to find, are provably correct from a factual and scientific standpoint, and can be verified by anyone by examining any of the many surviving specimens in museums. Why yes, experts (and even non-experts) can answer these questions. And when they do, they deserve not to simply be blown off with insinuations to the effect, "Of course they'd say that," as if there were no chance of its being true.

It's the epitome of hubris to suggest that lazy, ill-researched, ignorant questions somehow retain rhetorical strength in the face of demonstrated facts, expertise, and study. There's no reason to condone, much less celebrate, ongoing willful ignorance.

 

[Foster Zygote]

In addition, the astronauts backbacks were similar to their body weight (180lbs in the video). Imagine carrying your own weight on your back...

I was looking for another post and came across this one I'd missed.

How could you possibly forget that they're in lunar gravity? The PLSS and OPS (the emergency backup system) weighed a combined 125 lbs. on earth (not 180). That's only 21 lbs. on the moon. That's like me carrying my biggest house cat on my shoulders, but standing in a pool so that the buoyancy cancels out all but 60 lbs. of our combined weight. Even the combined weight of the astronaut, A7L suit and life support system was only about 60 lbs. on the moon.

You'd be bent forward with the weight, yet they all appear perfectly upright.

No, they don't. There are plenty of photos from the side showing astronauts on the moon standing with a slight forward lean. Maybe you shouldn't claim that all the photos, (thousands of them) show everyone perfectly upright until you've actually, you know, looked at them.
AS11-40-5875

As for slow motion, the guys in the video assume the slow motion would be even throughout but Allen argues they'd need to adjust it for nearer shots, to look authentic and vary it. Assuming normal motion is 24 frames per unit of time and then simply slowing it by say half, is hardly going to fool a pesky denier (if that was the plan).

Well, we've already seen that Allen is either an idiot or deliberately lying. The problem is that the images he's talking about are almost entirely from the television cameras, especially the RCA cameras attached to the LRVs. So they don't have separate shots. It's not edited like a TV show, there are long, continuous shots. They don't cut from a long shot to a close up. And I've seen Percy's lie about slow motion video exposed by showing unedited shots. Only grifters selling CT videos selectively edit those shots.

As for retroreflectors, Dr Tony Cook in the OP video glibly claims you get back a signal by return thanks to the retroreflectors but
in reality scanning the moon's surface can take up to eight hours before anything comes back, and even then you don't know if it came from a specific retroreflector or from anywhere on the Moon's surface, such as a valley side or mountain.

Can you please provide a citation for this? The lasers used for ranging with the retroreflectors spread out to cover an area like six kilometers across on the surface of the moon, but that's not enough to pick up multiple retroreflectors. I've seen videos of these lasers being used in real time, and the return from the reflectors is virtually immediate. And the moon's surface isn't reflective enough for them to get any usable signal back from it, it's just background noise because the receiver is looking for the highly specific wavelength of the laser.

MIT has been getting laser signals from the Moon since 1962 as has a couple of European unis.

The 1962 MIT experiment didn't use a retroreflector. It wasn't until Apollo 11 placed the first one that such ranging measurement became usefully precise.

It simply isn't true you get a signal almost by return whilst you sit there with your Go Pro camera. It takes eight hours to get 3,000 protons back, not fifteen minutes.

Lasers don't emit protons. The most sensitive detectors can register as little as a few photons. Again, please provide a citation.

The US and British military has been getting radio signals from the Moon since the 1940's.

Radio signals? Surely not without a geopositioned satellite they weren't!

And your point?

The Laser Ranging Programme was axed in 2009 anyway.

Was it, now? Can you provide a citation for that? What about all the other facilities around the world using the lunar retroreflectors?

We can conclude that the retroreflectors 'debunk' neither proves nor disproves the Apollo 11 or other Apollo astronauts placed the there manually, in person. It has a feel-good vibe but hardly works as a debunk.

I know a lot of work went into the video but it seems geared towards impressionable primary schoolchildren who take what they are told at face value.

But, again, what about the world's engineering and physics communities, and that pesky overwhelming scientific consensus of theirs? Are they all just impressionable primary school children?

Do you genuinely not see how funny your arguments become once you start pretending to be a world authority who knows more than the actual world's authorities?

 

[Thermal]

Do you genuinely not see how funny your arguments become once you start pretending to be a world authority who knows more than the actual world's authorities?

Honest to God, I'm starting to develop internationally sympathetic third degree burns.

 

[The Common Potato]

Honest to God, I'm starting to develop internationally sympathetic third degree burns.

Nominative determinism.

 

[Mojo]

I haven't said it was a 'hoax'. You know perfectly well the mechanics of a geopositioned satellite. The fact the Apollo missions did not utilise one should make you wonder at the miracle of the live transmission to earth.

I'm sitting outside my local pub. I can see the Moon from here without the assistance of any satellite, "geopositioned" or otherwise.

This dismisses your point.

Don't post it ever again.

ETA: Unless you want to look like an idiot.

 

[The Common Potato]

I have the thought that when the non-conspiracist asks a question of the conspiracist, they are asking the conspiracist to demonstrate her knowledge of the topic, and to explain the thought process, with evidence.

The conspiracist reads this as the non-conspiracist being ignorant and asking for her to help the non-conspracist out.

 

[Mojo]

I have the thought that when the non-conspiracist asks a question of the conspiracist, they are asking the conspiracist to demonstrate her knowledge of the topic, and to explain the thought process, with evidence.

The conspiracist reads this as the non-conspiracist being ignorant and asking for her to help the non-conspracist out.

Projection.

 

[The Common Potato]

To continue, I've read a few books, not many, (shut up at the back!) on conspiricism and most of the the authors (psychologists, mainly) concentrate on the sort of person who is a conspirator. Narcissists, Nazis, QAnon fans etc.

None bother to try to analyse the way conspirators deal with the evidence presented. Isn't that very suspicious!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I'm sitting outside my local pub. I can see the Moon from here without the assistance of any satellite, "geopositioned" or otherwise.

This dismisses your point.

Don't post it ever again.

ETA: Unless you want to look like an idiot.

Ship. Sailed.

 

[Mojo]

Ship. Sailed.

It may just be lost in the Baltic.