Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

Welcome back Vixen. Do you any response to my explanation of weight vs mass, and why the asttronauts' legs were just as strong on the moon?

I doubt you would be able to follow the argument as you are so ingrained in the Kubrick version. The Apollo 11 astronauts had to train in artificially induced reduced gravity (note: NOT zero gravity, as is commonly believed but apx 1/6th of Earth's). This was achieved periodically by travelling at high speeds. Its abrupt and very brief nature meant devising a system of harnesses (see earlier video about the 'debunkers'). Because the harnesses by which the trainees were hoist in the air caused an imbalance, they found it easier to leap about with two feet as ordinary gait tended to make them lose their balance. The hoist made them tend to spin around. Plus on the Moon they had a backpack roughly their own body weight. In the aforesaid video, in one part the guy was wearing a piece of styrofoam on his back. For the artificial gravity session, a body vest weighing roughly 180lbs was wrapped around his torso, rather than on his back. Yet he was still unable to maintain his balance.

HOWEVER, on the Moon the videos we see show the astronauts hopping in the same manner as though they were still on a hoist! Plus, their backpack no longer seems to be a problem for them. In effect, it looks EXACTLY like the sequences were filmed on Earth.

Kimo sabe?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I doubt you would be able to follow the argument as you are so ingrained in the Kubrick version.

LOL

The Apollo 11 astronauts had to train in artificially induced reduced gravity (note: NOT zero gravity, as is commonly believed but apx 1/6th of Earth's).

Commonly believed by whom? This is like one of Trump's "people don't know" pronouncements, for stuff he's all too clearly just had explained to him.

 

[Vixen]

First, the lunar gravity thing was known AND TAUGHT in junior high schools, and high schools in the 1920s and 1930s. It was an easy and fun ratio that told kids if we ever got to the moon we could lift heavy things. It was assumed by students that gravity and muscle mass are two different concepts, which they are. Also, all things are relative. A man on the moon is strong because he was born on earth where gravity is stronger. Someday there will be people who will be BORN AND RAISED ON THE MOON. Guess what happens when they fly down to Florida to visit Disney World? Yup, they'll need a wheel chair, and I'm not a medical doctor, but I doubt their bodies would do very well.

It's a simple concept, one that's been around since 1938 when Action Comics introduced Superman, a guy from a distant planet with a gravity anywhere from 10 to 30 times earth's gravity.

The Lunar Lander was designed to land on the moon, or some place with similar gravity. Its legs would collapse on earth, and it's rocket, and thrusters are designed for lunar landing. I'm not a rocket scientist, but I understand gravity, and there are days I wish I was in a 1/6 environment.

Now the important stuff. So what we're saying is an African Swallow can carry up to three coconuts on the moon.

Yes, when you were an impressionable patriotic excitable schoolkid, of course the Moon Landing was explained in terms that were rational and made perfect sense. This is why it will be interesting to compare how the Chinese astronauts do their landings, Moon walks and taking off.

 

[Vixen]

So the "shutter" speed means they must have taken photos as fast as was mechanically possible the entire duration of the EVA? Since the shutter speed was as fast as 1/250 sec., then they must have taken 2,250,000 photos?

Again, the term you're looking for, since you don't really know anything useful about photography, is the camera's advance rate. How fast can it advance the film and reset the shutter for the next shot. Since the motor drive on the 500-EL took 1.5 seconds to do that, then the real question is could a camera with a 1.5 second frame advance time take 120 photos in the space of 9,000 seconds? And the answer is a painfully obvious YES!!!

No IIRC the Hasselblad shutter speed, including winding onto the next frame, was 1.5 secs.

 

[JayUtah]

I doubt you would be able to follow the argument as you are so ingrained in the Kubrick version.

There is no "Kubrick version."

The Apollo 11 astronauts had to train in artificially induced reduced gravity (note: NOT zero gravity, as is commonly believed but apx 1/6th of Earth's). This was achieved periodically by travelling at high speeds.

No. Traveling at "high speeds" does not produce diminished gravity. You're thinking of the parabolic arc flown by the NASA KC-135.

Its abrupt and very brief nature meant devising a system of harnesses (see earlier video about the 'debunkers'). Because the harnesses by which the trainees were hoist in the air caused an imbalance, they found it easier to leap about with two feet as ordinary gait tended to make them lose their balance. The hoist made them tend to spin around.

...which is why they switched quickly to multi-point harnesses. Hopping was still required because the problem is the lack of friction with the ground for locomotion, not a lack of balance. The multi-point harness connects at your center of gravity, obviating the balance problem. The harness is also quite visible.

Plus on the Moon they had a backpack roughly their own body weight.

Asked and answered.

In the aforesaid video, in one part the guy was wearing a piece of styrofoam on hos back. For the artificial gravity session, a body vest weighing roughly 180lbs was wrapped around his torso, rather than on his back. Yet he was still unable to maintain his balance.

According to whom?

HOWEVER, on the Moon the videos we see show the astronauts hopping in the same manner as though they were still on a hoist!

Or as expected in diminished gravity, and not spinning around or visibly wearing a harness. In other words, the training was effective.

Plus, their backpack no longer seems to be a problem for them.

Asked and answered.

 

[Mojo]

That’s not an argument.

First of all, this is especially laughable given that you’ve just boasted about knowing how to use a “sophisticated camera” (who even uses a phrase like that?). And you’ve again used “shutter speed” incorrectly. The shutter speed of the cameras was (I believe) able to be set to either 1/125 or 1/250s. The 1.5s figure you’re using is not shutter speed.

And the 1.5 second figure that it takes to take a picture and auto wind to the next frame doesn’t tell you how often they were “churning out” photos. It tells you nothing of the sort, how would it?

There were ~120 photos taken in about 150 minutes of EVA. That works out to a photo every 75 seconds. The 1.5 second time to operate the camera doesn’t factor into this calculation.

How can you call yourself a numbers person and be this confused about what you’re arguing here?

This sort of confusion is likely to happen when someone uses " to indicate both minutes and seconds.

 

[Vixen]

LOL

Commonly believed by whom? This is like one of Trump's "people don't know" pronouncements, for stuff he's all too clearly just had explained to him.

It's this idea that when on the Moon every step is ten inches high and you have to leap about. This is something imagined by NASA and Kubrick in his Apollo film at the time. The proof will be in the pudding when the Chinese astronauts land in the near future.

 

[JayUtah]

No IIRC the Hasselblad shutter speed, including winding onto the next frame, was 1.5 secs.

Shutter speed and advance rate are two different concepts. The advance rate is 1.5 seconds. The fact that you keep calling it "shutter speed" means you really don't know as much about photography as you claim, and therefore your claim to have duplicated Marcus Allen's results is suspect.

The advance rate (cycle time is for digital cameras) determines the maximum number of photos you can take in a given period of time. You are correctly stating the advance rate for the Hasselblad 500/EL. But you can't seem to come up why that value matters for the authenticity of Apollo. You're not actually making an argument for anything. You're just stating a common fact.

 

[JayUtah]

This is something imagined by NASA and Kubrick in his Apollo film at the time.

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I was addressing Wollery and his pompous claim his 13-year-old pupils know better.

Pretty obvious they probably do

 

[Darat]

Yeah, let's all pretend I'm the stupid one. I get this means a lot to our US friends and I honestly have no intention of pricking anyone's fondly held beliefs.

I'd say let's not play pretend.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, when you were an impressionable patriotic excitable schoolkid, of course the Moon Landing was explained in terms that were rational and made perfect sense.

Irrelevant.

The entire engineering community accepts the Apollo missions as real and can speak with great authority and in great detail about how it was done. There is enough engineering documentation to occupy one's lifetime reading it. I know because I have.

This is not a matter of NASA bamboozling people with starry-eyed claims. This is a matter of hoax claimants making ridiculous and easily disproven claims in order to make money and get attention. The actual expertise is fully on one side of the question.

This is why it will be interesting to compare how the Chinese astronauts do their landings, Moon walks and taking off.

No, we don't have to kick the can down the road as a fallback. There is absolutely no valid science or history in the Apollo hoax claims and no reason to pay it any further attention. This is fully in evidence by the fact that you can't describe properly how gravity works. We are not required to coddle mediocrity.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's this idea that when on the Moon every step is ten inches high and you have to leap about. This is something imagined by NASA and Kubrick in his Apollo film at the time. The proof will be in the pudding when the Chinese astronauts land in the near future.

Which Kubrick Apollo film is that?

 

[Vixen]

Irrelevant.

The entire engineering community accepts the Apollo missions as real and can speak with great authority and in great detail about how it was done. There is enough engineering documentation to occupy one's lifetime reading it. I know because I have.

This is not a matter of NASA bamboozling people with starry-eyed claims. This is a matter of hoax claimants making ridiculous and easily disproven claims in order to make money and get attention. The actual expertise is fully on one side of the question.


No, we don't have to kick the can down the road as a fallback. There is absolutely no valid science or history in the Apollo hoax claims and no reason to pay it any further attention.

That may be so but it doesn't deal with Allen's valid points about the photography. It is quite possible for the journey to the Moon to be real yet the photography to have been produced in a studio on Earth, for PR, for example. Simply calling someone names and dishing out ridicule Trump-style doesn't actually settle anything.

 

[JayUtah]

That may be so but it doesn't deal with Allen's valid points about the photography.

Asked and answered. He has no valid points about the photography. They were all debunked decades ago, and newly here and now.

You claimed you had replicated Allen's claims through your own photography. You are unable to show evidence of that, and further evidence that you lack the knowledge of photographic principles to do so or understand the evidence that refutes your claim.

It is quite possible for the journey to the Moon to be real yet the photography to have been produced in a studio on Earth, for PR, for example.

That was David Percy's argument, but it was his fallback after we rather pointedly debunked his "dark moon" fiasco. It doesn't fix anything. It just restates the hoax to focus less on the physics and engineering (which Percy knows nothing about) and more on the photography (which he claims to know more about but doesn't).

The allegations for why the photos, film, and video were actually produced on Earth are just as stupid as they were before Percy retreated. And it just adds to the stupidity of the claim by making you wonder, if the missions themselves were real, why they couldn't have just taken pictures on the Moon instead of publishing "PR photos" taken in a studio and risking being caught. It's a knee-jerk fallback that actually does a worse job of proposing a viable scenario. Percy had to acknowledge he didn't know enough about the technology to question it, but he still needed some hoax claim to sell. That's the only reason we have the fake-photos-only version of the conspiracy theory.

It's also the premise of the movie Fly Me to the Moon, which actually went to considerable effort to get the Apollo props correct.

Simply calling someone names and dishing out ridicule Trump-style doesn't actually settle anything.

No one is calling you names. However, your ample lack of appropriate knowledge is both relevant to your claims and ripe for criticism.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No IIRC the Hasselblad shutter speed, including winding onto the next frame, was 1.5 secs.

It always makes me laugh when we get to the bit where Vixen grasps for some alternative form of words that might make it look like she wasn't simply wrong. And fails.

 

[JesseCuster]

This is something imagined by NASA and Kubrick in his Apollo film at the time.

What “Apollo film” of Kubrick are you referring to? Specifics please.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's this idea that when on the Moon every step is ten inches high and you have to leap about.

Whose idea is that, exactly?

This is something imagined by NASA and Kubrick in his Apollo film at the time.

Can you direct us to this Kubrick film please?

The proof will be in the pudding when the Chinese astronauts land in the near future.

What proof? Why will you believe Chinese astronauts are really on the moon when you want us to imagine you doubt that American ones were?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It always makes me laugh when we get to the bit where Vixen grasps for some alternative form of words that might make it look like she wasn't simply wrong. And fails.

Also incorporating what has been learned from other posters corrections as though that was the story all along.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Is Kubrick's Apollo film in the room with you now?