Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Darat]

What do you think "obscures" the view of the stars in daylight on Earth?

The firmament?

 

[catsmate]

Was it really? Gosh. I got an 'A' at 'O' level, I must be very clever. What did you get? Did you go on to 'A' level in Physics?

Being Irish I didn't do O or A levels. I did get an 'A' in physics at Leaving Certificate, along with similar grades in mathematics and applied mathematics. A long time ago.

 

[catsmate]

That doesn't mean your claim that your 13-year-olds have a better understanding of Physics than myself is the slightest bit accurate.

Given your repeated and gross incompetence I think it's accurate.

 

[catsmate]

Given these were astronauts primed by precise astronomical detail, it could be said filming the stars would be of keen interest, so the fact the skies appear blacked over and the crew of three avoiding the question, is understandably seen by those interested, as a deliberate policy, to avoid star-spotters from identifying exactly where the photography was taken. So I am curious to understand this, too.

Utter bollox.

 

[catsmate]

You aren't really interested in this; you are simply being vexatious so I shall pass.

Oh wow, even by you low standards that is a pathetic cop-out.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It was fast. I started out on ISO 64.

I used Kodachrome 25 and 64 then the 200 when it came out.
Sometimes Ektachrome when I was convincing myself I was a pro.
Agfa RS 100 was a marvellous film.
Monochrome I mainly used Agfa APX 100 and 400, it was marvellous film, especially when used with their Rodinal developer.
I used a lot of Ilford as well, HP4 and FP5.

Ilford is still available.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You haven't grasped that daylight on Earth is different from daylight on the Moon.

How is it different?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sorry, are you assuming daylight on Earth is the same as daylight on the Moon? Oh dear.

How is it different?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

<aside> Big fan of FP4 and of Fujicolor 100 and 200. I preferred their vivid greens over Kodacolor. Avoided Agfa as I didn't quite trust it: My dad's old Agfa slides had all colour shifted to cyan, while his older Kodachromes were still lovely.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You haven't grasped that daylight on Earth is different from daylight on the Moon.

No, Vixen. It isn't. At sea level, earth's atmosphere is about 98% transparent to visible light. Try again.

 

[Mojo]

Oh wow, even by you low standards that is a pathetic cop-out.

It's one she's used before.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen will never be corrected. On any topic. Ever. Vixen is the foremost authority on any topic that has ever been thought of. And every single one of those topics is a conspiracy that only Vixen can explain in full.

Looks like I've got a fan.

 

[Mojo]

Looks like I've got a fan.

And limited comprehension skills.

 

[Steve]

I never said I was a professional photographer.
I was a keen hobbyist,contrary to Foster Zygote's obvious assumption only macho guys knew anything about the specifics.

"I can google!".

 

[Steve]

Looks like I've got a fan.

Fan is not the word I would use. Intrigued observer would serve better. I am fascinated by your posts. I find it remarkable that any one person can be so, so wrong on so many different topics that they claim to understand. I do think that most of your displayed ignorance is genuine, but occasionally it seems that something sparks in your brain and you do realize you have made a mistake, which you then twist yourself in knots trying to justify. A deteriorating human brain can be an interesting, although somewhat sad, thing to observe,

 

[Foster Zygote]

When I was on holiday some years ago near the Tropics, one glance at an incredibly starry night sky completely took my breath away.

You're still stuck on this misconception that if the sky is black, you will see stars. Most of the time the astronauts were in either a lighted spacecraft, often with sunlight entering through one or more ports, or on the lunar surface. It's not enough to have a black sky, your eyes need to become dark adapted. If you leave a brightly lit building at night and walk outside you won't see any stars until your pupils open enough (which is pretty much fully open) to admit sufficient light, no matter how dark it is outside. Yet on the lunar surface the sun shone so brightly that the astronauts had to wear tinted visors to manage the glare.

It's understandable you call any question about the photography outrageous because you have bought in to the dream and the consequent hero-worship. I can see nothing wrong at all with people wanting to understand how it all worked, without silly 'debunking' videos with youtubers in spacesuits mucking about with harnesses and gushing about reflectors.

But you don't really want to know how anything works. That would require admitting that you didn't already know something to begin with.

You, fine, you are happy with what you are told with no curiosity to know anything deeper.

The only thing deep about the Apollo conspiracy theory is that it's a deep pile of ◊◊◊◊ invented by ignoramuses with a pathological need to pretend they're at the intellectual apex of humanity, or shameless grifters like Bart Sibrel and David Percy who know that people will happily pay money for complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ as long as it supports that same intellectual delusion.

I get it. It is a mix of patriotism and inculcation, just like Brits believe the Royal Family are better than us. As a kid we had to stand up for the National Anthem at Saturday morning pictures at the Odeon...doesn't mean it means anything important and must not be questioned.

I'm getting the sense that "people who think they're better than you" is something that concerns you to an inordinate degree.

The reality of Apollo isn't supported by patriotic fervor, it's supported by a global scientific consensus. But you don't want to talk about any of the science, because that has, presently and historically, gone very badly for you.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Given these were astronauts primed by precise astronomical detail, it could be said filming the stars would be of keen interest, so the fact the skies appear blacked over and the crew of three avoiding the question, is understandably seen by those interested, as a deliberate policy, to avoid star-spotters from identifying exactly where the photography was taken. So I am curious to understand this, too.

The above paragraph is almost Yrreg-like in its attempt to be linguistically sophisticated.

Filming or photographing the stars during Apollo was not of keen interest to NASA, with one specific exception. The stars would not have been discernibly brighter on the moon, even under conditions in which they could be seen, than they would be from any earthbound observatory. Taking photos of them would require time to set up a tripod, among other things, and would have provided nothing of any scientific value that wasn't already done better from earth.

The one exception was the Far Ultraviolet Camera Spectrograph carried by Apollo 16. Because earth's atmosphere is opaque to the far ultraviolet, this instrument was able to capture images and spectra in a wavelength never before seen, providing novel scientific data about various astronomical objects, including the earth.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I never said I was a professional photographer. I was a keen hobbyist, contrary to Foster Zygote's obvious assumption only macho guys knew anything about the specifics.

Still playing the victim. Pretending that criticism of your arguments isn't based on your demonstrable ignorance of photography and obvious lies about photographing stars with trivial ease, but rather an attack on your gender. Pathetic, but I understand why you do it. You can't admit, even to yourself, that you don't know what you're talking about, and pretending that you're being attacked as a woman is much easier to cope with than acknowledging that you're being criticized for your ignorance of the fundamentals of photography.

By the way, I'm friends with a woman who is a talented professional photographer. Like most in her field, she works with digital cameras now, but she still enjoys shooting and processing her own film, and collecting film cameras. I haven't seen it, but she has a Hasselblad 500 in her collection. Not the lunar camera commemorative model, but the standard commercial model. We've talked about the Apollo photography a bit, and she's never once blown the whistle on the hoax. Oh, and she's originally from Alberta, so she isn't simply so overwhelmed by patriotic fervor that she's blinded to the photographic anomalies that are so obvious to you. Next time I see her, I'll tell her a bit about this conversion. I'm sure she'll get a kick out of it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You aren't really interested in this; you are simply being vexatious so I shall pass.

No, you'll pass because you lied. Everyone knows you lied. Asking you what settings you used is a rhetorical question, because it's interesting to see how you try to cover the lie.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why is it fatal? All the information you need is on Google, so even if I could remember exactly what settings I used to use for night photos, I am not sure how it is relevant one way or another.

Photographing stars involves very specific, very unusual settings and preparation. You'd remember. Hell, you even mentioned a tripod at one point, after obviously having Googled stellar photography. But you've probably realized that was a mistake, too, because you'd have to admit that the Apollo crews weren't carrying around tripods and cable releases, and you were trying to prove that they should have imaged stars just by pointing the camera at the sky.