Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

There’s nothing bad or shameful about ignorance, but when you claim expertise in a subject, and then demonstrate beyond any doubt that you actually know almost nothing about it, you should expect to have that ignorance called out, particularly on a forum such as this.

To then argue that you are better informed and more knowledgeable than actually qualified experts in that subject is simply asking to be ridiculed.

You are not being insulted, you are being called out.

I've told my two kids, the older of whom just finished his junior year of college studying engineering and has made the dean's list every semester, that the difference between wisdom and foolishness isn't so much what one knows, but rather how one reacts to what one doesn't know - that truly smart people say I don't know, I didn't know or I was wrong whenever appropriate and without hesitation or embarrassment.

Foolish people think that ignorance and error are indicators of stupidity, and thus would rather insist that they aren't wrong than admit error and learn something. They seem to view knowledge as some intrinsic quality that you either have or don't have, rather than as the result of a process that involves first actively seeking and identifying the gaps in one's knowledge so that they can be filled in. It's a sad irony that willful ignorance is so often caused by an aversion to being perceived as ignorant.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Could it? You can see the stars from Earth any old time. They were on the moon.

Why would they take a "keen interest" in things they had already seen countless times, instead of the brief, once in their lifetime chance to photograph their moon landing?

It's among your dumber arguments, don't you think?

And even if they had some compelling reason to want humans to take snaps of stars outside of earth's atmosphere, there is no reason they couldn't have just done that in orbit. Space telescopes make far more sense, and NASA was already launching the Orbital Astronomical Observatories at the time of the Apollo. There's nothing special about the moon for stargazing.

 

[JayUtah]

Given these were astronauts primed by precise astronomical detail, it could be said...

No. You're trying to paste your motives onto them so that you can make them look suspicious.

 

[Vixen]

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.

If I said I took night photos with an SLR then it is true.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If I said I took night photos with an SLR then it is true.

And if you said you took star photos with a camera set for daylight exposure then it would be false.

The astronauts' cameras were set for daylight exposure.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Foolish people think that ignorance and error are indicators of stupidity,

Although that is true, it is also true that unceasingly heroic efforts to remain ignorant so as not to imperil one's tenacious adherence to error are reliable indicators of stupidity.

 

[JayUtah]

I just sneaked a look at my school report for that age...
So, I was first in [other subjects]...
So your claim my understanding falls short of your 13-year-old's is just a cheap insult. I would guess that this is because you haven't grasped the point being made.

You really can't help yourself, can you?

It doesn't matter what grades you got in other subjects or whether your claim to have peeked at your school report is true or not. You cannot demonstrate here in this forum that you have an understanding of physics that rises above that of a typical 13-year-old. You say ludicrously wrong things such as having less gravity doesn't mean things are lighter. And while you try your best to hammer @wollery over an assessment of your aptitude, the fact remains that you have been given several detailed explanations—with computations and actual numbers—for why your claims are wrong. These were given to you in some cases by people who are professionally certified to solve such problem for pay. You have ignored them entirely in favor of faux indignation and bluster.

When you say the motion of the astronauts is wrong because it doesn't meet with your expectation of physics, we know whether that's because the astronauts are taking it or because your understanding of physics is woefully deficient.

 

[jimbob]

I've told my two kids, the older of whom just finished his junior year of college studying engineering and has made the dean's list every semester, that the difference between wisdom and foolishness isn't so much what one knows, but rather how one reacts to what one doesn't know - that truly smart people say I don't know, I didn't know or I was wrong whenever appropriate and without hesitation or embarrassment.

Foolish people think that ignorance and error are indicators of stupidity, and thus would rather insist that they aren't wrong than admit error and learn something. They seem to view knowledge as some intrinsic quality that you either have or don't have, rather than as the result of a process that involves first actively seeking and identifying the gaps in one's knowledge so that they can be filled in. It's a sad irony that willful ignorance is so often caused by an aversion to being perceived as ignorant.

When I was a graduate engineer I actually got a reputation quite quickly, because I had listened to the anecdotes of experienced engineers and occasionally was able to learn from the mistakes of others rather than making the mistake myself.

A significant number of engineering decisions are made after or during technical discussions/meetings in my experience.

Managing such meetings is difficult.

 

[Vixen]

And if you said you took star photos with a camera set for daylight exposure then it would be false.

The astronauts' cameras were set for daylight exposure.

Nowhere did I say I took night photos during day time.

 

[JayUtah]

If I said I took night photos with an SLR then it is true.

But everyone except you knows that your claim cannot be true. There is no amount of doubling down that will fix it.

You wrongly thought Marcus Allen wouldn't lead you astray. So you tried to look smart and say that you had duplicated the results he said you should get. You were wrong, and now you're desperate not to get caught.

 

[Vixen]

Would you care to enlighten we lesser mortals about the difference? *fx adopts listening pose"

Compare and contrast the Apollo pics with any Earth pic of a similar time of day and season.

 

[Vixen]

What "glare" would your polarising filter be needed for on the moon?

Er, the sun rays on the horizon causing glare..?

 

[JayUtah]

Nowhere did I say I took night photos during day time.

You claimed you photographed stars with an SLR. You're being asked what camera settings you used. You suddenly can't remember. This is important because Allen's claim (and now yours) relies on those same settings being compatible with also photographing objects lit by the sun. And true to form, you're claiming there's magically something different about daylit objects on the Moon that makes this possible.

You absolutely did not photograph stars with a film SLR using settings compatible with also photographing daylit objects.

 

[Vixen]

I am assessing your current understanding, based on your extensive posting history over several years, and in particular the posts in this thread. What you achieved 50 years ago is irrelevant.

And it isn’t an insult to say that your understanding is deficient, it’s a statement of fact.

You get basic facts of physics wrong, including, but not limited to:
The effects and dangers of radioactivity, with specific reference to the Van Allen belts,
Gravity, mass and weight, the difference between them and how they affect movement,
Moments and how that relates to weight and biomechanics,
Light intensity, with particular reference to the relative brightness of different objects,
Laws of reflection.

That’s just the things I can recall in the moment, without looking back through the thread.

I’m happy to be corrected, but I don’t actually remember you getting any point of physics right.

And to reiterate, that isn’t an insult, there are a huge number of people that are ignorant of physics. Ignorance is entirely understandable, forgivable, and easy to correct, if you are willing. I’m ignorant about a great many subjects, including photography, which is why I haven’t weighed in on that issue in this thread.

There’s nothing bad or shameful about ignorance, but when you claim expertise in a subject, and then demonstrate beyond any doubt that you actually know almost nothing about it, you should expect to have that ignorance called out, particularly on a forum such as this.

To then argue that you are better informed and more knowledgeable than actually qualified experts in that subject is simply asking to be ridiculed.

You are not being insulted, you are being called out.

I'm sorry it upset you but I had no idea you would be upset re the OP.

 

[JayUtah]

Compare and contrast the Apollo pics with any Earth pic of a similar time of day and season.

I used the same camera settings as the Apollo astronauts did (ISO 160, f/11-f/22, 1/250-1/125) to photograph daylit objects on Earth. I can post the results if you don't believe me. I also showed what shutter speed I needed to make even a very bright planet appear using the same setup.

 

[Vixen]

Ahem.

And that is true.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Nowhere did I say I took night photos during day time.

Nowhere did you say what settings would be suitable for star photos either.

Because you can see as easily as anyone else here that the limited range of settings of the lunar Hasselblads was never going to record stars.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sorry it upset you but I had no idea you would be upset re the OP.

The only upsetting thing is how you keep trying to tell professional that they can't tell you're faking it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Compare and contrast the Apollo pics with any Earth pic of a similar time of day and season.

Gee, Vixen, what season was it on the moon?

 

[JayUtah]

And that is true.

You claimed to be competent in photography. Now you're being asked to demonstrate knowledge consistent with that claim to competency. Getting all riled up because people can tell you're faking it doesn't make a good argument.