• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

Vixen said:
Do look up what colour the sky is on the Moon during lunar daylight.
Click to expand...
Why do you imagine color is the same as brightness?

Yes, the sky is black in both cases. But what is different about one case versus the other is the rather bright sun in that black sky lighting up everything. It's absent in the other case. You're simply restating the primitive notion that "black sky = night = dark."
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I believe sunlight on the moon is about as bright as sunlight on earth, though less diffuse. How about you?
Click to expand...
Erm no. Earth is protected the Moon is not.
Click to expand...
Well, actually, because the Earth is "protected" sunlight on the Moon is marginally brighter than sunlight on Earth.

Do you understand why this doesn't help you?
 
Vixen said:
This is exactly the issue. If you remember Jupiter and its satellites could be seen in conjunction with the Moon 8 Oct 2022 in presumably the Northern hemisphere; then on seeing such a pic, you can calculate when and where it was taken. Thus, it seems convenient there are no stars in the Apollo photos, so the claim is the sky was blacked out to avoid ID.
Click to expand...

My point was that the length of the lunar day, which you deem the important factor, is not significant when it comes to which star we cannot see as they are too close to the sun from our point of view. Nor is there any significant difference whether the observer is on the Earth or Moon. Compared to the distance to the sun, Earth and Moon are in much the same place. What point did you think you were making when you condescendingly suggested looking up the length of the lunar day?

On your shifted point, about the stars and planets positions being a way to confirm date and location, how would a shift of just 240,000 miles change the alignment of the planets against background stars? Do you really think this would be detectable on a photograph? The idea is of course moot, since there was no chance the lunar surface photos could have shown objects as faint as stars. As we have belaboured for far too long and you have yet to accept for no good reason.

On the other hand, are you aware that Apollo photographs do indeed include information which confirms when they were taken? Photographs taken of the Earth include cloud patterns which, years later, were independently matched up to weather satellite info for the appropriate dates.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Compared to the distance to the sun, Earth and Moon are in much the same place.
Click to expand...
The maximum parallax angle is about 0.15º, enough to measure but not enough to notice with the naked eye. The Apollo missions happened during the waxing crescent phase so the phase angle was small. That means the parallax angle was small.

This affects only the parallax between the sun and the starfield. It does not affect the parallax between stars, which is negligible.

Jack by the hedge said:
On the other hand, are you aware that Apollo photographs do indeed include information which confirms when they were taken? Photographs taken of the Earth include cloud patterns which, years later, were independently matched up to weather satellite info for the appropriate dates.
Click to expand...
Further, when rescanned specifically to look for it, Venus was faintly apparent in some of the photos exactly where it should have been. Venus is very much brighter than stars and doesn't take a several-second exposure to show up to a barely detectable level.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Do look up what colour the sky is on the Moon during lunar daylight. Then compare and contrast it to Earth night sky (and without any clouds to obscure the view).
Click to expand...
Do look up what things the astronauts were photographing on the moon. (Big hint: the moon, each other and their equipment.) Now ask yourself if those objects were sunlit or not. Now ask yourself if that would require your camera to be set for day or night photography. We know the answer. Do you?

You might also like to consider what actual night photography would be like on the moon*. With the sun below the horizon the landing site would be lit by nothing but the stars. It would be as dark as a clear moonless night on earth. Is that what you see in the Apollo photos? No. So the Apollo photos are not night photography, are they?

You follow this, right? Just because the sky was black does not mean it was lunar night time. Get it?

*I should probably specify I meant on the far side of the moon, as the Earth always hangs in the same portion of the sky as seen from the moon's surface. So you need to have Earth below your horizon too to get properly dark. At the actual landing sites the Earth would be like a larger brighter moon in the night sky. Not, by a long way, something you would mistake for direct sunlight.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Do look up what things the astronauts were photographing on the moon. (Big hint: the moon, each other and their equipment.) Now ask yourself if those objects were sunlit or not. Now ask yourself if that would require your camera to be set for day or night photography. We know the answer. Do you?

You might also like to consider what actual night photography would be like on the moon. With the sun below the horizon the landing site would be lit by nothing but the stars. It would be as dark as a clear moonless night on earth. Is that what you see in the Apollo photos? No. So the Apollo photos are not night photography, are they?

You follow this, right? Just because the sky was black does not mean it was lunar night time.
Get it?
Click to expand...
Not bloody likely!
 
Vixen said:
The reason you can't see stars coming out of a lighted building is because (a) your location (b) light pollution and (c) weather conditions.

It is largely patriotic fervour because people's entire value system would crumble were it ever admitted the photography was, shall we say, manipulated (albeit for honourable reasons, I'm sure). For example, the Apollo capsule found by the Russians now on display in Michigan IIRC, that is sealed and deemed 'classified'. Noone of this generation can be allowed to see inside. Why? What's the problem in letting the public see inside the capsule?
Click to expand...
This is utter nonsense.
 
Gosh dang it, fellers, looks as if we have to admit it, that moon mission
thing was all just hoaxed and a bam boozle. I mean, hell, if a believer still says
it was after 77 pages, then I guess you just haven't proved your case. Right?

So Pollo 11 was a fake. Now, how about the other 5 missions that they
say happened and took all those pix and movies and brought back
rocks and etc.? Were those fakes too?

I'm just after the truth here. Help me out, believer?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom