Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

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.

No, Vixen. That's utter ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. You could be camping at Ayres Rock and be inside a caravan with bright lights turned on, and then step out into the darkest and clearest of moonlit nights and you wouldn't see any stars, or much of anything else, for several minutes. You won't reach full dark adaptation for at least half an hour.

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).

More ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. This is a straw man you've constructed to avoid addressing the real facts that show how ignorant you are. Haven't you noticed by now that this is an international forum? People interested in space exploration come from all over the world.

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?

Oh, FFS! That's BP-1227. It's a "boilerplate" test article. Not an actual spacecraft, but with the shape, mass and CG of an actual Apollo Command Module. That one was delivered to the U.S. Navy for the purpose of practicing recovery operations. The Navy isn't as transparent with its records as NASA, so, even if there are records that still exist that would explain it, exactly how it ended up in Soviet hands is unclear. Speculation is that it was lost during a training exercise and sank. In international waters, Navy operations were frequently shadowed by Russian "fishing trawlers". It seems that the Russians later recovered it to learn just what was going on, and discovered that it was nothing more than an inert steel can. In 1970 they returned it to the U.S. Navy when an icebreaker picked it up in a Soviet port.


The item on display in Grand Rapids, Michigan is clearly not a functional Command Module.

The museum in Grand Rapids decided to turn this moderately interesting Apollo artifact into a time capsule, to be opened in 2076 for the U.S. tricentennial, at which time it is scheduled to be returned to Smithsonian NASM in Washington D.C., which still owns it.

As to why no "one is allowed inside", my guess would be that some basement-dwelling conspiracy theorist had his mom drive him there so he could demand to examine it, and was told that museums generally aren't in the habit of letting just anyone crawl around inside their exhibits, and decided to interpret this as his breakthrough, National Treasure moment.

And seriously, Vixen, what do you think is in there? Alien corpses? The contracts with Stanley Kubrick to fake the landings? The locations of every dead body of every engineer in the world who wouldn't agree to hide the "real" physics proving the hoax? And they decided to hide something suspicious, maybe even incriminating, in a big white cone in front of a museum in Grand Rapids?

 

[JayUtah]

how does a polarising filter help?

It seems she might be confusing a UV filter with a polarizing filter.

As I explained at length before, UV filters in the traditional sense are not needed on the Moon because the haze ("glare?") they are meant to correct is a phenomenon created in the atmosphere. Absent an atmosphere, you don't have the same problem.

A circular polarizing filter can eliminate reflections (specular or diffuse) by selectively admitting light of a certain polarity. Reflections are generally polarized in a different direction than the primary subject's illumination. Scattered visible light (not UV) in the air is also usually polarized differently. You can darken the sky, for example, using a circular polarizer.

Nothing about this has anything to do with ordinary star photography.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Of course it'd be of keen interest to an astronaut. My ex, who only did a double Physics degree because he became interested in astronomy, could point to the sky and say, 'There's Andromeda, or there's Cassiopeia...etc'. The idea you'd go on a 250K mile trip to the Moon and not care a darn about the stars is utterly bonkers.

Not having time to engage in special procedures to photograph stars is not the same as "not caring a darn" about stars. They weren't going to see any stars anyway unless they could shield their eyes from all direct or reflected sunlight.

"Sure am glad we spend a couple of hours out of our EVA time to erect this special tent with the opening at the top and the sun shade so we can wait half an hour and see stars just like they'd look on a clear night on earth."

 

[Foster Zygote]

I was commenting on your wont to make assumptions that aren't even accurate or are simply a way of avoiding an issue.

You mean like commenting on the fact that you make so many basic errors when discussing photography, and the fact that you were clearly lying when you claimed that you'd personally, and easily photographed stars in a manner that countered the lack of stars in the Apollo images?

 

[Mojo]

It'd be overexposed.

What were the astronauts on the Moon trying to photograph?

 

[Mojo]

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.

 

[Mojo]

You could say the same about Allen and Percy. Okay, so JayUtah's take is that these are a pair of 'sensationalist' CT-ers. They would say he was a NASA 'shill'. How to get to the truth..?

Have you thought of looking at the evidence?

 

[Mojo]

Do look up what colour the sky is on the Moon during lunar daylight.

Do you imagine that the blue in the Earth's sky somehow prevents starlight getting through?

 

[JayUtah]

Oh, FFS! That's BP-1227. It's a "boilerplate" test article. Not an actual spacecraft, but with the shape, mass and CG of an actual Apollo Command Module.

There is literally nothing of interest inside a boilerplate command module. It's ballasted with steel ingots in the right places, but otherwise is completely empty.

And seriously, Vixen, what do you think is in there? Alien corpses?

Originally there might have been some toxic materials, but converting it to a time capsule would have corrected that.

Indeed.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No, I don't need to Google it. Here in Finland we have whole armies of people camping out taking pics of the Northern Lights and what have you. One of our leading night sky photographers comes from my area because there is very little light pollution. Once again you are making assumptions.

Nowhere in any of that did you confirm that you've photographed stars yourself. Knowledge of the basics of photography isn't something that you can gain just by being in geographic proximity to expert photographers.

 

[Mojo]

Bollocks.

Yes, in my experience that is what many accountants speak.

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is literally nothing of interest inside a boilerplate command module. It's ballasted with steel ingots in the right places, but otherwise is completely empty.

It wasn't even flown on anything, like the Little Joe II LES test article. I mean, sure they probably practiced helicopter recovery with it, but it's still literally just a giant beer can.

 

[JayUtah]

It wasn't even flown on anything, like the Little Joe II LES test article. I mean, sure they probably practiced helicopter recovery with it, but it's still literally just a giant beer can.

BP-1227 still needed to have correct mass properties. It had to weigh the right amount, have the same buoyancy, and have the same off-center center of gravity. Otherwise it doesn't work very well for recovery training. Yes, other test articles were ballasted for flight test and other purposes, and in many cases instrumented for test in ways that had nothing to do with mission equipment. The biggest difference in BP-1227 wasn't in its ballast but in the coatings they put on to make it last longer in seawater.

 

[Foster Zygote]

BP-1227 still needed to have correct mass properties. It had to weigh the right amount, have the same buoyancy, and have the same off-center center of gravity. Otherwise it doesn't work very well for recovery training. Yes, other test articles were ballasted for flight test and other purposes, and in many cases instrumented for test in ways that had nothing to do with mission equipment. The biggest difference in BP-1227 wasn't in its ballast but in the coatings they put on to make it last longer in seawater.

You can even see in the first photo of it that it appears to be resting a bit off center. Whether that's do to the ballast position to get the CG right, or just some irregularity along the bottom or on the surface it's resting on, I can't say.

 

[Matthew Best]

Of course it'd be of keen interest to an astronaut. My ex, who only did a double Physics degree because he became interested in astronomy, could point to the sky and say, 'There's Andromeda, or there's Cassiopeia...etc'. The idea you'd go on a 250K mile trip to the Moon and not care a darn about the stars is utterly bonkers.

Yes! This! They would have wanted to take photos of the stars because, being on the moon, they were now MUCH closer to them. It just makes sense!

Right, Vixen?

 

[Steve]

Of course it'd be of keen interest to an astronaut. My ex, who only did a double Physics degree because he became interested in astronomy, could point to the sky and say, 'There's Andromeda, or there's Cassiopeia...etc'. The idea you'd go on a 250K mile trip to the Moon and not care a darn about the stars is utterly bonkers.

Takes a double physics degree to name stars. I wonder how those bronze age goat herders who not only named stars and constellations, but could remember those names night after night, ever managed. A real bright spark, your ex. You must have envied his brilliance and wished you could have had those brains.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You might want to look up the meaning of 'kemosabe' (Ojibwe - gimoozaabi). It doesn't mean 'understand'.

Pointed out several years ago. But she's obstinate in her wrongness.

 

[catsmate]

This is the worst possible argument you could come up with. I can assure you that if I was walking on the Moon, I would certainly not be considering gazing at the stars, which I could do at home.

You'd want to watch where you were walking......

 

[steenkh]

Plus you are there for a limited time with specific jobs to do.

Vixen seems to think that the astronauts should have laid down on their back and marvelled at the stars.

 

[Darat]

Of course it'd be of keen interest to an astronaut. My ex, who only did a double Physics degree because he became interested in astronomy, could point to the sky and say, 'There's Andromeda, or there's Cassiopeia...etc'. The idea you'd go on a 250K mile trip to the Moon and not care a darn about the stars is utterly bonkers.

I understand there are areas of Canada that have little to no light pollution.