Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Andy_Ross]

The astronauts were there at a time it was at its most suitable for humans, i.e., circa 28°C, in other words, when the sun was very low. No different from sunset or sunrise, when one can often see the Moon in the sky even both Sun and Moon nearby each other. If there is glare, turn your back on the sun to take the pic.

What was 28°C?

 

[Foster Zygote]

If quality is key, then generally speaking, the more telescopic the lens, the lower the quality but OTOH you can get perfectly good pics however.

So, perfectly good, low quality pictures. Got it.

 

[Mojo]

I shan't be wasting my time arguing facts.

Or presenting any.

 

[Mojo]

What was 28°C?

Either 28' or 28".

 

[Andy_Ross]

She was asked several times and chose not to answer.

Now she knows that the difference in brightness amounts to only a slight change in the photographic settings—and in a direction disfavorable to her claims. Now she has real numbers to contend with instead of the vague handwaving she uses to perpetuate the argument. Any rebuttal she might wish to offer must content with stated facts.

Or, it will be incorporated in to the next iteration of the story and used incorrectly.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What is your source for this allegedly official classification?

She can't tell you, it's classified!

 

[Vixen]

By demonstrating, as I did, what really happens as opposed to what some people say they think should happen. Literally all the provable, demonstrable facts are on one side of the question.

Allen never addressed any of the debunking of his claims. He just kept publishing the same old crap. Percy was invited to defend his claims, but declined and shut down all the ways anyone could challenge him directly. He won't even answer emails anymore.

Now that Space Karen has been ordered by the orange dude he put in power to put the US back on the Moon by 2028, we only need wait two years to compare and contrast to 1969 albeit photography is all digital these days, anyway. Assuming techbro Bezos can get his act together.

Let's all meet back here in 2028.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It informs you

Of where the sun was whilst they were there.

in the sky

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Once again I have to ask: Why will you trust pictures from the moon next time around when you doubt the ones we already have?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Of course there'd be shake and blur.

and yet we don't see shake and blur

 

[Andy_Ross]

The photos are staggeringly perfect.

Correctly exposed you mean?

 

[Mojo]

What was 28°C?

Port, or maybe starboard.

 

[JayUtah]

Or, it will be incorporated in to the next iteration of the story and used incorrectly.

That would be amusing.

 

[zooterkin]

You know how it is when you are loath to tell little children Father Christmas does not exist..? You quietly tiptoe out of the room.

I respect people's faith and honour their right to believe in whatever it is.

Anyhoo the big rotund orange one has signed an Executive Order that the US must be back on the Moon by 2028, presumably, so he can bask in the glory. We know this guy is not the sharpest card in the pack and he probably believes what his eyes saw in 1969. Okaaaaayyyy.

Now that Space Karen has been ordered by the orange dude he put in power to put the US back on the Moon by 2028, we only need wait two years to compare and contrast to 1969 albeit photography is all digital these days, anyway. Assuming techbro Bezos can get his act together.

Let's all meet back here in 2028.

Are you stuck in a timewarp?

 

[Foster Zygote]

The lunar day is relevant because if you are planning a trip to the moon, you don't want to turn up when it is exceedingly cold or dangerously boiling hot.

But what does that have to do with photographing stars? And you'd probably be surprised to know that in space, damn near everywhere is "dangerously boiling hot" for pretty much anything that can boil, even the night side of the moon.

So, if you have an ETA you can be ready with the right equipment to take pics of the stars. Nobody wants to see a cheap nylon catalogue flag being saluted at.

Well thank you for having the courage to speak for everyone. There's a few minutes saved putting the flag up, and a few seconds saved taking pictures. Now what else can we do away with for the sake of setting up cameras on tripods with shutters set to 'bulb' for long exposures so we can take photos that won't show a damned thing that you couldn't have photographed on earth on a clear night in Flagstaff, AZ? Maybe the ALSEPs? Maybe the geological science?

It's 'classified'. This is official.

No, it's not classified. That's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. It's a museum exhibit loaned out to a small city in Michigan. Please show us the official statement that it is classified by the U.S. government.

The photos are staggeringly perfect.

No, they're not. There are a lot of imperfect images. You'd know that if you actually cared about any truth at all, and had bothered to do more than view a few of the best images selected for wider publication before announcing that you've figured out that the world's scientific community is all wrong about this.

 

[Mojo]

Now that Space Karen has been ordered by the orange dude he put in power to put the US back on the Moon by 2028, we only need wait two years to compare and contrast to 1969 albeit photography is all digital these days, anyway. Assuming techbro Bezos can get his act together.

Let's all meet back here in 2028.

 

[Mojo]

But what does that have to do with photographing stars? And you'd probably be surprised to know that in space, damn near everywhere is "dangerously boiling hot" for pretty much anything that can boil, even the night side of the moon.

"In space, nobody eats ice cream."

 

[JesseCuster]

The astronauts were there
at a time it was at its most suitable for humans, i.e., circa 28°C, in other words, when the sun was very low.

What? How is 28°C, a "time most suitable for humans"? 28°C is a temperature, not a time. And what is 28°C the temperature of, the moon when the astronauts were there? You really seem very confused.

 

[JayUtah]

Let's all meet back here in 2028.

No, there's no need to wait in order to show that Marcus Allen's (and all the other hoax) claims are nonsense. They were provably nonsense when he made them—and we proved it. They're provable nonsense now—and we proved it again. The basics of photography haven't changed in that time, and the basics of photography won't be any different two years from now. Physics is still the same and will still be the same. You don't get to play the card of, "I'm actually being reasonable by holding off judgment until I get more information." Your claims can be fully addressed using information already in hand that nothing in the future will change.

You claimed you took pictures of stars with a film SLR in a way that validated Marcus Allen's claim. You said this because you wrongly assumed Allen wasn't just making up crap in order to sell his magazine, and therefore that you could rely on the claim to be at least plausible. You've only recently started to realize just how deeply you stepped in it. You've conceded the fact that it would actually take a shutter speed of several seconds in order to capture stars on Apollo-type film. And now you're frantically trying to avoid having to admit that this would not be consistent with the Apollo photographic record, and therefore that Allen's expectations are just plain wrong.

The answer to the question of how overexposed a sunlit scene would be at a 15-second exposure is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact we can determine (and have determined) empirically. The answer is, "Completely blown out." The negative is just a black rectangle.

Similarly the answer to the question of whether the Apollo photography is consistent with a fast shutter-speed is also a no-brainer.

We ask you these questions not because we need to you supply the quite obvious facts, but—as usual—to give you the opportunity to come clean and concede your error and thereby assure us you are arguing in good faith. It only took 80 pages, but you've finally been led to the conclusion that every competent photographer in the world already knew about Allen's claims: no, you cannot simultaneously photograph stars and a sunlit scene with the same camera settings.

There's not even any wiggle room there. It's unquestionably ridiculous. He's obviously, provably wrong. And therefore you obviously, provably lied when you said you had duplicated what he says should have been the case. You didn't have to interpolate yourself into the claim. You could have just said, "That's what he claims, and I believe him." Instead you said, "That's what he claims, and I confirmed it myself." You are once again the victim only of your own bad behavior.

 

[Steve]

I shan't be wasting my time arguing facts.

You never have before. Why start now.