• 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:
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...
What in Ed's sacred and ancient name does seeing the moon pass in front of Jupiter from earth have to do with taking photographs on the moon?

Jupiter can be seen in conjunction with the moon from earth, not from the moon. And they can be seen in conjunction from anywhere on earth that you can see the moon, not just the Northern Hemisphere. And, believe it or not, there's actually more to astronomy that you think you know. Astronomers can predict solar and lunar eclipse paths many decades in advance. Galileo produced tables of the future movements of Jupiter's satellites as a means of calculating universal time in an attempt to enable navigators to determine their longitude long before the invention of the marine chronometer. Unfortunately, to calculate universal time that way required mathematical expertise equal to Galileo's which was maybe a dozen people in all of Europe. But the point is it would have been relatively trivial for an astronomer to determine exactly where not only the stars would be located as seen from the landing sites, but any planets as well.

Even if one should expect to see stars in the Apollo images for no other reason than because they pointed a camera at the sky, that would have been relatively easy to fake, with astronomical precision. I believe I've already mentioned that they could have so easily created entire celestial catalogs of actual star photographs for compositing into the images. Conspiracy theorists only think that it would have been impossible because they're not knowledgeable or clever enough to think of how it could have been done. The real reason there are no stars in the photos is because you can't... ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊... photograph... stars with an SLR camera with a shutter speed of 1/125 sec, an aperture of f-5.6, and ISO 160 film.
 
Foster Zygote said:
What in Ed's sacred and ancient name does seeing the moon pass in front of Jupiter from earth have to do with taking photographs on the moon?

Even if one should expect to see stars in the Apollo images for no other reason than because they pointed a camera at the sky, that would have been relatively easy to fake, with astronomical precision. I believe I've already mentioned that they could have so easily created entire celestial catalogs of actual star photographs for compositing into the images. Conspiracy theorists only think that it would have been impossible because they're not knowledgeable or clever enough to think of how it could have been done. The real reason there are no stars in the photos is because you can't... ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊... photograph... stars with an SLR camera with a shutter speed of 1/125 sec, an aperture of f-5.6, and ISO 160 film.
Click to expand...
The whole hoax scenario posits (correctly) that there were plenty of astronomers who could figure out what the star positions were supposed to be, but then completely ignores the possibility that NASA could have simply hired one of them to make a star chart for faking the right positions.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
The whole hoax scenario posits (correctly) that there were plenty of astronomers who could figure out what the star positions were supposed to be, but then completely ignores the possibility that NASA could have simply hired one of them to make a star chart for faking the right positions.
Click to expand...
I guess, but it sounds like a lot of trouble. How does one put realistic fake stars in fake moon footage in 1969?
 
Reformed Offlian said:
The whole hoax scenario posits (correctly) that there were plenty of astronomers who could figure out what the star positions were supposed to be, but then completely ignores the possibility that NASA could have simply hired one of them to make a star chart for faking the right positions.
Click to expand...
You find this sort of slipshod thinking all over the Apollo hoax opus. We don't have to wait for more information, new missions, or—in fact—anything in order to see how stupid it is. The claim is self-defeating. Not to speak too ill of the dead, but Bill Kaysing wasn't the brightest star in the firmament. "Why didn't NASA depict stars?" "Because they would have been in the wrong place, and astronomers would have seen that." He didn't ask himself the obvious followup. And because at the time only a few crackpots were reading Kaysing, no one else asked him that until he was already in it up to his waist. He never addressed the obvious dilemma. It's not clear whether he even understood how it was a dilemma.

That's fine for a fairly low-wattage brain like Kaysing's, but why does this claim persist? Why can't smarter people immediately see that the claim is self-defeating? I think people who really want to believe conspiracy theories just turn off parts of their brains when they encounter the theory.

Equally stupid is the corollary claim. NASA couldn't get the stars right, and astronomers would know this. But just omitting all the stars isn't equally suspicious? Our hypothetical astronomer would go from saying, "Why are the stars in the wrong places?" to "Why aren't there any stars at all?" If he expects stars, such that he can see whether they're in the right place, then he won't be fooled by a completely empty sky. It's still suspicious, just for a different reason. Conversely if he doesn't expect stars at all, then Kaysing's proposal is fully obviated.

Olmstead said:
I guess, but it sounds like a lot of trouble. How does one put realistic fake stars in fake moon footage in 1969?
Click to expand...
For the still photos, using a process camera. Hoax believers already claim that a process camera was used to composite the photos so as to goof up the crosshairs. If that's your process, then just put the background plate down first with the stars in the right places. Then add the ground elements and the foreground elements and shoot the final composite.

But because in hoax world the left hand and the right hand don't coordinate, the compositing hypothesis is useful only for the crosshairs. It can't explain or fix any of the other features in the photography.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I'd estimate a good ten seconds on a tripod.
Click to expand...
So you'd recommend a good "ten seconds" for photographing stars.

The actual exposure time used on the Apollo 11 lunar surface photos was 1/125 or 1/250 of a second. You are recommending a factor of ~1,000 (10 stops) more exposure than that for photographing stars.

Please explain why, if 10 seconds or more is what you need to expose for stars, the stars would be visible in photographs with an exposure time 1000 times less.

You have made no actual attempt to explain why the stars would be there. What is your argument exactly? You've got nothing, no understand or knowledge of you own, and your attempts to bluff are laughable and transparent. You have no idea what you're talking about and completely lack the abliity to put forward a coherent argument as to why there should be stars in the Apollo lunar surface photographs.
 
JayUtah said:
You find this sort of slipshod thinking all over the Apollo hoax opus. We don't have to wait for more information, new missions, or—in fact—anything in order to see how stupid it is. The claim is self-defeating. Not to speak too ill of the dead, but Bill Kaysing wasn't the brightest star in the firmament. "Why didn't NASA depict stars?" "Because they would have been in the wrong place, and astronomers would have seen that." He didn't ask himself the obvious followup. And because at the time only a few crackpots were reading Kaysing, no one else asked him that until he was already in it up to his waist. He never addressed the obvious dilemma. It's not clear whether he even understood how it was a dilemma.

That's fine for a fairly low-wattage brain like Kaysing's, but why does this claim persist? Why can't smarter people immediately see that the claim is self-defeating? I think people who really want to believe conspiracy theories just turn off parts of their brains when they encounter the theory.

Equally stupid is the corollary claim. NASA couldn't get the stars right, and astronomers would know this. But just omitting all the stars isn't equally suspicious? Our hypothetical astronomer would go from saying, "Why are the stars in the wrong places?" to "Why aren't there any stars at all?" If he expects stars, such that he can see whether they're in the right place, then he won't be fooled by a completely empty sky. It's still suspicious, just for a different reason. Conversely if he doesn't expect stars at all, then Kaysing's proposal is fully obviated.
Click to expand...
It evinces a certain aesthetic sensibility, too. If I were writing a story about this scenario and had to explain why NASA decided not to put in stars, I'd probably posit something like: "They didn't want the hassle or expense, so they just went with no stars and an excuse." As in: typical reasons people actually cut corners on this sort of thing.

But no! it always has to be super-dramatic. The conspiracist's mind goes to something fractally nefarious, revolving around implacable malice or mortal fear of discovery or such like.
 
Vixen said:
Whoops, erratum now corrected.
Click to expand...
Even this you get wrong.
At least 56 times in the forum

And for exactly the same reason as Vizzini does.
1781408853712.png

The word you are looking for is Corrigendum.
  • Erratum: A correction made for a production error introduced by the publisher or journal staff (e.g., a misplaced photo or a typo caused by typesetting).
  • Corrigendum: A correction made for an author's error (e.g., the author miscalculated data or forgot to list a reference)
Click to expand...
The forum software (your posts’ production or publisher) was not in error - you were.
 
Joe Random said:
I never thought I'd learn so much about a subject I was totally ignorant of by watching someone else get proved wrong. Cheers to the thread experts - thanks for the free education on at least two topics.
Click to expand...
Check out the form at www.apollohoax.net The moonbats get treated like a bunny through a buzz saw there. It is very educational.
 
Vixen said:
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'. …
Click to expand...
So was this ex the metallurgist or the Maths phd or perhaps a Canadian one we haven’t been introduced to yet?
Vixen said:
Hmmm, must have picked it up from my ex-husband's circles who was a metallurgy* undergrad when we met. …

*NB: not the PhD maths one.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

There would have been no appreciable difference in the location of stars as seen from the lunar surface, even if seeing them with a bright lunar sun and a tinted visor allowed it.

The only real difference would have been the location of planets, things that were photographed in cislunar space and lunar orbit. The main reason stars were used in navigation was not to so much fix position, it was to orient the platform so that "up" was always "up". "Aligning the platofrm" using stars seen through the LM sextant was one of the first things APollo 11 did. The crews were not avoiding anyything. If they could see stars en route they mentioned them. They described them in detail. They photographed them. These things are not difficult to find out.

When they are visible, "star spotters" are able to identify them.

Starry Skies

Apollo astornauts took lots of pictures of stars. Here are some of them.
onebigmonkey.com
 
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