Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[catsmate]

As for usable photos it's all a moot question as the gelatin in the film would almost certainly have been damaged by radiation.

This is staggeringly stupid and factually untrue.

 

[catsmate]

It's 'classified'. This is official.

Given your habit of lying, lets see a source for that.

 

[Mojo]

I guess, but it sounds like a lot of trouble. How does one put realistic fake stars in fake moon footage in 1969?

brainsluice » debris » nasa fakes moon landing!

 

[Vixen]

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.

Well, the context was night photography in the UK with an SLR, not the Moon.

Of course the stars would be there. Out of the three astronauts, only one spotting Venus is quite sad, when Mercury is usually close by, too. The star we Finns literally live under is also hard to miss.

 

[Mojo]

Well, the context was night photography in the UK with an SLR, not the Moon.

On the moon, they were photographing things that were in direct sunlight. This is why the camera settings they used were unstable for photographing stars.

 

[Mojo]

Of course the stars would be there. Out of the three astronauts, only one spotting Venus is quite sad, when Mercury is usually close by, too.

What is Mercury "close by"?

 

[Vixen]

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.

Early lunar morning outside the extreme temperatures of any other time. NB That s/read 28°F not °C, but nonetheless not outside a reasonable range.

 

[Vixen]

What is Mercury "close by"?

Well, a two-year-old can point out Venus. It's sad that is all the astronauts could identify.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Well think about it this way, if hypothetically, the idea is to use studio pics as the live broadcast PR, you won't want to risk key constellations seeming to match with Nevada desert.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Excellent reply but I was asking Vixen.
Now she knows

Cites facts not in evidence.

 

[Mojo]

Well, a two-year-old can point out Venus. It's sad that is all the astronauts could identify.

What is Mercury "close by", and why would this make it difficult to observe?

 

[zooterkin]

Well, the context was night photography in the UK with an SLR, not the Moon.

Irrelevant to the point at issue. The astronauts were photographing on the Moon in daylight. What settings would you use to photograph stars in daylight?

 

[zooterkin]

Well, a two-year-old can point out Venus. It's sad that is all the astronauts could identify.

When did this happen? You're confabulating again.

The mention of Venus was with regards to the faint image of it seen in photos.

 

[Vixen]

...she said, without a trace of self reflection.

This is where you have a misconception. Contrary to the belief, 'it's all on Google', I am actually one of those rare old school people who still read proper books and magazines. I know I am right about the potential weight of the backpack on the Moon...because I was read up on it by reading books on the matter. Thus, it was faintly amusing and irritating to have a whole line of people claiming to have up to Nobel Prize physicist status that I was an uneducated imbecile. Only one person had the integrity to affirm I was correct. So, no, that is not my claiming 'victimhood'; if you bully someone you are bullying them. Of course, being well read on a topic doesn't necessarily mean one is right. However, it is quite unnecessary to act as though your faith is under threat.

 

[Axxman300]

Are you stuck in a timewarp?

That would require a grasp pf physics, or great taste in movies [It's just a jump to the left...].

 

[wollery]

Well think about it this way, if hypothetically, the idea is to use studio pics as the live broadcast PR, you won't want to risk key constellations seeming to match with Nevada desert.

How would they be different?

 

[Vixen]

Even this you get wrong.
At least 56 times in the forum

https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/search/31225/?q=Erratum&c%5Busers%5D=Vixen&o=date

And for exactly the same reason as Vizzini does.
View attachment 72248

The word you are looking for is Corrigendum.

The forum software (your posts’ production or publisher) was not in error - you were.

No, my carelessly having written '250,000K' when I meant 250K, was a typographical error and therefore, correctly, an erratum.

 

[Axxman300]

Well think about it this way, if hypothetically, the idea is to use studio pics as the live broadcast PR, you won't want to risk key constellations seeming to match with Nevada desert.

Please explain in detail how the view of the constellations differ between southern Nevada and the Sea of Tranquility. Be specific.

 

[Vixen]

So was this ex the metallurgist or the Maths phd or perhaps a Canadian one we haven’t been introduced to yet?

My second husband was the Material Sciences Metallurgist. Incidentally, he was actually born the same month as the Moon landings. Not named after any of the astronauts, though.

 

[Axxman300]

Thus, it was faintly amusing and irritating to have a whole line of people claiming to have up to Nobel Prize physicist status that I was an uneducated imbecile.

No, none of us are claiming Nobel Prize-winning status, just that we passed junior high school science class.