Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

What we are debating is whether the 'debunking' term is merited, versus the doubts expressed by others.

What have you got left that you still claim needs any more thorough debunking?

 

[Vixen]

OK, let's discuss it. What equipment and camera settings would you use to simultaneously photograph sunlit objects and the stars?

You keep assuming the entire landscape was lit up by the sun. However, the long dark shadows should inform you it was extremely low in the sky.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You keep assuming the entire landscape was lit up by the sun. However, the long dark shadows should inform you it was extremely low in the sky.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You keep assuming the entire landscape was lit up by the sun. However, the long dark shadows should inform you it was extremely low in the sky.

The photographs which have the sun in them are quite a good guide to where the sun was. And the shadows the sun cast were another handy confirmation. And the fact that everything cast just one shadow, and all in the same direction, is a pretty good indicator that the sun was the single light source.

What problem do you have with any of that?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Not sure what you are getting at but the only astrophysicist I can think of is a guy who was in my class who went on to teach/ research at Rutgers, or so he told me at a school reunion.

This was the boy who invented a homemade periscope to look up girls' skirts. Thankfully, the other boys shook their heads and he retreated.

You went to high school with the guy who invented mirrors?

 

[Helen]

What we are debating is whether the 'debunking' term is merited, versus the doubts expressed by others.

You are entitled to assume there is nothing to debate. I am not clear why you believe we should not be allowed to discuss it.

No, you're not clear, you are right about that. But that's about it, since you are, apparently, not clear about anything else. This is not a debate, this is a thread where people are telling you the facts about the moon landning.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

What is that supposed to mean?

That they'd be in the shade if they were close enough to the lunar tree line.

 

[Mojo]

You keep assuming the entire landscape was lit up by the sun. However, the long dark shadows should inform you it was extremely low in the sky.

How bright would things illuminated by the Sun be?

What film speed and camera settings would you use to photograph them?

 

[Steve]

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

 

[EHocking]

Not sure what you are getting at

I’ll type slowly,

…My ex, who only did a double Physics degree because he became interested in astronomy, …

… the metallurgist or the maths PhD
(or, of course the one we don’t know cos he went to school in Canada)

 

[zooterkin]

What was 28°F?
Different objects and materials have different equilibrium temperatures.

Well, it's clearly the ambient air temperature, and it affects the buoyancy.

 

[catsmate]

I sent a message which did go out. I latter confirmed it was an erratum.

For the avoidance of doubt, the erratum was the term, "250,000K'.

No

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)

You made the mistake.

 

[catsmate]

Exactly.

 

[zooterkin]

I sent a message which did go out. I latter confirmed it was an erratum.

For the avoidance of doubt, the erratum was the term, "250,000K'.

Even there, you're wrong. "250,000K" was the error. The erratum would be the correction (if the error had been introduced by someone other than the author which, in this case, it was not).

 

[lionking]

Well, a two-year-old can point out Venus.

I have a two year old grandson who is as bright as a button. He knows all the words of “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star”. That is the limit of his astronomic skill. Most adults could not identify Venus.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No, they would not be at the same point on the Moon as they are as seen from Earth.

Vixen, they wouldn't be seen at the same "point" on earth as they are seen from a different point on earth. Whatever planetary body you're standing on, the exact positioning of the celestial sphere will depend on your latitude, longitude, time and date. There's no "earth view" and "moon view".

It's not like astronomers didn't know how to calculate exactly where the stars would appear from any location at at any time. In fact, the Apollo Guidance Computer relied on triangulation of predetermined geological features on earth and specific stars in order to calculate the exact position of the Command Module relative to the earth and moon. The navigator would input the angles into the computer using the sextant, and the computer would use those angles and the time to determine its place in space.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

Vixen! Close your eyes so you don't have to admit this photo exists!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You can get all this on wiki or Google.

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

Then, without a trace of self reflection, @Vixen wrote:

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.

As everyone has acknowledged, you were right about the weights of an astronaut and his backpack on the moon having the same ratio as on earth.

As everyone but you has recognized, a backpack that weighs 180 pounds on earth and weighs only 30 pounds on the moon would therefore be very easy for an astronaut to carry on his back when both are on the moon.

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.

By arguing that astronauts would have been unable to carry 30 pounds on their back when they on the moon, and by continuing to insist upon that absurdity despite numerous corrections, as though your faith is under threat, you are indeed making a uneducated argument that few imbeciles would be stupid enough to make.

The incorrectness of your argument is evident to everyone with knowledge of high school physics. You, however, do not understand why your argument is incorrect. From that it follows that your knowledge of physics falls rather short of what is taught in US high schools. I do not believe your ignorance of physics can be attributed to a secondary education that fell short of what is taught in the United States. I believe your ignorance of physics is attributable to forgetting any physics you might ever have learned, or to never having learned the relevant physics in the first place.

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.

You are not a victim, and you are not being bullied. Your stubbornly astounding ignorance has been called out for what it is. To avoid making any effort at repairing your argument, you have compounded your ignorance by pretending to be a victim of bullying, which is exactly what you did in the sentences quoted immediately above.

 

[Foster Zygote]

What you are talking about now is static balance. Once again, by slightly changing the context; yes you are right (in that context).

Thank you for confirming the ratio of weights remains the same as I pointed out.

That's an especially lame and manipulative way of trying to say we're admitting you were right. No one disputed that the weight ratios of the astronauts and the PLSS remained the same. We disputed your claim that somehow the PLSS would be just as difficult to carry on the moon as on earth because their weight ratios remained the same, as though your weight being reduced by a change in gravitational acceleration suddenly makes you physically weaker.

 

[Foster Zygote]

People go to film and photography school to learn all this stuff.

You could have just said that you have absolutely no idea how that would work.