Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[GlennB]

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.

This is such a snivelling, deceptive remark it justifies being described as outright lying.

 

[Vixen]

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?

And what should we do when a low sun is glaring into the lens?

 

[Vixen]

This is such a snivelling, deceptive remark it justifies being described as outright lying.

Whooooosh!

 

[Steve]

And what should we do when a low sun is glaring into the lens?

This has nothing to do with the post you quoted, but anyway -

No idea what you would do, but a competent photographer would:
a) use the correct filters
or
b) not take a photo

 

[JayUtah]

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.

As it has been explained to you at least twice now by experts, the ratio of weights does not factor into the balance equation. You were shown how the math actually works, but you refuse to address that.

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

Did you?

The people who went to school to learn this stuff knew immediately that Marcus Allen was full of crap when he said there should be stars in the photos. The notion that Allen claimed this on the basis of allegedly being an experienced photographer just made us all laugh harder.

You were led to the facts that everyone but you already seemed to know, and you conceded that a much longer shutter speed is required to expose stars than is consistent with the rest of the photography. We can pinpoint the exact moment you realized you were cooked: when you tried to change the subject. All you had to say was, "Oops, I guess I must have been mistaken when I thought I confirmed Allen's claims."

 

[zooterkin]

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.

As GlennB says, that is outright lying.

To remind you, it started with this:

...
In addition, the astronauts backbacks were similar to their body weight (180lbs in the video). Imagine carrying your own weight on your back, or even, as in the 'Mythbusters' video evenly distributed around your body like a body vest. You'd be bent forward with the weight, yet they all appear perfectly upright (even with the Moon's gravity, it'd still be pro-rata-ed).

...

It wasn't about the ratio, it was about the weight.

 

[JayUtah]

And what should we do when a low sun is glaring into the lens?

Shoot the picture. The part of the image the sun occupies will be overexposed, but barring a dirty lens, the rest of the image should be properly exposed.

 

[zooterkin]

And what should we do when a low sun is glaring into the lens?

Stop dodging.

With the known settings the astronauts used with their Hasselblads, would you expect to see stars in the images?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

And what should we do when a low sun is glaring into the lens?

That depends on what you wish to achieve.

If you just want a pretty picture you could relocate and re-compose the shot to avoid the sun.

If you were on earth and the sunlight was glaring off a body of water in front of you then a polarising filter can be very effective in cutting the glare.

If you are on the moon and actually want to record a panorama sequence of photographs in every direction from the spot where you are standing, then you should take the picture anyway, using the guide settings you trained to use while taking pictures up-sun.

Does any part of that confuse you?

 

[JayUtah]

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.

Asked and answered. Sunlit scenes on Earth also include shadows. Proper exposure settings were printed on the magazine. When shooting up-sun, such that more shadow is in the image, the proper setting was f/5.6 at 1/125 second.

 

[theprestige]

When one goes for a job interview, good advice is to at least show interest and enthusiasm in your potential employer's core brand, mission and strategy.

Thanks, I'm dumber for having read that.

 

[JayUtah]

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

There are no reasonable doubts that the Moon landings happened as documented. The doubts you're copying from others and repeating here are based in large measure on deliberate deception, marked ignorance, and ulterior motives. Once debunked, they don't suddenly regain vigor just because you newly discovered them.

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.

The dialogue I am having with the other participants in this thread is a discussion. They have legitimate questions and points, and people like me who are considered experts provide the information sought.

You hare not having a discussion. As usual, you are simply and loudly demanding that there must still be some controversy even after all has been said and done, and that you are adequately suited to press these "doubts."

 

[Foster Zygote]

To be fair, I think they just wanted All-American guys with good looks, named Bubba, Billy-Ray and Chuck.

I wish Pete Conrad was still alive to read that about the good looks. I'll bet he would have gotten a kick out of that.

Even in making what you imagine is a clever joke about the nickname 'Buzz', you manage to inadvertently betray you fundamental ignorance of Apollo. There's no point asking you on the internet, but I'm positive that if I asked you in person to name four Apollo astronauts from memory, you couldn't do it. I'd even lay odds that you couldn't name more than two.

So what were their names? Just their first names.

Two Walters, Donn, Frank, James, William, another James, David, Russell (Rusty), Thomas, John, Eugene, Edwin (Buzz), Neil, Michael, Alan, Charles (Pete), Richard, another James, another John, Fred, another Alan, Stewart, Edgar, David, Alfred, another James, another John, another Thomas, another Charles, the same Eugene again, Ronald, and Harrison (Jack). Only a few went by nicknames, and there wasn't a Bubba, Billy-Ray or Chuck among them.

The more you try to show your arrogant contempt for the Apollo Program, the more you make it clear that it's something you'd never thought much about until you identified it as your new pet conspiracy theory. Far from being cartoonish caricatures as depicted in your argument from ridicule, they were all extremely accomplished military/test pilots and engineers, except for Jack Schmidt, who had a Ph.D. in geology but was still an accomplished pilot.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And what should we do when a low sun is glaring into the lens?

Either take the picture and have part of it overexposed, move your position or photograph something else.

 

[Vixen]

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

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.


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.


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.

WD Clinger, perhaps now we are getting somewhere? Bearing in mind the topic matter, consider the following hypothetical scenario. (NB: that is not to say it is a hypothetical question.)

A country, let's say Nonsuch Republic, makes a political decision to make a global name for itself in a 'Space Race' context in the 1950's. So, it gathers its top scientists to make it happen. Fast forward for whatever reason it can't get its astronauts to a planet called Orange by the deadline. So it uses footage from some of its numerous training sessions simulating arriving on Orange.

This goes down very well and is deemed globally as highly successful. Over time all school children are taught the physics of walking on Orange, based on these videos (as imagined by Nonsuch Republic's top brains).

Forward to the 2020's with huge advances in technology. Some perfectly respectable scientists are querying what they see in the 1950's videos.

Problem: you, Detective WD Clinger, are tasked with investigating these claims. You are professionally expected to be impartial and to consider the claims of the objectors.

Educational institutions teach that what is seen in the 50's videos are 'real life' on Orange. So, centre of gravity is calculated on the basis of analysis of the video, likewise, how the astronauts walk and move. Ditto appearance of the sky and landscape.

Here's your problem: are you able to assess the claims objectively, or will your education based on Nonsuch Republic's simulations take sovereignty?

To put it another way, to those who believe the astronauts don't need to hop and that their 180lbs backpacks would still be somewhat of a problem, are you able to re-evaluate what you have believed about Orange all your life?

 

[Vixen]

This has nothing to do with the post you quoted, but anyway -

No idea what you would do, but a competent photographer would:
a) use the correct filters
or
b) not take a photo

No, just turn your back on the sun.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Vixen now knows that saying 'erratum' when she means 'error' is another way to annoy people. Into the tool bag it goes.

Ah, thanks. I kimo sabe.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

We are discussing it. You're just losing the argument spectacularly.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, just turn your back on the sun.

What if the subject you want us 'up sun'?

 

[JayUtah]

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.

Give us the name of the book that taught you that physics. From the knowledge you are able to display on this forum, I would imagine it's something like Curious George Goes on a Hike.

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.

Straw man.

I am a licensed professional engineer. I am certified by the state to be competent in solving problems in determinate statics, among other fields. You have no such credential. I also taught engineering at a major U.S. university. I am certified by the state to determine whether a student has learned the material appropriately and merits a credential in it. I am perfectly able to determine your level of understanding in physics, and I maintain that it is likely below a 9th grade level (Year 10). No one is claiming you are "an uneducated imbecile." However, they have correctly noted that you lack the appropriate expertise in physics to express your balance problem correctly. They have provided a corrected formulation which you have ignored.

If you do not wish experts in a field commenting on whether you understand it, do not predicate arguments on your own purported expertise.

Only one person had the integrity to affirm I was correct.

Red herring.

No one has affirmed you are correct. They confirmed that the ratio of two weights remains the same if gravity is reduced. The problem in your reasoning has been explained to you several times: the ratio of weights is irrelevant to the balance problem.

So, no, that is not my claiming 'victimhood'; if you bully someone you are bullying them.

No one is bullying you. They are pointing out that you lack the knowledge to understand why your physics is incorrect. They are right despite your constant whining.

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.

No one's "faith" is under attack. You are simply provably wrong, and are trying various rhetorical means to compel others to respect the mediocrity that produced that error.