Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

That's something of a recurring feature. The argument over some or other detail rumbles on far beyond the stage that anyone remembers whatever point was intended to be supported by the disputed claim.

In this case it was an incompetently expressed large distance, but that was only mentioned in support of the ridiculous claim that having travelled so far you would somehow obviously want to spend your time staring at the stars (which of course you can do on any clear night at home).

It rumbles because instead of arguing the topic, people attack me about inadvertent typos instead.

Ok so for you, it is not surprising Neil Armstrong didn't recall seeing any stars, in response to Patrick Moore's question at a press conference, presumably, because, 'er, he's a test pilot'. Mkay.

 

[sackett]

Lost in Space was bad enough. But this thread!

 

[Vixen]

Ok, I've had a glass or two and feeling stupid so here's a challenge for Vixen. Who probably won't.
Wait for a clear starry night.
While waiting, obtain yourself a bright light source. It doesn't have to be as bright as the sun, just bright enough to see a subject 3-5 meters away. Maybe a typical LED headlight.
Go out in the dark, and illuminate your subject. If you have a nice DSLR, use that. But I'll settle for your phone.
Take a photo. Take lots of photos. Then upload a picture that shows both the subject and the stars properly exposed. And give us the exposure data, time and lens opening, which modern cameras always report. And tell us what the light source for the subject was.
I'll wait. I'm long retired and have nothing but time.

You are saying there needs to be a 'subject'. Presumably, you are referring here to one of the astronauts or the space capsule. Obviously, to photograph the night sky - or should we say very early lunar daybreak - when the sky is literally pitch black and full of extremely bright stars (as opposed to our navy blue skies at night and needing to be near the Equator for the very best views [and even then, there'll be some light or air pollution]). Why would you need the astronaut as the focus here as though he's some kind of tourist standing in front of the Leaning Tower of Pisa?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Vixen, please explain how one could look at a photograph of a constellation and match it to a particular geographic position on earth, or anywhere in the solar system for that matter.

 

[JayUtah]

It rumbles because instead of arguing the topic, people attack me about inadvertent typos instead.

Only because you claim expertise as "a numbers person." When you invite people to hold you to a higher standard, don't be surprised or upset when they do and you fail to meet it.

Ok so for you, it is not surprising Neil Armstrong didn't recall seeing any stars, in response to Patrick Moore's question at a press conference, presumably, because, 'er, he's a test pilot'. Mkay.

Not "presumably." He was a test pilot—one of the best. He earned his astronaut wings flying the X-15 before even joining the Apollo program.

However, Moore asked Armstrong about a specific case: the solar eclipse they had just created by flying their ship along a particular course. The item of interest was the solar corona, which had hitherto only been seen from Earth. Moore's question was along the lines of, "Did you happen to see...?" Not surprising that the crew didn't recall, since they were properly engaged in their primary task of observing and photographing the corona which would only last a minute or so.

 

[JayUtah]

Obviously, to photograph the night sky - or should we say very early lunar daybreak

No.

Those are not equivalent circumstances or viewing conditions. The pitch-black sky during lunar daytime is not at all the same as night on Earth. You're simply continually falling into the same layperson's trap over and over again.

 

[Vixen]

Sooooo... what's the misconception? That you think reading paper books is rare? That you think you are some kind of standout (look around the forum- avid book readers as far as the eye can see). Yet an up-to-the-minute website or wiki page is stellar for quick factual information. You should try it.

For instance, it would only take you a couple minutes online to find out that you don't know what the hell you are talking about... for instance, about rooster tails. But you read... paper magazines... and you think that gives additional credibility?

You might have read a lot of books, but it's pretty clear you didn't understand them.

You were correct on a triviality, and light years off on your major point. The major point had an eclipsing value, there.

Trust me, not a soul here feels they are "under threat" from. your whacky beliefs. it's just kinda hard to believe you are serious.

The misconception referred to was a poster claiming I got my worldview on a topic from Google, which you responded to. So I put you right: my worldview doesn't come from social media, believe it or not, my opinions are things I have given a great deal of thought to. Rare these days, it seems, when people assume it's trolling to have an interest in a topic because presumably that is what they do so they think everyone else does, too. Demands to 'shut it down' does indicate that some feel threatened by anyone having any curiosity about anything but especially in an area that is controversial because it means re-evaluating what you have always believed in.

Yes, lots of people have no curiosity whatsoever whereas I am the opposite. I mean, I have no curiosity about rugby but I think it's great some people do. So, I wouldn't pop over to the Rugby thread to announce my lack of interest in it or that I think they are whacko for chasing after funny-shaped balls.

 

[JayUtah]

That’s dumb. Of course the question “are you able to be objective?”, about a hypothetical scenario, is a hypothetical question. That’s what a hypothetical question IS.

Either the situation you recounted has something to do with actual history or it doesn't. Trying to foist a fantasy in place of the actual facts so that you can demand others treat it better—as a moral lesson to them—is cheap and obvious.

The hoax claims are utter bollocks which many people can see immediately, such as the "no stars in photos" claim. Imagining a different scenario where those claims aren't bollocks as a means of shaming your critics away from calling bollocks bollocks doesn't fix the problems with your claims and your ignorance. Did you ask whether your own sources were objective and well-informed? Or did you just glom onto them thinking, "This'll get me some mileage over at ISF?"

Your "hypothetical scenario" happens to coincide fairly closely with actual claims made by conspiracy theorists. Your "joke" about the constellations changing configuration as seen from the Moon is an actual claim made by conspiracy theorists. The motte and bailey approach is fairly obvious.

 

[Vixen]

So if you want to take a picture of something up sun, your advice is to turn around the face the opposite direction?

You're no longer facing the direction of what you want to photograph, so how does that help?

The time the Apollo 11 astronauts were there was very early morning so the sun isn't overhead but let's say up to your chest height, maximum, where your camera is. So, just turn around with your back to the sun, put your camera on a tripod, if you can, or use something solid to steady your arm and shoulder. Simply point your lens up into the still dark firmament.

 

[Vixen]

So if you want to take a picture of something up sun, your advice is to turn around the face the opposite direction?

You're no longer facing the direction of what you want to photograph, so how does that help?

You are facing the night sky behind you and above you.

 

[Andy_Ross]

. Obviously, to photograph the night sky - or should we say very early lunar daybreak - when the sky is literally pitch black and full of extremely bright stars (as opposed to our navy blue skies at night and needing to be near the Equator for the very best views.

The difference being at lunar daybreak the sun is in the sky, so it's completely different to the night time on earth when the sun isn't in the sky.

 

[JayUtah]

...my opinions are things I have given a great deal of thought to.

You have given no great thought to the notion that Apollo was faked. You were asked what your sources were, if not hastily-Googled nonsense, and you didn't reply.

Demands to 'shut it down' does indicate that some feel threatened by anyone having any curiosity about anything...

No, you're not merely "curious." This is a subject on which I am one of the world's recognized experts. I can tell who is curious about it and who is just trying to use conspiracy theories to make themselves look smart.

...but especially in an area that is controversial because it means re-evaluating what you have always believed in.

No. Believing in any of the Apollo hoax theories requires one to ignore quite a lot of easily-available fact. There's no actual controversy. There's no fervent flag-waving. There's only a pile of ignorance.

This conspiracy theory was invented by an ignorant bumpkin trying to find a way to say something nasty about the government. It has been picked up by people whose pecuniary motives are not even slightly disguised.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The time the Apollo 11 astronauts were there was very early morning so the sun isn't overhead but let's say up to your chest height,

Up to your chest height?

 

[JayUtah]

You are facing the night sky behind you and above you.

The sun is up. There is no "night" sky.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You are facing the night sky behind you and above you.

It's not night, it's daylight with the sun in the sky

 

[JayUtah]

...the sun isn't overhead but let's say up to your chest height, maximum, where your camera is.

"The sun is at chest height."

Wow.

So, just turn around with your back to the sun, put your camera on a tripod, if you can, or use something solid to steady your arm and shoulder. Simply point your lens up into the still dark firmament.

...and take a 15-second exposure.

The question is not whether one can take a photo of the stars on the Moon. One did, in the form of the Schmidt camera that photographed the stars in UV, and used appropriately long exposure. The question is whether stars should appear incidentally in photos taken of other things. Allen and others show pictures of sunlit astronauts on a sunlit surface doing sunlit things and say there should be stars in the part of those photos that depict a black sky.

You already conceded that those cameras would need a several-second exposure to render stars on the film. The stars don't get brighter just because you moved a couple hundred thousand kilometers. Therefore the exposure settings to get them to show up on film don't change. We're just waiting for you to close the obvious loop and admit that the settings consistent with sunlit objects cannot also expose stars. This is something it takes me about ten minutes to explain to a new photography student. For some reason it takes 100 pages to explain it to you.

 

[zooterkin]

Up to your chest height?

He said you
wanted pasturised
'cause pasturised is best
she says Ernie
I'll be happy if it
comes up to me chest

 

[sackett]

I'm glad to learn that on the moon you can face what's behind you. That's
got to be handy sometimes.

 

[Vixen]

Why wouldn't this country just push back their launch schedule so they can fly the mission for real? Why would this country continue to fake missions even after they could complete these missions for real for seven additional times?

In the 1960s the United States didn't make a global name for itself because of space exploration. We were famous for our industries, and vast middle-class, and space was just one aspect of who we were, and still are. Problem with your thesis is it has zero real-world application. The Apollo program was already two years behind schedule by the time 11 landed on the moon. Sure there was backdrop of fulfilling JFK's promise to land on the moon before 1970, but the fact is NASA was ready to do this at least a year earlier, maybe more.

And a few Apollo missions had their launches postponed for weather and technical issues.


So this mythical country has zero scientists of any kind, and no science programs in schools based on centuries of research? In this world they just make stuff up, and pass it along to children as fact?

You are projecting.

In the US and elsewhere children were taught about the difference between the earth and lunar gravity decades before Sputnik. Again, you've overreached.


Why would they teach it that way? How stupid are these people? And what kind scientists bases their gravity calculations bases on video? And I've never been to Io, but I'm pretty sure the sky is black when not facing Jupiter. Also, WE KNOW WHAT THE GRAVITY ON IO IS AND IT'S RATIO TO EARTH.

You say you read books, do they come with crayons, or do you buy those separately?


Your problem is you are not objective. You approach each topic with your mind already made up, and shape your opinions by ignoring evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You are no better than the folks I used to deal with in the paranormal "research" crowd. Not interested in solid facts, always embracing fringe ideologs, all against a backdrop of a basic lack of general knowledge of science, and history. This is demonstrated constantly.

The United States didn't brainwash the world in 1969. We built the rockets, we designed and built all the technologies, we trained our men, and we went to the moon a bunch of times. Every step is documented. You can still talk to some of the surviving techs who worked on the Saturn V, and NASA will show you everything.

It could be said NASA had a fear the Soviets would get there first, and indeed, the USSR claimed it had a module that had crashed into the Moon shortly before. So, the high emotions after all that training was 'we'll get there first by hook or by crook' under the assumption this was the start of decades of Moon landings. But there hasn't been any since 1972, so all our visual information comes from the footage that came out at the time.

So, because the guys are hopping about and with no problem with their backpacks, how do we know this is accurate, if for example, it was PR to 'get there first', albeit with honourable intent, I'm sure (as far as politics can be). It seems quite reasonable to me to query this. For example, in the training simulations modelling what they'd do on the Moon, their backpacks might just have been polystyrene and the hopping what they imagined from harness training. Bobbing about in swimming pools wouldn't be an accurate reflection of what walking on the Moon is like.

But as long as people insist it's old science and there's no need to revisit, then we are not seeing any scientific objectivity at all, if all people can do is pin derogatory labels on people who might have pure aims and are not paranormal ghost hunters, as you keep insisting they are.

 

[zooterkin]

It could be said NASA had a fear the Soviets would get there first, and indeed, the USSR claimed it had a module that had crashed into the Moon shortly before. So, the high emotions after all that training was 'we'll get there first by hook or by crook' under the assumption this was the start of decades of Moon landings. But there hasn't been any since 1972, so all our visual information comes from the footage that came out at the time.

So, because the guys are hopping about and with no problem with their backpacks, how do we know this is accurate, if for example, it was PR to 'get there first', albeit with honourable intents, I'm sure (as far as politics can be). It seems quite reasonable to me to query this. For example, in the training simulations modelling what they'd do on the Moon, their backpacks might just have been polystyrene and the hopping what they imagined from harness training. Bobbing about in swimming pools wouldn't be an accurate reflection of what walking on the Moon is like.

But as long as people insist it's old science and there's no need to revisit, then we are not seeing any scientific objectivity at all, if all people can do is pin derogatory labels on people who might have pure aims and are not paranormal ghost hunters, as you keep insisting they are.

Gibberish.