Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

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?

The sky is always literally pitch black on the moon.

Being near the equator isn't necessary for the "very best views" of stars. You just need to be somewhere away from light pollution when the weather is clear. And you think there would be light pollution in, say, the middle of the Pacific on the equator? Do you actually understand what light pollution is?

In the day time lunar sky, the stars are still there. But you can't see them with eyes adjusted to compensate for a brightly lit landscape, and you can't photograph them with a film camera adjusted for the same environment. You're stuck on this idea that black sky equals night equals starry sky.

 

[Vixen]

Here's an idea, ask a Royal Marine about his kit sometime. Or an average infantry soldier.

Yes, and they lean heavily forward.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Not at all. After Artemis II I was idly watching the video in the OP and I have to say, the 'debunking' struck me as rather lame, especially re the photography. That is what made me look into it further, especially as Artemis III is only going to do a low earth orbit (LEO) and they need to develop refuelling in space techniques. WAIT!

 

[JayUtah]

It could be said NASA had a fear the Soviets would get there first

That fear was a historical fact. However, NASA also had access to intelligence estimates that confirmed the Soviets were well behind where they needed to be. NASA was mostly under pressure to get there before Kennedy's arbitrary deadline. And as I explained already, they even had a way of buying themselves another year by equivocating on when exactly the decade would end.

So, because the guys are hopping about and with no problem with their backpacks, how do we know this is accurate...

Because some of us are smarter than conspiracy theorists.

But as long as people insist it's old science and there's no need to revisit...

Determinate statics is one of the oldest sciences there is. It hasn't changed since Newton's time. It didn't suddenly become different just because the values we use for the force of gravity are a different number.

You claimed you knew your answer was correct because you read it in books. You were asked to name the book, but you can't. And that's because there is no such book that makes your mistake.

As an engineer I don't have just one physics book. I have a shelf of them, including many specialized texts on statics, dynamics, and the behavior of materials. However, I do still have general-knowledge texts. Chapter 7 of Physics by Erich Hausmann and Edgar Slack (New York: Van Nostrasnd, 1939) is all about statics and equilibrium. On p. 110 you'll find an explanation and a diagram of how to decompose the arrangement of eccentric loads into their various vector components and use trigonometry to determine the component values and moments. It mentions nothing about "weight ratios." Their method (which has been used for 400 years) is the method I used to show you how your claim was wrong.

Be so kind as to cite to the book that tells you that a "weight ratio" that remains constant as gravity diminishes is the proper way to compute the moments associated with an eccentric gravity load.

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.

Your aims are not the least pure, and you're patently ignorant about a fairly simple principle of physics. It is not a shame to be scientifically illiterate, but you should understand that if you lecture your betters from such a position you will be appropriately admonished and corrected. You choose to base your argument on that foundation of ignorance, so that's where you're going to be criticized.

 

[Vixen]

The sky is always literally pitch black on the moon.

Being near the equator isn't necessary for the "very best views" of stars. You just need to be somewhere away from light pollution when the weather is clear. And you think there would be light pollution in, say, the middle of the Pacific on the equator? Do you actually understand what light pollution is?

In the day time lunar sky, the stars are still there. But you can't see them with eyes adjusted to compensate for a brightly lit landscape, and you can't photograph them with a film camera adjusted for the same environment. You're stuck on this idea that black sky equals night equals starry sky.

Can you confirm that on the Moon it is not possible to see any stars?

 

[JayUtah]

I have to say, the 'debunking' struck me as rather lame, especially re the photography.

But we have since determined that you have no skill at photography, so your opinion is unimportant.

I have fully addressed the photographic claims made by Allen and others, including demonstrations showing that their expectations are based on lies and nonsense. I happen to be a recognized expert in it. If all you can say about it is a dismissive, "lame," then why do you matter?

 

[JayUtah]

Can you confirm that on the Moon it is not possible to see any stars?

Straw man.

The question is whether stars should be seen incidentally in the photographs taken of sunlit scenes. You conceded the elements of why they shouldn't be. Now we're just waiting for you to take that last step and admit you were wrong.

 

[zooterkin]

Can you confirm that on the Moon it is not possible to see any stars?

Struggling with basic English comprehension?

 

[Vixen]

But we have since determined that you have no skill at photography, so your opinion is unimportant.

I have fully addressed the photographic claims made by Allen and others, including demonstrations showing that their expectations are based on lies and nonsense. I happen to be a recognized expert in it. If all you can say about it is a dismissive, "lame," then why do you matter?

I have at no point disrespected you. Can you confirm it is not possible to photograph stars from the Moon?

 

[JayUtah]

I have at no point disrespected you.

Except to say my contributions were "lame," and then to ignore me.

Can you confirm it is not possible to photograph stars from the Moon?

Asked and answered.

 

[Vixen]

Except to say my contributions were "lame," and then to ignore me.


Asked and answered.

As I recall, you were talking about the 'fluttering' flag. I haven't mentioned that at all.

 

[JayUtah]

As I recall, you were talking about the 'fluttering' flag. I haven't mentioned that at all.

Then you didn’t actually watch the video.

 

[Mojo]

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.

How does turning your back and pointing the camera up in the sky enable you to photograph something up sun of you? Have you stuck a mirror to the firmament?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... 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?

As the focus? Do you understand what the purpose was of photographing their expedition to the moon?

It was photographing the surface of the moon, from right there on the moon, and recording their expedition to the moon. They weren't scolding each other to get out of the way so they could photograph the sky.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had been crashing (and landing) probes on the moon for a decade prior to the Apollo 11 flight.

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.

You mean except for all the lunar orbiters that have photographed Apollo landing sites, including the impact marks of the Saturn V 3rd stages that were deliberately crashed into the moon.

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.

Your still pretending that it's the questions that have people challenging you. What people find so exasperating about your "arguments" is that you obstinately refuse to accept the answers to those questions, and that you double down on wrong assumptions rather than admit you didn't understand something.

For example, in the training simulations modelling what they'd do on the Moon, their backpacks might just have been polystyrene...

You think they trained on earth with the full weight of the PLSS on their backs? Why would they do that?

...and the hopping what they imagined from harness training.

They didn't imagine it. The harness training (do you even know how they did that?) accurately simulated the feel of their contact with the ground at 1/6g as well as the feeling of moving in 1/6g while still having the same mass.

Bobbing about in swimming pools wouldn't be an accurate reflection of what walking on the Moon is like.

The Apollo crews didn't use neutral buoyancy tanks to train for the lunar surface, so your assumption is moot.

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...

Vixen, you've demonstrated, pretty much perpetually, that you don't understand any science, "old" or "new". The idea that you're applying scientific objectivity to this subject is an absolute joke. All you've done is demonstrate your deep ignorance of pretty much every scientific and engineering concept you've pretended to be firmly grounded in. And it's blatantly obvious that you're just trawling Apollo conspiracy sites and presenting all the same stale nonsense as your own ideas.

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.

Derogatory labels like "liar"? I would suggest that if you are bothered by that, you should refrain from, say, lying about having easily photographed stars with your SLR in a manner that proves the lack of stars in the Apollo photos is an anomaly.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Gibberish.

She's dramatically long on "could it be...?" and "what if..." in place of any factual evidence. Most all conspiracy theorists eventually spiral down into examining the micro-expressions of "paid crisis actors".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

It was morning but no, it was not very early morning with the sun on the horizon.

They did not have camera tripods. They were not tasked with taking photos of the stars. Their cameras were simplified with a restricted exposure range suited to daylight photography. They could not be used to photograph stars even if the astronauts had tried to. Plenty of the photographs show large patches of sky but they do not show stars because the stars are too faint.

No part of this has not been explained to you patiently already.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

The day sky, not the night sky. On the moon, the daytime sky is also black.

 

[Foster Zygote]

As the focus? Do you understand what the purpose was of photographing their expedition to the moon?

It was photographing the surface of the moon, from right there on the moon, and recording their expedition to the moon. They weren't scolding each other to get out of the way so they could photograph the sky.

She knows. She already said something about exposing film for (what was it?) ten or fifteen seconds to photograph stars. She's just painted herself into a corner and can't admit that she fabricated her claim that she easily photographed stars with her old SLR.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Up to your chest height?

I was going to ask about that as well. You'd think a "numbers person" would refer to degrees of elevation.