• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

Vixen said:
The programme as a whole was lame, not your individual contribution.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what you said.

Vixen said:
...the 'debunking' struck me as rather lame, especially re the photography.
Click to expand...
Since my part was significantly "re the photography," and you didn't know that until now, you're rather stuck. You just assured us you have never disrepected me, so you have to speak nicely of me now. But you can't erase the fact that you passed judgment on my contribution without even knowing what it was.

If you now finally agree that my contribution was "nice," would you like to actually address the points it raised? Or is your opinion stubbornly unchanged by the new facts you're now acknowledging?

Vixen said:
It's a shame actually to not be able to debate on an intellectual level.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know about that. You'll have to tell us how it feels.

You dismissed a debunking as "lame" when in fact it is full of facts that are correctly stated, confirmed by the relevant fields, and demonstrated on camera to your face. You even conceded the constituent facts, but instead of withdrawing your claim you tried to change horses and demand to be given credit for irrelevant minutia.

You claim your knowledge of physics is sufficiently informed by "books" to know that your belief regarding the astronauts' balance is correct. Except you can't discuss it beyond waving your hands vaguely at the ratio of weights and ignoring a rather straightforward, documented answer that refutes you. How are you even remotely arguing at an intellectual level?
 
Vixen said:
To me, insults are low level; too infra dig to even respond to them. Reminiscent of a playground where you are told, 'I'm the king of the castle and you're a dirty rascal!" Yes, I understand absolutely that is the point being made. It just doesn't interest me.
Click to expand...
Pretending that being questioned is being attacked or insulted is one of your evasion tactics.
 
JayUtah said:
No.

This argument has never worked for you. You are not actually interested in the subject beyond what attention talking conspiratorial nonsense about it will get you. This thread is populated by many people who have expressed genuine interest in space missions, and genuine aptitude in understanding the relevant facts. They are having a productive and stimulating conversation. You are crapping on the chess board.
Click to expand...
This thread had made me rewatch my DVD of The Right Stuff, and Apollo 13. And now I'm digging out my DVD of the HBO series, From the Earth to the Moon, and I'm hunting for plastic models of the Saturn V, the command module, the LM, the Artemis, and anything else space related. Also hitting the second-hand bookstores for astronaut biographies, and Apollo stuff. This is a fun topic. This is a cool topic. Apollo, along with Mercury, Gemini, Apollo-Soyuz, Skylab, the shuttle, ISS, and the many probes we've sent, are sending, and our lone robot cruising the surface of Mars are all inspiring for countless, humanist reasons.
 
Axxman300 said:
This thread had made me rewatch my DVD of The Right Stuff, and Apollo 13. And now I'm digging out my DVD of the HBO series, From the Earth to the Moon, and I'm hunting for plastic models of the Saturn V, the command module, the LM, the Artemis, and anything else space related. Also hitting the second-hand bookstores for astronaut biographies, and Apollo stuff. This is a fun topic. This is a cool topic. Apollo, along with Mercury, Gemini, Apollo-Soyuz, Skylab, the shuttle, ISS, and the many probes we've sent, are sending, and our lone robot cruising the surface of Mars are all inspiring for countless, humanist reasons.
Click to expand...
@Vixen, this is what interest and curiosity actually look like.

Be careful with The Right Stuff, however. Treat it as essentially the story of the Mercury program as told from John Glenn's point of view, as he was the only astronaut source that Tom Wolfe used. Glenn's opinion of some of his fellow astronauts as reprobates of one kind or another is considerably screwed. It makes for an entertaining, if not especially historically accurate, story.
 
Lithrael said:
...What? Genuinely? That's what you got from that? Where did you get the idea that I'm not interested in the subject matter? Where did you get the idea that the problem I have with your argument is that you are interested?

The problem I have with your 'why no stars' angle is that you are very demonstrably holding the argument by the wrong end.
Click to expand...
Perhaps explain why you have a problem with me and why you mentioned some other poster in the same breath?
 
I can't believe we're still 'debating' this after 99 pages. when it's so obvious. Just go on a 250,000K trip to the Moon, wait till it's 28°CF, then at night when you're geopositioned, turn your back to the chest-height sun and point your telescopic lens to the night sky for 35'; the Moon being 1/6th gravity of Earth does not mean the weight of the dusty old Hasselblad is any less lighter, and there's no wind to help ease the load, but that's why the backpacks are made of polystyrene. Anybody who thinks otherwise is in erratum. After all, the gelatin film would be destroyed in the Van Allen belts just like your dentist wearing a lead apron. Kemo sabe?
 
JayUtah said:
No, that's not what you said.


Since my part was significantly "re the photography," and you didn't know that until now, you're rather stuck. You just assured us you have never disrepected me, so you have to speak nicely of me now. But you can't erase the fact that you passed judgment on my contribution without even knowing what it was.

If you now finally agree that my contribution was "nice," would you like to actually address the points it raised? Or is your opinion stubbornly unchanged by the new facts you're now acknowledging?


I wouldn't know about that. You'll have to tell us how it feels.

You dismissed a debunking as "lame" when in fact it is full of facts that are correctly stated, confirmed by the relevant fields, and demonstrated on camera to your face. You even conceded the constituent facts, but instead of withdrawing your claim you tried to change horses and demand to be given credit for irrelevant minutia.

You claim your knowledge of physics is sufficiently informed by "books" to know that your belief regarding the astronauts' balance is correct. Except you can't discuss it beyond waving your hands vaguely at the ratio of weights and ignoring a rather straightforward, documented answer that refutes you. How are you even remotely arguing at an intellectual level?
Click to expand...
Ah, right. I was referring to Marcus Allen, who I thought made some good points. The irritation is this, he made some valid points and then was brushed off on a very shallow level as a 'conspiracy theorist' who had just been debunked. Of course, such a programme isn't designed to settle the matter, more a predictable exercise in putting 'conspiracy theorists' in their place.
 
JayUtah said:
@Vixen, this is what interest and curiosity actually look like.

Be careful with The Right Stuff, however. Treat it as essentially the story of the Mercury program as told from John Glenn's point of view, as he was the only astronaut source that Tom Wolfe used. Glenn's opinion of some of his fellow astronauts as reprobates of one kind or another is considerably screwed. It makes for an entertaining, if not especially historically accurate, story.
Click to expand...
I know, it's just a classic film, and hilarious most of the time. I thought the treatment of Gus Grissom was unfair. The hatch issue was much more complex, and nuanced than the movie portrayed.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Are you referring to when you called the daytime lunar sky "the night sky"?

Yeah, that's wrong and it's probably a key element of why you keep being wrong.
Click to expand...
Mojo started conflating UK day sky with the Moon day sky, hence the need to compare and contrast lunar day sky with UK night sky in respect of camera settings (not that the two conditions are identical).
 
Vixen said:
Ah, right. I was referring to Marcus Allen, who I thought made some good points.
Click to expand...
No.

He made points that are laughable from a photographer's perspective, and most photographers instantly saw that. Your acceptance of them as "good" or "valid" is more easily explained by your lack of understanding of photography, which you have amply demonstrated in this thread.

Vixen said:
The irritation is this, he made some valid points and then was brushed of on a very shallow level as a 'conspiracy theorist' who had just been debunked.
Click to expand...
I spent a whole night in the desert and the following day in a professional photo studio in Hollywood demonstrating his errors using the original camera equipment. That is not shallow. I was paid a whopping $100 for my labor.

Vixen said:
Of course, such a programme isn't designed to settle the matter, more a predictable exercise in putting 'conspiracy theorists' in their place.
Click to expand...
What place do you think they deserve and why? I know these people from decades of interactions, Vixen. Some of it even "behind the scenes" where they take their masks off. You don't know a darn thing about any of them.

The program gave all the conspiracy theorists a chance to say their piece. Bill Kaysing rambled on, as he does. Ralph René got to play with his leaf blower. Marcus Allen got to smile for the camera. And then actual experts qualified in the field came on to show that the "questions" and "controversies" those people are trying to drum up for their own profit really do have straightforward, demonstrable, factual answers. There was nothing mean-spirited about it. In fact, we really tried hard to get Bart Sibrel and David Percy to come on the program because we really wanted to give them the opportunity to put their own best foot forward.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Have the properties of light changed in the intervening years?

Or did they change between the Apollo programme and your own star photographs X years ago?
Click to expand...
As I said before, light conditions on the two planets are not like for like. As a photographer you assess according to the situation you find yourself in and what effect you want. For example, sharp contrast ~vs~ grainy effect, something 'arty' (perhaps add filters), the problem with glare, etc. Simply demanding I provide settings off the hoof is not reasonable.
 
Vixen said:
Mojo started conflating UK day sky with the Moon day sky, hence the need to compare and contrast lunar day sky with UK night sky in respect of camera settings (not that the two conditions are identical).
Click to expand...
No, you were not the one to correct people on the difference between the lunar day sky and the Earth night sky. In fact, you reiterated your error not more than a few hours ago.

You agreed that it takes 15 seconds to expose stars. You agreed that such an exposure, if applied to a sunlit scene, would result in a completely overexposed photo. You have now at long last seen where I used an identical camera and identical film to show that short exposure times cannot expose stars. Yet for some reason you can't take that final step and say, "Marcus Allen was obviously wrong about that, and so was I when I claimed I had reproduced his expectations."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom