• 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:
Simply demanding I provide settings off the hoof is not reasonable.
Click to expand...
It is absolutely reasonable, as you claimed to have the appropriate understanding.

What were the camera settings you used to take photos of stars that you claimed confirmed Marcus Allen's expectations? You already admitted it would take something like a 15-second shutter speed to expose stars. Did you use a 15-second shutter speed, or did you use one on the order of 1/125, which is what it takes to photograph a sunlit scene at that ISO and f-stop?

These are simple questions any remotely competent photographer can answer. You're not being ill-used.
 
Vixen said:
No, I clearly said you could avoid the early morning lunar glare from a very low lying sun by....turning your lens away from the source of the glare.
Click to expand...
No one but you has claimed this. That's why you're getting so much laughter from people who want to know how that would result in you photographing the desired subject.
 
Vixen said:
Perhaps explain why you have a problem with me and why you mentioned some other poster in the same breath?
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with you. I have a problem with the way you (don't) respond when people try to convey demonstrable facts to you. I mentioned the other poster because he does that too, but also jumps in with both feet, which is at least novel.

"If they were on the lunar surface, why wouldn't they have taken any photos in a way that would show the stars" is a reasonable question to ask and continue to debate, because the answer involves things like whether doing that would have been worth the extra time, effort, equipment design & weight, etc. (and the answer is 'they didn't want to do the extra work to make that happen' which anyone is free to personally think is unsatisfying).

Whereas "If they were on the lunar surface with equipment optimized to take photos of sunlit subjects, why aren't there stars in those photos" is a question to ask, have answered with demonstrable facts, and then go 'oh, ok, I see.'
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

The astronauts knew well in advance what situation they would find themselves in. Strong sunlight.

They knew that the things they wanted to photograph would be harshly lit by strong sunlight with diffuse light in the shadows weaker than is familiar as it was only light scattered from the ground and other objects rather than from the sky.

You know all this. You know their cameras were set up for this. You know you cannot photograph stars with these settings.

But you will not say so.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
There is evidence or there isn't; in this case we know how that pans out.
Click to expand...
You have a genuine controversy only when the objective facts are such that reasonable well-informed people can legitimately disagree in good faith over what conclusions to draw. I can name many such controversies, most of which receive perpetual debate in the politics section of the forum. That is simply not the case here. The players whose names I mention are not arguing in good faith—and in some cases even admit they aren't. They are not well-informed. They are not reasonable. And the objective facts are entirely on one side of the issue.

In other conspiracy theories that revolve around happenstance events, the record is often messy. Not so here. The Apollo program was one of the most publicly, intentionally, and meticulously documented of all human achievements. And it is of widespread general interest, so lots of people available themselves of what's available.
 
Vixen said:
No, I clearly said you could avoid the early morning lunar glare from a very low lying sun by....turning your lens away from the source of the glare.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "no"? When JesseCuster questioned your advice on trying to take a photo up-sun, where you suggested turning around, you said the point was:
Vixen said:
You are facing the night sky behind you and above you.
Click to expand...

So your advice on dealing with the sun in your intended photos was to turn around, as that would be "the night sky". You get the point of this, right? The sun is up, yet the "night sky" is above you. Really?

It's this faulty thinking that keeps tripping you up.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Over 100 pages of this?

While I applaud the expertise of many posters and their patience in delivering information, another part of me does wonder what exactly is going on...
Click to expand...
Nobody who is wise in the ways of the ISF actually thinks they're going to convince Vixen of anything. If her watch stopped, she would shake her fist at the tyranny of Big Ben contradicting her worldview.

Ideally, people are posting here for fun or as an exercise in correcting deeply-entrenched BS.
 
JayUtah said:
You have a genuine controversy only when the objective facts are such that reasonable well-informed people can legitimately disagree in good faith over what conclusions to draw. I can name many such controversies, most of which receive perpetual debate in the politics section of the forum. That is simply not the case here. The players whose names I mention are not arguing in good faith—and in some cases even admit they aren't. They are not well-informed. They are not reasonable. And the objective facts are entirely on one side of the issue.

In other conspiracy theories that revolve around happenstance events, the record is often messy. Not so here. The Apollo program was one of the most publicly, intentionally, and meticulously documented of all human achievements. And it is of widespread general interest, so lots of people available themselves of what's available.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I had a front row seat for a couple of proper scientific controversies as an under-grad; these have now been resolved with that pesky further research and more evidence. Very instructive, especially for seeing how some folk (i.e. senior scientists) went for each other in an, errrrrrr, interesting manner.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Indeed, I had a front row seat for a couple of proper scientific controversies as an under-grad; these have now been resolved with that pesky further research and more evidence.
Click to expand...
As opposed to simply repeating the same old mumbo-jumbo year after year as if no one has answered you. "Ooh, something space-related happened! That makes a decades-old, long-debunked conspiracy theory a 'current event' now."
 
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