Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Helen]

No, it isn't. Shut up!

 

[PSXer]

You can't fight in here! This is the war room!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I must say again I'm enjoying the information and interesting moon trivia presented in this thread, but I'm also very annoyed that it's removed almost all the fun from reading Vixen's exchanges in other threads, by showing her willingness to so bold-facedly ignore clearly demonstrable facts and ideas.

Hell, the 'in order to deny that there can be enough variation in genes for natural selection to eventually make a human out of the earliest forms of life on earth, I must claim there is no new information in new books because there are no new letters' guy is more interesting to watch; he's invented whole new ways of painting yourself into a corner that I hadn't even imagined before.

Whereas in this thread, after an initial phase of linking to lying grifters' intentional misrepresentations, (which, fair, those guys' whole job is to gin up plausible looking doubts) Vixen has simply been sticking her fingers in her ears. Over things that even I have practical experience in. Like the most basic principles of how film exposure works!

The best version of her photography argument would be "I think the Apollo missions should also have brought camera rigs for photographing stars from the lunar surface; I think it's suspicious that they didn't" and not any variation on "if the existing Apollo photographs were really taken as claimed, they should have stars in the sky."

I can't wait for them to end up in the same thread fighting for attention, Ladies and Gentlemen Welcome to the Stundie Dome!

 

[Helen]

I can't wait for them to end up in the same thread fighting for attention, Ladies and Gentlemen Welcome to the Stundie Dome!

That would be perfect for Trump's next birthday! He could even join in this time, maybe some jabs about magnets under water, or windmills causing cancer in whales!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I keep forgetting: there is a massive communication gap.

True. You are among the 0.1% who cannot communicate with the 99.9% who have figured this out.

Well, some of the boys go up the trail for pleasure,​

But that's where they get it most awfully wrong​

For you have no idea the trouble they give us​

When we go drivin' them dogies along.​

​

Whoopee ti yi yo! Git along little dogies,​

It's a shame actually to not be able to debate on an intellectual level.

It's your misfortune and none of our own.​

​

Whoopee ti yi yo! Git along little dogies,​

For you know Wyoming will be your new home.​

​

 

[Mojo]

I keep forgetting: there is a massive communication gap.

It seems to be somewhere between your eyes and your brain.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

True. You are among the 0.1% who cannot communicate with the 99.9% who have figured this out.

Well, some of the boys go up the trail for pleasure,​

But that's where they get it most awfully wrong​

For you have no idea the trouble they give us​

When we go drivin' them dogies along.​

​

Whoopee ti yi yo! Git along little dogies,​

It's your misfortune and none of our own.​

​

Whoopee ti yi yo! Git along little dogies,​

For you know Wyoming will be your new home.​

​

I'd go with

"Rollin' Rollin' Rollin'
Though the streams are swollen
Keep those doggies rollin'
Rawhide!"

Well, not actually 'Rollin', but a word that's only one 't' off.

 

[JayUtah]

"Rollin' Rollin' Rollin'
Though the streams are swollen
Keep those doggies rollin'
Rawhide!"

"No need to understand it,
Just whine and underhand it.
Soon they'll be taken for a ride."

 

[Vixen]

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.

It is not 'sun lit' as in the sense of a midday or afternoon sun. It is more of a breaking dawn sun coming over the horizon. Thus, still reasonably dark.

 

[JayUtah]

It is not 'sun lit' as in the sense of a midday or afternoon sun. It is more of a breaking dawn sun coming over the horizon. Thus, still reasonably dark.

No.

The Sun elevation was 15º. That's fully risen. Objects in the photographs were being lit by the full sun. Answer the questions.

 

[Vixen]

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.

So the Hasselblad had three settings marked in red that they could select. It is only sunlight on the horizon. It is not 'harsh' at 27°F, which is why they chose that time. During lunar daytime the temperature hits >250°F (120°C) and nighttime -350°F (-185°C). If people in Europe start dropping off at 45°C, you'll appreciate they would have been there when the sun was minimal but just warm enough. So, it should have been easy enough to set it to aim the lens at the sky, or at least try.

 

[Vixen]

No.

The Sun elevation was 15º. That's fully risen. Objects in the photographs were being lit by the full sun. Answer the questions.

15° fully risen, max, but that's not at its zenith, it is still low.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Do you really think that does anything other than emphasize the fact that you can't admit that you were wrong about claiming that the Apollo astronauts were always standing perfectly upright on the lunar surface? Your "detective skills" are crap.

 

[JayUtah]

15° fully risen, max, but that's not at its zenith, it is still low.

Still full intensity for photography purposes.

 

[Foster Zygote]

So the Hasselblad had three settings marked in red that they could select. It is only sunlight on the horizon. It is not 'harsh' at 27°F, which is why they chose that time. During lunar daytime the temperature hits >250°F (120°C) and nighttime -350°F (-185°C). If people in Europe start dropping off at 45°C, you'll appreciate they would have been there when the sun was minimal but just warm enough. So, it should have been easy enough to set it to aim the lens at the sky, or at least try.

The temperature of what varies between those ranges? Please be specific.

 

[Foster Zygote]

...The 'debunking' struck me as rather lame, especially re the photography.

Which is hilarious considering the paucity of knowledge you've demonstrated regarding photography.

 

[Mojo]

No.

The Sun elevation was 15º. That's fully risen.

I thought it had only risen to chest height over the edge of the moon.

 

[Mojo]

The temperature of what varies between those ranges? Please be specific.

The temperature of the light, presumably.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Soz, there was the photography, of course. You did well. It was Norris and Cook who seemed to think they were being 'reassuring' but they just came across as glib and very surface level.

Vixen, no one is more surface level regarding the moon landings than you are.

 

[Foster Zygote]

To me, insults are low level...

To you, being shown that you're wrong is to be insulted.