• 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

JesseCuster said:
It’s the “hundreds of thousands of miles” that people are questioning. “Hundreds of thousands” does not mean millions, and never has, in either Britain or America.

So how is “hundreds of thousands of miles” meant to make anything clearer to American or British readers? Remember, it’s your claim that the reason you referred to distance of millions of miles as “hundreds of thousands of miles” was to make it understandable to Americans or British. How does this make any sense at all?
Click to expand...
I said 'hundreds of thousands if not millions'. It could not be more clear.
 
Vixen said:
SCENE: US hinterlands July 1969

<sfx screen door slams, dogs bark>

BUBBA: Honey, I'm home!

WIFE: Gee, how was it, dear?

BUBBA: Wait till you see my Moon snaps!

WIFE: Did you get the stars? You know, Hun, whenever I see the Big Dipper, I think of you..or maybe the Little Dip-

BUBBA: Are you mad?! You know that li'l ol' flag I sent off for..?

WIFE: - the one for five bucks? 'Translucent in the light of the Moon..?'

BUBBA: Yup! I took a snap of it from every which way angle!!! Easiest million bucks I ever earned...!

<sfx strains of a background male voice choir, 'O say can you see by the dawn's early light...' salutes>
Click to expand...
Rather than spending time on such drivel, how about responding to the factual issues in this thread?

ETA: Oh, and FYI, regarding the date in your insulting little delusional fantasy, the astronauts were still in quarantine until August.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
SCENE: US hinterlands July 1969

<nonsense snipped for brevity>
Click to expand...

With this little playlet I infer you are still attempting to claim that you find it unbelievable that the astronauts were not tasked with photographing the stars, using cameras which could not possibly photograph stars.

If you would like to explain your reasoning, the floor is yours.
 
Vixen said:
Poser for you: do the Moon and Earth count as planets in this 'inner system'? Had I left out the 'hundreds of thousands' people would be baying for blood.
Click to expand...
No. You never mentioned the moon in your original post. You mentioned Mercury, Venus, Mars (that's the red one) and Jupiter, and their distances from each other.
Vixen said:
I'm not sure. It's possible a boffin could place them locationwise. Whilst Venus, Mercury and Mars (the red one) albeit hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of miles away from each other in reality, from our aspect on Earth, they can often be seen together, and sometimes Jupiter is bright enough, too.
Click to expand...
See? No mention of the moon.

And we haven't even got to the part about asking what the distances to those planets have to do with their coordinates in the sky, or the fact that Jupiter is one of the brightest objects in our sky, rather than "sometimes" being bright enough to see.

Again, it's not the ignorance of astronomy that's unintentionally amusing, it's the insistence on feigning that you are well versed in the subject, let alone that you've ever been interested in it, even as the attempt reveals the opposite.
 
Vixen said:
YAWN. Here comes the misogyny.
Click to expand...
Don't be sexist.

Vixen said:
SCENE: US hinterlands July 1969
Click to expand...
Don't be childish.

No matter how many straw fairy tales you invent, the Apollo 11 astronauts were not set to the Moon to take pictures of the stars. They were sent, among other things, to plant the flag and to observe, photograph, and sample the Moon. No matter how much you try to rewrite Marcus Allen's claims to seem reasonable, he expected incidental stars in photos of sunlit scenes. He was laughably wrong—and we all laughed. You didn't. You made the mistake of trying to borrow his (non-)expertise, and here we are watching you try to save face in the middle of undeniable dishonesty.

You conceded it would take a shutter speed of several seconds to expose stars. You conceded that this would completely overexpose a sunlit scene. You were asked what settings you used to photograph stars in a way that allegedly confirms Allen's expectations, but all we get from you is whining about how such questions victimize you.

As of this writing it is exactly one hour past astronomical sunrise where I am. Even though you think photo demonstrations are "lame," here is a picture I just took in part shadow with the sun at an elevation of 15º, the same as on Apollo 11. ISO 160 1/125 f/5.6, the same settings used for some Apollo photos.

IMG_6342.jpeg

Note how the detail on the scooter is actually slightly overexposed. No, the fact of lunar morning does not mean you have to set your camera to where stars begin to be visible. I know you're having trouble with orders of magnitude right now, so I'll point out that you agreed we would need 1,000 times longer exposure to see stars than what I'm using here in "lunar morning."

I was waiting for an appropriate time to add the plot twist, but someone else figured it out for you. That's what happens when ordinary people exhibit actual curiosity and look things up before shooting their mouths off. The Apollo Hasselblad cameras cannot be set to the exposures needed to photograph stars. NASA sent the cameras to photograph sunlit scenes on the lunar surface and they didn't want the astronauts to accidentally misconfigure the lenses. And before you change horses and try to read something nefarious into that, let me remind you that the question is not whether the astronauts could take photos of the stars, it's whether incidental stars should appear in the photos they did take with the settings I just used to photograph discarded scooters.
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
No. You never mentioned the moon in your original post. You mentioned Mercury, Venus, Mars (that's the red one) and Jupiter, and their distances from each other.

See? No mention of the moon.

And we haven't even got to the part about asking what the distances to those planets have to do with their coordinates in the sky, or the fact that Jupiter is one of the brightest objects in our sky, rather than "sometimes" being bright enough to see.

Again, it's not the ignorance of astronomy that's unintentionally amusing, it's the insistence on feigning that you are well versed in the subject, let alone that you've ever been interested in it, even as the attempt reveals the opposite.
Click to expand...
But there's a conspiracy (so recently discovered by Vixen) here that needs to be investigated! And all that time she spent at detective school (when she wasn't studying accounting, physics, astronomy, seafaring....) makes her just the one to do it. She could, but won't, start with the reason that hundreds of thousands of Americans conspired to fake the moon landings and have remained uniformly and resolutely silent about it all these years.
 
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