Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

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.

For goodness sake, it was a generalised comment in which I considered all eventualities such as different cultures using different measures both historically and colloquially but as they say, no good deed goes unpunished. It really doesn't change the thrust or substance of what was being conveyed.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Not that hoary old chestnut.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

Are you sure that wasn't just a correspondence course? Like the others you mentioned?

 

[JayUtah]

Not that hoary old chestnut.

No nuts about it. Explain why, after 50 years, there are no deathbed confessions, no letters left with lawyers "to be opened in the event of my death." Explain why lifelong engineers and scientists would suddenly be interested in career-ending and prison-sentencing levels of fraud.

 

[Vixen]

To be fair, the Moon and Sun (but not Earth) were considered to be planets thousands of years ago, so I can see how it's possible to have not kept up with current events.

If it's okay for Michael Collins to call Venus a 'star' then I'm good, as they say.

 

[Steve]

Are you sure that wasn't just a correspondence course? Like the others you mentioned?

Home schooled, most likely.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Home schooled, most likely.

Auto-anti-didact.

But also an autodidact, because "didact" can mean a person who's overly inclined to instruct others.

 

[Vixen]

No nuts about it. Explain why, after 50 years, there are no deathbed confessions, no letters left with lawyers "to be opened in the event of my death." Explain why lifelong engineers and scientists would suddenly be interested in career-ending and prison-sentencing levels of fraud.

See my analogy earlier about 'How come 550K UK civil servants didn't know about Mandelsson's vetting problems?'.

That line of argument doesn't actually prove anything. It's appealing to credulity. For example, 'If Tiananmen Square happened, how come none of the billions of Chinese people ever mention it?'

 

[JayUtah]

See my analogy earlier about 'How come 550K UK civil servants didn't know about Mandelsson's vetting problems?'.

That line of argument doesn't actually prove anything. It's appealing to credulity. For example, 'If Tiananmen Square happened, how come none of the billions of Chinese people ever mention it?'

Apples and oranges.

 

[threadworm]

For goodness sake, it was a generalised comment in which I considered all eventualities such as different cultures using different measures both historically and colloquially but as they say, no good deed goes unpunished. It really doesn't change the thrust or substance of what was being conveyed.

Your earlier comment mentioned that often the planets are apparently close together. You haven't checked if that was the case during Apollo. There are also times when they aren't visible at all. You haven't checked that either.

Earth was though.

 

[Vixen]

Don't be sexist.


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.

View attachment 72353

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.

The thing is, Earth is not like-for-like re photography because whilst the Sun's rays on the Moon are incredibly fierce, by the same token, if you step into a shadow in that same landscape, you are in pitch blackness. As you know, here, we can be in a shade and still see.

 

[Darat]

A space station?

It's an egg - I watched the documentary.

 

[PSXer]

If you were in a shadow on the sunlit side of the moon, there would still be a relatively bright object near you. I just can't seem to put my finger on what it would be, though. Hmm.

 

[JayUtah]

The thing is, Earth is not like-for-like re photography because whilst the Sun's rays on the Moon are incredibly fierce

Not "incredibly" fierce, but computably fierce. I computed it for you. To compensate for the brighter sunlight shining on the lunar surface, I should have underexposed my sample photo by half a stop. Thanks for pointing out something that makes your claim even less plausible.

...by the same token, if you step into a shadow in that same landscape, you are in pitch blackness.

No. You still have a view factor to other sunlit areas that provide indirect light. Many photos were shown to you to illustrate that.

As you know, here, we can be in a shade and still see.

Shade and shadow are different things, but no, the environment is not simply all black and white.

Are we any closer to you telling us your camera settings that verified Marcus Allen or are you just going to flounder for another round of argument?

 

[Andy_Ross]

See my analogy earlier about 'How come 550K UK civil servants didn't know about Mandelsson's vetting problems?'.

That line of argument doesn't actually prove anything. It's appealing to credulity. For example, 'If Tiananmen Square happened, how come none of the billions of Chinese people ever mention it?'

What about the many thousands of people working for all the companies that designed and built the hardware for NASA?

For example, were Grumman in on the hoax when the designed and built the landers? Their engineers built them to do the job.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The thing is, Earth is not like-for-like re photography because whilst the Sun's rays on the Moon are incredibly fierce, by the same token, if you step into a shadow in that same landscape, you are in pitch blackness. As you know, here, we can be in a shade and still see.

How incredibly fierce are they compared to earth?
Why do you think shadow would be in pitch darkness on the moon?

 

[MostlyHarmless]

So, if you stand in a shadow on the moon, you are blind!? LOL

 

[zooterkin]

The thing is, Earth is not like-for-like re photography because whilst the Sun's rays on the Moon are incredibly fierce, by the same token, if you step into a shadow in that same landscape, you are in pitch blackness. As you know, here, we can be in a shade and still see.

Oh, do go on! Tell us more about how light behaves differently on the moon. Is it due to less gravity, or less atmosphere? Or some other phenomenon?

 

[Steve]

Oh, do go on! Tell us more about how light behaves differently on the moon. Is it due to less gravity, or less atmosphere? Or some other phenomenon?

Most likely because relativity is different on the moon .

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh, do go on! Tell us more about how light behaves differently on the moon. Is it due to less gravity, or less atmosphere? Or some other phenomenon?

It weighs less obviously.