• 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

She's also still ignoring the fact that without an atmosphere, you don't get the gradual increase and decrease in brightness, and the softening of light that we get on earth at sunrise or sunset.
A.k.a. the Golden Hour. Not only is light somewhat attenuated by the oblique angle through the atmosphere, it arrives preferentially as longer wavelengths since the shorter ones have been scattered by the atmosphere. There is no Golden Hour on the Moon.
 
This is as good a time as any to remind people of the goalpost-shifting.

Marcus Allen's claim was that stars should appear incidentally in photos taken of sunlit scenes on the lunar surface. That claim is completely nonsensical and has been known as such by photographers for decades now. It is straightforwardly false. That is the claim @Vixen says she confirmed through her own work.

Vixen has since tried to rewrite the claim to say that the astronauts could have and should have taken intentional photos of stars using the Hasselblad cameras while they were on the Moon. This is not Allen's claim, not the claim Vixen says she verified herself, and additionally not supported by anything other than, "Because she says so."
 
Last edited:
Well, no. The 'live' broadcast of the Apollo 'landing' was broadcast on global black and white valve-based televisions (no digital, remember) and to do this, NASA simply pointed a tv camera at...a tv screen! Purportedly of images being received from the Moon.

The NASA guys watching their banks of...tv monitors ... are no wiser than the rest of us.

The guys who heard the radio exchanges of Apollo 11 at Jodril Bank, Manchester, only heard them as they were coming into splashdown. They might just have been orbiting earth for all they know.
And the images recorded at Pine Gap, Australia directly from the lunar surface? Or do you not know how radio waves and telemetry work?
 
Consider the following video of the Apollo 11 splashdown and the recovery of the module by US Navy Frogmen. What do you notice?
A bunch of well-trained professionals recovering a well-designed space capsule. What do you think we should notice? [I can't wait for more maritime tomfoolery].
 
You guys do have some above average dramatic geography around Utah. I idly searched for a calculator of the sun's elevation in different places and times, and found if you live in, say Helsinki, Finland, 15° is about how high the sun gets at noon in the first weeks of February or November. (I have no idea which parts of Finland any of our contributors might live in, but that might be a useful comparator for some of us.)
Here we go. Courtesy of Little NavMap (a flight simming thing). Finland and everywhere else at Noon (UTC), February 14.

Screenshot 2026-06-19 222553.png
 
OK, so the frogmen sprayed the capsule with 'chemicals' to 'kill the Moon germs'. Then they sloshed the astronauts inside with same. They got them to change clothes in case of 'Moon germs'. Are you serious?!
What, you don't Lysol or any cleansers at your home? And yes, since NOBODY HAD BEEN TO THE MOON BEFORE, THERE WAS NO WAY TO BE CERTAIN THEY DIDN'T BRING A PATHOGEN, BACTERIA, OR OTHER MICROSCOPIC HITCHHIKER HOME. Normal people would know NASA shortened the quarantine for later missions.

Are you serious?! Not a single mention of the extremely dangerous possibility of radiation..?
Honestly, the bananas in the USS Hornet's galley, and cigarettes smoked by crew members have more radiation than the capsule.
Now, of course, we don't know it was because of the time spent at Grenoble but for NASA to believe 'germs' are the main problem makes me realise it's not serious. Spraying with chemicals indeed.

Well, that's one debating point.
Gosh, since we're telling irrelevant stories, I'd point out tomatoes were once thought to be poisonous. Amazing how some people embrace knowledge.
 
Aiming cameras at screens (e.g., kinescopes) was already common practice in the television industry as a front-line method.
Yes, if you watched Star Trek reruns (or other show reruns) in the 60s and 70s that was what you were looking at. The station was using TV cameras pointed at a screen since each episode was on 35mm film reels. The idea that NASA did this isn't a conspiracy, it was SOP.
 
Yes, if you watched Star Trek reruns (or other show reruns) in the 60s and 70s that was what you were looking at. The station was using TV cameras pointed at a screen since each episode was on 35mm film reels. The idea that NASA did this isn't a conspiracy, it was SOP.
That's a telecine, which works in the opposite direction: film to TV. Going from TV to film is a kinescope, and it too was a staple of commercial television production.
 
On the Moon, true. Where I live, 15º above the horizon is just barely above the mountains. Nevertheless, still full sun as I demonstrated photographically.

Once again the conspiracy theorists come to the table with nothing more convincing than, "Wot I reckon is..." while the debunkers are the ones actually demonstrating what the physical facts are. Let's sit back and watch the inevitable mental gymnastics @Vixen employs to deny factual reality.
Wiki tells you it's pitch black in the shade (and also probably freezing cold).
 
Wiki tells you it's pitch black in the shade (and also probably freezing cold).
Which has nothing to do with the sky or stars.

Well, no, because they are spraying for 'germs' when the Moon has no ecosystem and no life, at least none that wouldn't be destroyed on re-entry.
There was no attempt to disinfect the spacecraft exterior. The astronauts were given biological isolation garments through the open hatch, which they donned. They were scrubbed down, in the suits, when they egressed into the raft according to the presumption that any organism encountered in the mission would have been be inside the ship. This was done mostly for public relations as very few people actually believed that back contamination was a real risk.
 
The only way to be as relentlessly wrong as Vixen manages is when it's deliberate.
You are underestimating the power of native stupidity.

I grant that native stupidity is very hard to distinguish from deliberate stupidity.

And the images recorded at Pine Gap, Australia directly from the lunar surface? Or do you not know how radio waves and telemetry work?
That second question should be quoted by dictionaries when they define rhetorical question.

"Only the unwary would think this was real'.
You spelled stupid wrong.
As usual, not true.
As usual, you spelled stupid wrongly.
 
Wiki tells you it's pitch black in the shade (and also probably freezing cold).
Does it, indeed? Would you like to describe any place the astronauts went, or could have gone, which was pitch black?

And then perhaps tell us why that matters since trying to photograph stars was a complete non-starter and not a job they were tasked with.

This entire discussion has, as so often, digressed into you trying to prove to your own satisfaction that you were not wrong about something about which you were definitely wrong.
 

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