Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Steve]

Out go the lights!

I think they have been out for quite some time.

 

[Steve]

Must say I'm suspicious. The stars reflected in the space helmet in the first photo are strangely regularly arranged. Not a constellation I recognise.

Looks like the start of something Dave saw in 2001.

ETA Ninja'd by Andy_Ross.

 

[zooterkin]

They were on?

But nobody was home.

 

[Vixen]

No, I would like you to properly inform yourself before attempting debate on the points you're raising, especially where precise quantities are concerned. You make far too many errors to be taken seriously. You still can't manage the difference between 1/250 second and 15 seconds.

The camera was fixed at three settings plus a change of lens was available, so why not a fourth setting for the stars?

 

[Mojo]

Which irradiates them slightly more than they would have received had they remained on Earth. They do not become radioactive as a result, or a danger in any way to anyone else. There is nothing the recovery crew need worry or do about it. The astronauts are not radiologically contaminated, nor is there any reason to think they would be.

You're forgetting that RADIATION! is WAAAAH! SCARY!!!

 

[JayUtah]

The camera was fixed at three settings plus a change of lens was available, so why not a fourth setting for the stars?

There was no such setting. Those are the facts. How you imagine Apollo might have been done differently is irrelevant and does not support your claim to have verified Marcus Allen.

Allen claims the stars should have been incidentally visible with the settings provided. You claimed you have proven this yourself.

 

[Mojo]

The camera was fixed at three settings plus a change of lens was available, so why not a fourth setting for the stars?

Because they weren't on the Moon's surface to photograph the stars, which are visible from Earth, Earth orbit, and lunar orbit.

The cameras were for photographing the moon's surface and the activities of the astronauts there.

 

[Vixen]

That *still* doesn't answer my question: Why is the lack of extensive decontamination procedures during recovery ops suspicious?

"Suspicious' is your word, not mine. As Trevor Weaver points out in the OP video, he believes it would have been far too dangerous to send them to the Moon. The fact they weren't at all bothered by radiation issues seems to back up his view they never went.

 

[Mojo]

Out go the lights!

Now there's some misogyny.

 

[JayUtah]

The fact they weren't at all bothered by radiation issues seems to back up his view they never went.

That question is more parsimoniously answered by noting that you’re confused about what the radiation hazards actually were.

 

[Helen]

Must say I'm suspicious. The stars reflected in the space helmet in the first photo are strangely regularly arranged. Not a constellation I recognise.

You wouldn't know those stars. They're from the Moon.

 

[Mojo]

"Suspicious' is your word, not mine. As Trevor Weaver points out in the OP video, he believes it would have been far too dangerous to send them to the Moon. The fact they weren't at all bothered by radiation issues seems to back up his view they never went.

Now there's some begging the question.

 

[Vixen]

Wrong. The crepuscular lighting effects we observe are due to the atmosphere.

We weren't talking about crepuscular light, we were seeing the long dark shadows, which indicates dark shade elsewhere (which, on the Moon is literally pitch black).

 

[zooterkin]

The camera was fixed at three settings plus a change of lens was available, so why not a fourth setting for the stars?

Missing the point, as usual.

You now seem to be accepting that it needed a different setting, which was not available, to take photos of the stars. Are you now conceding that the fact that the photos don't show stars is not suspicious?

 

[Mojo]

Petroleum-derived pitch is black in colour, hence the adjectival phrase "pitch-black". (The footnote on that sentence cites the Oxford English Dictionary.)

Pitch is a black substance, to be sure, but its color is not an absolute black. Vantablack, for example, is blacker than pitch.

Inasmuch as you began your statement by claiming pitch black is an absolute, I see no reason to believe your uncited claim of an unnamed Quora author's authority ( ) either.

Actually m, I think the idiomatic meaning of "pitch black" is "absolutely black".

 

[JayUtah]

We weren't talking about crepuscular light, we were seeing the long dark shadows, which indicates dark shade elsewhere (which, on the Moon is literally pitch black).

Irrelevant. Asked and answered.

 

[Mojo]

But for the umpteenth time it is irrelevant since their cameras were incapable of photographing stars, and they were not tasked with doing so. I can write this bit again if it helps.

It won't.

 

[Mojo]

We weren't talking about crepuscular light, we were seeing the long dark shadows, which indicates dark shade elsewhere (which, on the Moon is literally pitch black).

Apart from light reflected from other parts of the Moon's surface.

 

[Vixen]

Well it's certainly not a proposition based on you knowing the first thing about how to actually properly plan a water recovery like that. But do tell, how might you think a procedure like that could vary? Maybe have trained dolphins involved?

Run a Geiger counter over it and them at the very least. Perhaps see if they light up green in the dark...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... The fact they weren't at all bothered by radiation issues

That isn't a fact.

They coped with radiation issues by firstly understanding them, and then carefully planning how they would deal with them.