Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[JayUtah]

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

Asked and answered. Contamination protocols are not indicated here.

 

[threadworm]

"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.

If you're going to appeal to authority, it helps if they are one. Weaver is no authority on the subject and has merely regurgitated every cliche and trope he's found.

 

[Mojo]

That's exactly why very early lunar morning was chosen. Any other time would have seen extremes of temperature in which their blood would have boiled...

Do you realise that the astronauts were in full sunlight when they were standing on the Moon?

 

[Vixen]

When my son was seven he wore his for weeks on end. (I mean, we washed it regularly.)
View attachment 72500

Then it got passed down to his sister. I call this one, 'In Space, No One Can Hear You Pick Your Nose'.
View attachment 72501

Really cute!

 

[Mojo]

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

Or maybe see if they dissolve the bows of the ship.

 

[Vixen]

That isn't a fact.

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

Now you sound like one of the smiling 'debunkers': You've never really thought about it but by gosh you can reassure us all.

 

[Darat]

When my son was seven he wore his for weeks on end. (I mean, we washed it regularly.)
View attachment 72500

Then it got passed down to his sister. I call this one, 'In Space, No One Can Hear You Pick Your Nose'.
View attachment 72501

oh my God!—it's full of stars

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

I think you mean "Make them wear personal dosimeters at the very least". Which they did.

Dosimeter, Passive Radiation, Personal, Aldrin, Apollo 11 | National Air and Space Museum

airandspace.si.edu

 

[Mojo]

On earth we take a certain level of background radiation for granite.

I want you to go to your room, and think about what you have done.

 

[JayUtah]

If you're going to appeal to authority, it helps if they are one. Weaver is no authority on the subject and has merely regurgitated every cliche and trope he's found.

As a matter of fact, Weaver cites to me as an expert authority in his book. Whatever conclusions he draws are his own. But according to him I’m an authority on the subject.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Now you sound like one of the smiling 'debunkers': You've never really thought about it but by gosh you can reassure us all.

Now you sound like you cannot conceive of anyone happening to know anything that you don't already know yourself, so you assume they must be making it up. Maybe try getting over yourself once in a while.

 

[Vixen]

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.

That is just post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy reasoning. "Oh, there are no stars in the pics because it's not possible to photograph the stars, as you can see, the sky is black in the photos, which proves it'. Or, "They weren't there to photograph or look at the stars, so that explains it."

 

[Reformed Offlian]

"Suspicious' is your word, not mine.

Maybe I'm just better at finding the right words than you are.

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.

Maybe NASA was just better at making these sorts of determinations than Trevor Weaver is.

 

[JayUtah]

I think you mean "Make them wear personal dosimeters at the very least". Which they did.

To be clear, those measure different things. A counter measures how much radiation something is currently emitting. A dosimeter measured how much radiation was previously absorbed.

 

[JayUtah]

That is just post hoc ergo proper hoc logical fallacy reasoning. "Oh, there are no stars in the pics because it's not possible to photograph the stars, as you can see, the sky is black in the photos, which proves it'. Or, "They weren't there to photograph or look at the stars, so that explains it."

No, both of those statements are true representations of fact. You are the one trying to equivocate between two dissimilar arguments. One statement rebuts one of your versions. The other rebuts the other.

Marcus Allen claims stars should be incidentally visible in the photos with the existing available settings. You claimed to have verified this. Later you conceded that it would take tens of seconds to expose stars. Explain how your claim can still be true. Explain how Allen’s claim can still be true.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

And starlight of course but for all intents and purposes that's negligible. (Certainly, if your intents or purposes are photography with your modified Hasselblad.)

 

[Vixen]

Now you sound like you cannot conceive of anyone happening to know anything that you don't already know yourself, so you assume they must be making it up. Maybe try getting over yourself once in a while.

No. Weaver made the real and valid point about dangerous solar storms that can cause lethal piercing to the human body. Pat Norris: "They can just hide behind a rock".

The issue of one light source giving rise to parallel line shadows: a merry-looking Tony Cook: "Ah, here's a pic of a pavement kerb showing an angled shadow".

So, thank you so much for your similar reassurances.

 

[Mojo]

That is just post hoc ergo proper hoc logical fallacy reasoning. "Oh, there are no stars in the pics because it's not possible to photograph the stars, as you can see, the sky is black in the photos, which proves it'. Or, "They weren't there to photograph or look at the stars, so that explains it."

No, it isn't. It’s just pointing out what they were supposed to be doing with the camera.

It would be quite possible to photograph the stars from the Moon's surface with a camera using the appropriate settings. It isn't possible to photograph the stars with cameras set to photograph sunlit items on the Moon's surface.

Because the astronauts were using cameras set to photograph sunlit items, it wasn't possible for them to photograph the stars.

Got that?

 

[JayUtah]

No. Weaver made the real and valid point about dangerous solar storms that can cause lethal piercing to the human body. Pat Norris: "They can just hide behind a rock".

Weaver is not an expert. No such storms occurred during the Apollo missions. His idea of prudence is noted, but irrelevant.

The issue of one light source giving rise to parallel line shadows: a merry-looking Tony Cook: "Ah, here's a pic of a pavement kerb showing an angled shadow".

Yet another hoax claim defeated by demonstrable fact.

So, thank you so much for your similar reassurances.
[/QUOTE]
These are facts. They are ultimately reassuring.

 

[Vixen]

No, both of those statements are true representations of fact. You are the one trying to equivocate between two dissimilar arguments. One statement rebuts one of your versions. The other rebuts the other.

Marcus Allen claims stars should be incidentally visible in the photos with the existing available settings. You claimed to have verified this. Later you conceded that it would take tens of seconds to expose stars. Explain how your claim can still be true. Explain how Allen’s claim can still be true.

I didn't say I verified it, I said I thought he made a valid point. He may be wrong but simply writing him off as a pesky CT-er was bad form IMV.