Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

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."

Straw man.

As you know perfectly well, there are no stars in the photographs because the photographs they planned to take, and did take, would not register stars. Making up other reasoning is just your own fantasy.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

You said you had taken pictures of the night sky in a context that implied Allen's expectations were plausible. He is clearly wrong, and he could have known that at the time. Pretending to be an expert while spouting easily knowable falsehood merits criticism. He was politely refuted on the program, on which he was permitted to make his case unmolested. That he chose simply to ignore the refutation and continue making the same hoax claims over and over again invites people to comment on such a character.

 

[Vixen]

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?

NB that should read 'propter' not 'proper' (thanks, autocorrect).

Seriously, they can photograph the flag and each other on Earth.

 

[Andy_Ross]

"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.

You haven't told us what the radiation issues are though while you have had the actual radiation types and levels explained to you a number of times.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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".

No such storm happened. They could have been killed by a hurricane while in Florida, but no such storm happened there either.

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.

If you can't understand geometry and perspective that's fine - some people's abilities are in different subjects. But please don't assume nobody understands.

 

[Darat]

Test

No such storm happened. They could have been killed by a hurricane while in Florida, but no such storm happened there either.


If you can't understand geometry and perspective that's fine - some people's abilities are in different subjects. But please don't assume nobody understands.

FTFY

 

[JayUtah]

Seriously, they can photograph the flag and each other on Earth.

Irrelevant. There is no reason to expect stars in the Apollo photographs. How you imagine Apollo could or should have been done differently is also irrelevant.

When the Apollo schedule permitted star photography, an appropriate camera was built and flown to do that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Parallel shadows you say?

 

[Vixen]

No such storm happened. They could have been killed by a hurricane while in Florida, but no such storm happened there either.


If you can't understand geometry and perspective that's fine - some people's abilities are in different subjects. But please don't assume nobody understands.

Showing a pic of a pavement kerb in no way debunks the point professional photographer Marcus Allen was making.

The issue here is received wisdom (of course it happened because that's what we have been told, ha ha) <fx reassuring grin because we've never actually thought about it> ~vs~ proving it actually happened. One is not an explanation at all, the other is a pertinent question.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Seriously, they can photograph the flag and each other on Earth.

But if they want to photograph those subjects standing on the moon, they need to be on the moon. Which they were.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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).

Still wrong. And before you were saying that light conditions on the moon are the same as on earth when the sun is at the same angle.

 

[Vixen]

Parallel shadows you say?

From one sole light source. Did you not understand the concept?

 

[Olmstead]

They're called star sailors, not star picture takers.

 

[Vixen]

Still wrong. And before you were saying that light conditions on the moon are the same as on earth when the sun is at the same angle.

No, I have never said that. However, it would be true that it was still semi-dark.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The issue here is received wisdom

No. If anything, the issue here is ignorance.

 

[Andy_Ross]

From one sole light source. Did you not understand the concept?

There's only a single light source in the video, it's the sun.

 

[JayUtah]

Showing a pic of a pavement kerb in no way debunks the point professional photographer Marcus Allen was making.

He was not a professional photographer. He was a professional magazine publisher. The point he was making is thoroughly refuted if a counterexample is shown. Allen is trying to say what must always be the case, such that if it appears not to be the case then we should be suspicious. If what he is saying must not always be the case, his indirect proof fails. And we know both from mathematics and from empirical observation that his "rule" is nonsense.

The issue here is received wisdom...

The issue here is someone blatantly lying under color of expertise.

 

[JayUtah]

From one sole light source. Did you not understand the concept?

Did you watch the part where I showed what happens to shadows when you have one light source?

 

[JayUtah]

However, it would be true that it was still semi-dark.

False, and empirically refuted.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

You're admitting that the settings used to photograph objects and landscape couldn't image stars. It's taken quite a while, but you finally got there.

Already answered. The EVA schedules were tight, and setting up tripods and dedicated camera equipment to take long exposure images that had no scientific value would have been an expensive waste of time. I'm quite sure NASA wasn't thinking ahead to the day when ignorant, self-important people would protest the lack of stars in the photos taken based on false assumptions about film photography.