Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[catsmate]

That is just post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy reasoning.

No it isn't.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm not surprised, since you evidently don't know how STEM works. @Foster Zygote's statement is perfectly clear and correct to appropriately informed people.

It was, however, affected by the weird bug which sometimes make random bits of text so faint as to be almost invisible if you don't use the same colour mode as the poster. I couldn't read it either.

 

[JayUtah]

It was, however, affected by the weird bug which sometimes make random bits of text so faint as to be almost invisible if you don't use the same colour mode as the poster. I couldn't read it either.

Well that’s unfortunate. I assume the “select the text” trick didn’t work?

 

[Mojo]

Well that’s unfortunate. I assume the “select the text” trick didn’t work?

I'm assuming that someone didn't care.

 

[Pixel42]

Well that’s unfortunate. I assume the “select the text” trick didn’t work?

She didn't know it until I told her (after she made the post you quoted).

 

[Steve]

She didn't know it until I told her (after she made the post you quoted).

That doesn't seem right. There is an implication that Vixen learned something.

 

[Pixel42]

That doesn't seem right. There is an implication that Vixen learned something.

Well she said thanks, but I have no evidence she actually absorbed the information.

 

[Vixen]

The existence of shadows on the lunar surface does not make the problem of photographing stars any different.

Of course it does. Just find a valley or a trough in darkness: bingo! take a pic of the starry firmament.

 

[JayUtah]

Well she said thanks, but I have no evidence she actually absorbed the information.

Whatever, I withdraw the snark. She can have at the actual argument.

 

[JayUtah]

Of course it does. Just find a valley or a trough in darkness: bingo! take a pic of the starry firmament.

The stars do not become objectively brighter simply because you find shade.

 

[steenkh]

Whilst the sun's heat is extremely hot on the Moon, on the other hand the parts still in shadow are extremely cold and very pitch black.

It has no bearing on the photographs, but the parts in shadow are not very pitch black. They are illuminated by the Earth which bigger, and much brighter than the Moon is when seen from Earth. Besides, there may be reflected light from features like mountains, and objects like moon landers.

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 or, conversely, frozen solid.

Irrelevant for the photograph, but no, the temperatures in sunlight and shades are no different in the early lunar morning than other times — but there are more shadows.

 

[Vixen]

Except for the fact that there is scientifically verified evidence of them having been on the moon, including, but not limited to, the behavior of the dust thrown up by the LRVs which matches perfectly with a vacuum environment with 1/6g. They weren't in a studio. The background mountains on the later flights change their perspective at every geology station, in direct contradiction of the claims of idiot conspiracy theorists that they're all identical backdrops. Then there are the thousands of published research papers from geologists all over the world confirming the unique properties of the lunar samples.

ETA: And the notion that they shot the landings in some desert is equally ludicrous. It's been over five decades since Apollo. The notion that, in all that time, no one would be able to match geological features on earth with those from the J-Missions especially is just downright stupid. Maybe they shot on location from beyond the flat earth believers' "ice wall", so that's why nobody can find it?

And they left a ◊◊◊◊-ton of stuff on the moon, which has been photographed from lunar orbit by multiple nations.

Those LRO and Geo-Eye -1 shots are of very poor resolution given today's high technology. Allen says they could be from anywhere, with labels stuck on to tell us what we are seeing. I would put this 'evidence' in the same category as the reflectors one: Gilding the Lily.

 

[Olmstead]

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 or, conversely, frozen solid. But the direction of light isn't affected by heat. So the angle of sunlight on the Moon is exactly the same as on the Earth; i.e., 15° on the Earth is 15° on the Moon, or on Mars or on Planet X. (Assuming a perfect globe, ceteris paribus.)

But they didn't actually go to the moon, so why would it matter when they did the fake photography? When did they do the fake photography? Also, why and how did they get Venus footage?

 

[JayUtah]

Irrelevant for the photograph, but no, the temperatures in sunlight and shades are no different in the early lunar morning than other times — but there are more shadows.

Not true. The lunar surface becomes hotter as the sun rises because the insolation angle increases. However the amount of light from the sun available to illuminate photographs does not increase.

 

[JayUtah]

Allen says they could be from anywhere, with labels stuck on to tell us what we are seeing.

And Allen “could be” a shape-shifting alien. Speculating alternative causes does not make evidence go away.

 

[Vixen]

I'm not surprised, since you evidently don't know how STEM works. @Foster Zygote's statement is perfectly clear and correct to appropriately informed people.

There is no special physics for Apollo that doesn't apply anywhere else such that it can be credibly lied about without consequences. The physics and engineering that apply to Apollo is the same physics and engineering we use to make microwave ovens, lenses for cameras, and bridges that carry heavy loads of passengers over the heads of other people. If you lied about that physics so that by solving fake-physics problems you would make Apollo seem real, all the other solutions in those problem areas would fail. Further, practitioners in other places such as Iran or China, who wouldn't be especially keen to keep America's secrets, would feel obliged to complain. And since they don't want their bridges to fall down and kill people, they would be obliged to learn the real physics, the kind that would say bad things about whether Apollo was real about.

The notion that, say, determinate statics can be rewritten to explain off-balance astronauts means it won't work for the thousands of other problems in that field being solved by thousands of engineers right now. If we're teaching mechanical statics wrong now in order to hide the "truth" about Apollo, then everything that depends on it being right will fall apart, with noticeable and disastrous results. Our present formulation of statics has been around since Newton's time. He got it (mostly) right, and the times when he didn't—which ironically include the deflection of a cantilevered beam under load—are very quickly noticed and corrected. We need these things to be right, therefore they can't be credibly lied about.

Similarly you can't rewrite radiometry to solve the "stars in photos" problem without making radiometry wrong for all the problems we need radiometry to be right for. This includes such things as whether a police helicopter searchlight will blind people. It's all the same physics. There's no branch of physics that applies exclusively to Apollo and can be credibly lied about to hide the notion that it doesn't work.

I thought about how to put this into terms you can understand, but since you seem to be having trouble with basic numbers I'm not sure this will work.

Imagine that you're an accountant at a firm and you need to convince people you aren't cooking the books. You just do whatever it takes to make the bottom line match the bank balance, and then you teach all these new accounting "rules" to your associate accountants. If one of those "rules" is, "Don't carry when you add digits that sum to more than 10," it might make your books balance—the fake ones hiding all the embezzlement—but it won't work for people who aren't faking it. The basic rules of arithmetic are the same for everyone and empirically verifiable. There are certain things you just can't credibly lie about.

So in your cutesy hypothetical about a fictional country teaching its physics and engineering students wrong so that they learn "rules" that make their fake space missions seem plausible, you just let pass in the story the idea that this wouldn't have any catastrophic consequences. Your story relies upon the absurd premise that one can credibly lie about things that will, in fact, be catastrophic. We have a saying around the office, "If you get this wrong, Mother Nature will reach out and slap you over it." There's usually a qualification on "slap" that would be inappropriate to include here.

You might as well say, "NASA faked Apollo and then a wizard appeared and made it all seem real."

Not so. As a chartered accountant, your first duty is to your professional body, not the firm you work for. The first duty of someone in the US military is to the Commander-in-Chief, the President; in the UK, it's the King. Nobody is 'lying' per se, as it could conceivably fall under the Official Secrets Acts not to disclose whatever you come across in your duties, as being in the interests of protecting national security. People are loyal. Why not? There is nothing wrong with being patriotic.

I haven't said NASA 'faked it'; I am objectively weighing up the issues in debate, which means applying objectivity and listening to what the other parties say. I haven't reached a conclusion except filtering out the obvious fluff.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Of course it does. Just find a valley or a trough in darkness: bingo! take a pic of the starry firmament.

How do you do that with the camera settings available?

How close were landing sites to valleys and troughs?

 

[JayUtah]

Not so. As a chartered accountant, your first duty is to your professional body, not the firm you work for.

I was confident you’d find a way to miss the point.

I haven't said NASA 'faked it'; I am objectively weighing up the issues in debate, which means applying objectivity and listening to what the other parties say. I haven't reached a conclusion except filtering out the obvious fluff.

Nonsense.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Those LRO and Geo-Eye -1 shots are of very poor resolution given today's high technology. Allen says they could be from anywhere, with labels stuck on to tell us what we are seeing. I would put this 'evidence' in the same category as the reflectors one: Gilding the Lily.

You know they were tracked all the way to the moon snd signals were received from the moon.

Anyone with a directional antenna could listen in.

 

[Vixen]

I was confident you’d find a way to miss the point.


Nonsense.

How? Where you have division of labour, you just do as commanded. It doesn't mean you have special insight into the aims of the POTUS, assuming NASA guys are classed as military.