Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

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

No, that's not how it works. If they'd wanted to photograph stars they wouldn't have needed to find a "valley or a trough" shaded from the sun. All they would have needed to do was to shade the front element of the lens from any direct or reflected light. As long as no sunlight was entering the lens, the camera could have been set up in direct sunlight.

The Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph used by Apollo 16 was simply set up in the shadow of the LM, but that was more for thermal control than lighting.

And you still can't/won't understand that just being in shadow doesn't make you in "total darkness" on the moon. If you climbed down into Hadley Rille when the sun is low enough for one side of the other to be in shadow, there will still be light reflecting off of the opposite slope, which will still cast light on you and your surrounding terrain.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

No, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Engineering is not just “doing as you’re commanded.” NASA is expressly non military.

Objective analysis does not involve making up alternate realities and fantasy scenarios where the facts are different and support your desired conclusions.

 

[threadworm]

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.

The LRO isn't today's technology, it was launched in 2009 with camera technology avaianle at its inception many years before. It did not go to the moon to take photos of Apollo. Allen put no effort into his lazy dismissal. It could not be anywhere, it's the moon

The fact is that Chinese, Japanese, Indian and South Korean probes have photographed the Apollo sites and corroborated what is in the LRO images, and the photographs, 16mm film and live TV from Apollo.

Probed

Modern unmanned probes imaging Apollo sites

onebigmonkey.com

 

[Vixen]

No, that's not how it works. If they'd wanted to photograph stars they wouldn't have needed to find a "valley or a trough" shaded from the sun. All they would have needed to do was to shade the front element of the lens from any direct or reflected light. As long as no sunlight was entering the lens, the camera could have been set up in direct sunlight.

The Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph used by Apollo 16 was simply set up in the shadow of the LM, but that was more for thermal control than lighting.

And you still can't/won't understand that just being in shadow doesn't make you in "total darkness" on the moon. If you climbed down into Hadley Rille when the sun is low enough for one side of the other to be in shadow, there will still be light reflecting off of the opposite slope, which will still cast light on you and your surrounding terrain.

I was simply suggesting a way you could take a pic in those conditions. This suggestion is based on an observable view of very long dark shadows suggesting the opportunity of sufficient lack of bright light in the right place.

 

[JayUtah]

I was simply suggesting a way you could take a pic in those conditions. This suggestion is based on an observable view of very long dark shadow suggesting the opportunity of sufficient lack of bright light in the right place.

The shutter speed needed to expose stars is the same whether you’re standing in shadow or sunlight. It’s determined by the starlight coming from the stars, not the sunlight falling on the lunar surface around you.

 

[Vixen]

The LRO isn't today's technology, it was launched in 2009 with camera technology avaianle at its inception many years before. It did not go to the moon to take photos of Apollo. Allen put no effort into his lazy dismissal. It could not be anywhere, it's the moon

The fact is that Chinese, Japanese, Indian and South Korean probes have photographed the Apollo sites and corroborated what is in the LRO images, and the photographs, 16mm film and live TV from Apollo.

Probed

Modern unmanned probes imaging Apollo sites

onebigmonkey.com

They may have 'corroborated' the images but they remain of low resolution and don't prove anything other than it being claimed as being what is claimed.

 

[JayUtah]

They may have 'corroborated' the images but they remain of low resolution and don't prove anything other than it being claimed as being what is claimed.

Multiple camera platforms operated by unrelated entities have photographed the Apollo landing sites. Are they all lying?

 

[Vixen]

The shutter speed needed to expose stars is the same whether you’re standing in shadow or sunlight. It’s determined by the light coming from the stars, not the light falling on the lunar surface.

If you are in the dark countryside, you are in a great position for night sky photography, assuming a lack of cloud. If there are long dark shadows, then being in a space away from the sunlight is also being away from the reflective surface of the ground. Remember: you are looking upwards, not down or ahead.

 

[Vixen]

Multiple camera platforms operated by unrelated entities have photographed the Apollo landing sites. Are they all lying?

I didn't say they were lying; this falls into retrospective 'evidence', rather like the reflectors. That spot has always been there. Giving it a name is not actually proof, more a 'supporting statement'.

 

[Olmstead]

I didn't say they were lying; this falls into retrospective 'evidence', rather like the reflectors. That spot has always been there. Giving it a name is not actually proof, more a 'supporting statement'.

They have all been tricked by landing-site-shaped rocks?

 

[Vixen]

They have all been tricked by landing-site-shaped rocks?

A crewed space craft is not needed to leave stuff there.

 

[JayUtah]

If you are in the dark countryside, you are in a great position for night sky photography, assuming a lack of cloud.

Under those conditions it still takes tens of seconds to expose stars.

Remember: you are looking upwards, not down or ahead.

Which is why it doesn’t matter whether you find a shady patch of ground. It still takes tens of seconds to expose stars, whether you’re standing on shadowed or sunlit ground.

 

[JayUtah]

A crewed space craft is not needed to leave stuff there.

And make tracks consistent with documented human activity, while escaping all scrutiny. Objective analysis does not include grasping at every straw that isn’t the undesirable conclusion.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Really? And now you're an expert on orbital imaging hardware and what it can and can't do? Is there nothing on this world that you don't understand as well as the experts? Are you going to show is a photo you took with your phone of something 20 meters away to "prove" your claim?

Given how compact the LRO's narrow angle camera is, and the fact that its photographing the landing sites from about 50 km away, the resolution is actually quite impressive. The Descent Stages, LRVs, ALSEPs, even tracks from astronauts and the LRVs can be clearly distinguished. Or are you going to argue that those could just be random rocks that only look the the lower stages of the LM, and happen to be placed exactly where the landings were said to be made?

And why do you keep citing this Allen guy when he's so clearly ignorant of even the basics of photography?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I was simply suggesting a way you could take a pic in those conditions. This suggestion is based on an observable view of very long dark shadows suggesting the opportunity of sufficient lack of bright light in the right place.

Except that you've been repeatedly informed that moving from light to dark doesn't magically make a camera set for daytime photography capable of imaging stars.

 

[Steve]

Except that you've been repeatedly informed that moving from light to dark doesn't magically make a camera set for daytime photography capable of imaging stars.

C'mon, if there was no magic Vixen's world would fall apart.

 

[Trebuchet]

Wow. About an hour ago, finding myself 10 pages behind in this thread, I jumped to the last page. I didn't figure I'd miss anything.
And now I was over a page behind again. We have some VERY patient posters in this forum!

 

[Steve]

Wow. About an hour ago, finding myself 10 pages behind in this thread, I jumped to the last page. I didn't figure I'd miss anything.
And now I was over a page behind again. We have some VERY patient posters in this forum!

You can skip all the Vixen posts and not miss anything. except an occasional chuckle. Anything interesting. and factual, is contained in the replies.

 

[JayUtah]

A crewed space craft is not needed to leave stuff there.

Crap like this is how we know you’re neither serious nor objective. You went effortlessly from, “The people who took the orbital pictures are lying,” to, “The objects are real, but were placed there by some other means.” You have absolutely no evidence for either one of those hypotheses.

Objective analysis does not mean trying out any random alternative hypothesis you can think of. If you want to argue that someone is lying, you need evidence of the lie that goes beyond a simple desire to disbelieve. If you want to argue the landers got there some other way, you need evidence of that method, not just the abstract possibility of it.

Imagining that all these idle knee-jerk suggestions amount to a solid rebuttal is tantamount to claiming that the only way you can believe the mainstream claim is if it’s the only thing possible, instead of merely the one best supported by evidence. Objective analysis doesn’t mean constantly shifting the burden of proof away from the hoax claim. That’s a double standard and clearly biased.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I didn't say they were lying; this falls into retrospective 'evidence', rather like the reflectors. That spot has always been there. Giving it a name is not actually proof, more a 'supporting statement'.

Indeed. You did not say they were all independently lying. That would be absurd. You merely cling to the possibility they were all independently lying. Which is absurd.