Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Axxman300]

You don't understand that the space race was political...?

And?

NASA was a biproduct of our ICBM program. The guys building nuclear missiles would sit around the break room and discuss other ideas for things we could do with our rockets. One of the ideas was to put men in space. First we'd go into orbit, and if we could build a multi-stage rocket we could reach the moon, or further. Ike thought it would be a wise idea since the Soviets were already leaning in that direction. Then came Sputnik, and we were off to the races.

So what?

The United States spent billions on machines that didn't anyone (intentionally). Inspired a generation of scientists, and in the process of sending men to the moon a long list of products were invented from scratch that made an impact on every day lives of normal people. One of which you currently use to tell us Apollo 11 was fake. I'm not seeing a downside. The classic Earthrise photo from Apollo 8 would launch the environmental movement we know today because it was the first time viewing our home from another world's perspective, and realizing just how small earth is, and maybe it's a good idea to treat it better than a public toilet.

All due to the politics of beating the Ruskies. Sue us.

 

[Vixen]

I think Vixen still cannot properly comprehend that during a Moon day the sun illuminating the surface (and any objects/people on the surface) is stronger than the sun during an Earth day, but yet the sky remains black.

Don't bother patronising me; I mentioned this on Day One.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, I agree, there was a political component, it was a race of sorts with the Soviet Union, and part of the Cold War hostilities. Which makes it even more improbable that Kreml wouldn't have immediately exposed it as a hoax. They would have been gloating about it for ever.

It was if course also part of the incredible scientific leaps, made in the USA in a number of fields, during that era. Which makes me weep when I consider the USA at this moment.

As Trevor Weaver points out, the USSR had no proof, so thus would have been dismissed as 'sour grapes'.

 

[zooterkin]

Don't bother patronising me; I mentioned this on Day One.

More lies. You did no such thing.

 

[Mojo]

Don't bother patronising me; I mentioned this on Day One.

And you've been wittering on about the lack of stars in photos taken on the Moon's surface ever since.

 

[threadworm]

As Trevor Weaver points out, the USSR had no proof, so thus would have been dismissed as 'sour grapes'.

Trevor Weaver is wrong. Again. He is not an authority you should appeal to.

The Soviets tracked Apollo. They had the means to verify if any views of Earth were incorrect.

 

[Vixen]

More lies. You did no such thing.

See post #557 for a start.

Or #99 May 11.

 

[Vixen]

Trevor Weaver is wrong. Again. He is not an authority you should appeal to.

The Soviets tracked Apollo. They had the means to verify if any views of Earth were incorrect.

If something didn't happen and a Sovereign State says it did happen you won't be able to prove it unless you were aware in advance it might be manipulated.

 

[Vixen]

And you've been wittering on about the lack of stars in photos taken on the Moon's surface ever since.

Please quit with the derogatory language.

 

[Mojo]

See post #557 for a start.

Or #99 May 11.

May 11 was Day Three.

And #99 says nothing about the lunar sky being black, it just shows you being rather confused about photography, and ignorant of the Moon's albedo.

 

[Vixen]

May 11 was Day Three.

And #99 says nothing about the lunar sky being black, it just shows you being rather confused about photography, and ignorant of the Moon's albedo.

Day One when the Sun brightness started being discussed re the problems of photography. So the claim I'm a bimbo doesn't quite work does it.

 

[Vixen]

Trevor Weaver is wrong. Again. He is not an authority you should appeal to.

The Soviets tracked Apollo. They had the means to verify if any views of Earth were incorrect.

There's a discussion about the Soviet state of art at the time in the first few pages.

 

[Mojo]

Please quit with the derogatory language.

Please quit wittering on about the lack of stars in photos taken on the Moon's surface.

 

[zooterkin]

See post #557 for a start.

Or #99 May 11.

Something wrong with the quote function? I notice you don't link to either of those posts. I'm predicting that neither of them is on Day One (I already know that, because I checked), and neither of them says what you're implying it does.

Let's go and see:

Post 99 May 11th:

The moon's surface is actually very bright so simply taking a camera designed for earthly parameters - depth of field, focal point, contrast, etc., - is going to be extremely tricky on the moon, especially with thick gloves, limited head movement, resulting in limited field of vision - seems rather optimistic in 1969. Who remembers compact cameras? Awful! Absolutely awful. At least with single lens reflex (SLR) photography, one had some control over the quality but then ... problems with film...developing...keeping slides and negatives in good condition. It's not hard to see why Allen was curious about the Apollo photography. Hardly makes him a scoundrel.

Post 557, May 18th:

That then brings us back to the problem of glare and the effects of radiation on the film.



Obviously, there is no point debating this, as it has been done to death, albeit, never actually 'debunked', as claimed.

Nope, nothing acknowledging what LondonJohn said:

I think Vixen still cannot properly comprehend that during a Moon day the sun illuminating the surface (and any objects/people on the surface) is stronger than the sun during an Earth day, but yet the sky remains black.

And certainly nothing on Day one (May 9th). I make that two lies, at least.

 

[Mojo]

Day One when the Sun brightness started being discussed re the problems of photography. So the claim I'm a bimbo doesn't quite work does it.

I didn't call you a bimbo, I pointed out that you were confused about photography, as demonstrated by your bringing "depth of field, focal point" into a discussion of "the Sun brightness". You were also flat-out wrong about the Moon's albedo.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Don't bother patronising me; I mentioned this on Day One.

On day three, to be pedantic.

You said;

The moon's surface is actually very bright so simply taking a camera designed for earthly parameters - depth of field, focal point, contrast, etc., - is going to be extremely tricky on the moon

Which looks like a list of random photographic terms thrown together without purpose, but never mind that. What you did not mention was the moon's daytime sky being black. That may sound like it goes without saying but your subsequent posting made it clear you had not made the connection between the landings obviously being in daytime and the black sky not indicating it was night time.

 

[Helen]

As Trevor Weaver points out, the USSR had no proof, so thus would have been dismissed as 'sour grapes'.

That would most certainly not have stopped them, even if you had been right that they had no proof. They lied endlessly about the west, and did so to keep their own population less dissatisfied with the situation in the country. They would have blared out news about a Moon hoax from loudspeakers in every village and town around the clock if they'd had the slightest suspicion.

Of course they knew that the moon landning was a success.

 

[Vixen]

Something wrong with the quote function? I notice you don't link to either of those posts. I'm predicting that neither of them is on Day One (I already know that, because I checked), and neither of them says what you're implying it does.

Let's go and see:

Post 99 May 11th:


Post 557, May 18th:



Nope, nothing acknowledging what LondonJohn said:


And certainly nothing on Day one (May 9th). I make that two lies, at least.

The strength of the sun on the Moon has been discussed on numerous occasions and at no point did I ever claim it was like being on Earth.

Please re-evaluate your assumptions before making degrading claims.

 

[zooterkin]

There's a discussion about the Soviet state of art at the time in the first few pages.

The conclusion of which, according to people who know and understand the subject, is that the Soviets were perfectly capable of tracking the Apollo missions.

 

[Vixen]

That would most certainly not have stopped them, even if you had been right that they had no proof. They lied endlessly about the west, and did so to keep their own population less dissatisfied with the situation in the country. They would have blared out news about a Moon hoax from loudspeakers in every village and town around the clock if they'd had the slightest suspicion.

Of course they knew that the moon landning was a success.

That might be true but 'would, could, should' remains speculation, not proof.