Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Darat]

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.

It was the pinnacle of human engineering "by hand" - we would struggle to duplicate it today as many of the skills have been lost and people have different skill sets today (and so on). It should be heralded for its amazing achievement.

 

[Helen]

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

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[zooterkin]

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.

Indeed, that was one of the many things you have been corrected on, claiming that sunlight behaved in a different way on the Moon. Notably a topic, among many, on which you've been characteristically silent when asked to explain further.

 

[Vixen]

On day three, to be pedantic.

You said;

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.

I certainly did, when Mojo claimed it was like UK photography.

 

[Helen]

It was the pinnacle of human engineering "by hand" - we would struggle to duplicate it today as many of the skills have been lost and people have different skill sets today (and so on). It should be heralded for its amazing achievement.

Exactly; it was astonishing, and it's a testament to what humans are capable of achieving, much like many medical advancements of the last century, or so.

 

[zooterkin]

I certainly did, when Mojo claimed it was like UK photography.

Quote in context, please. (Because, once again, you are being economical with the actualité.)

 

[LondonJohn]

See post #557 for a start.

Or #99 May 11.

1) Neither of these was on "Day 1"

2) Neither of these fits the bill.

3) You're ignorant and/or lying.

 

[Mojo]

I certainly did, when Mojo claimed it was like UK photography.

Citation needed, for both claims.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Despicably trying to play the sexist card, I see. Shame on you.

And you still don't get it: the whole point is that while the surface (and objects on the surface) is very bright during the Moon day, the sky remains pitch black.

 

[zooterkin]

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

Well, d'uh! Of course it's speculation because, as you yourself have admitted, the moon landings actually happened. There was no hoax for the Soviets to expose.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

It's wholly unsurprising that you're unaware of the concept of - and the power of - empirical proof.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I certainly did, when Mojo claimed it was like UK photography.

My thought was of when you suggested an astronaut turn their back on the sun to see the night sky. Perhaps you'd like to quote yourself getting it right.

 

[LondonJohn]

Indeed, that was one of the many things you have been corrected on, claiming that sunlight behaved in a different way on the Moon. Notably a topic, among many, on which you've been characteristically silent when asked to explain further.

And of course we all remember Vixen ignorantly claiming that the early morning sunlight on the Moon was chosen because it would be less powerful than, say, noon-time sunlight (as, sure, is the case on Earth, but is categorically not the case on the Moon: the power of the sun just after sunrise on the Moon is just the same as the power of the sun when it is directly overhead on the Moon).

 

[Vixen]

Then ignore the "insults" and explain why you thought Marcus Allen had a valid point when he claimed something you knew to be impossible and untrue—that you should see stars in Apollo photos.


Marcus Allen claims it's suspicious that there are no stars in Apollo photographs. He took this claim from Bill Kaysing, who originated it. You may not have specifically looked into his claims, but you're repeating them. Further, you seem to think Kaysing is getting a raw deal, so you seem to have an opinion about him already even though you don't know much about him.

As the topic title suggests, it is a weighing up of the claims of the deniers versus the debunkers. It is possible to take a neutral stance although the general view here seems to be it is taboo to look at the claims of the sceptical side. I looked up Kaysing's book on Amazon but unfortunately it's £20 and not available on Kindle. As I already have several books in my 'to read' pile it might not be soon.

 

[Vixen]

My thought was of when you suggested an astronaut turn their back on the sun to see the night sky. Perhaps you'd like to quote yourself getting it right.

No we were discussing how to avoid low sun glare.

 

[Mojo]

No we were discussing how to avoid low sun glare.

When photographing objects up-sun of them. Have you figured out yet why facing the other way wouldn't work?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

They couldn't film the splashdown because the capsule had got tangled up in a bunch of the fake cardboard stars during reentry, and they had to wait until the waves washed them off before showing it on live TV.

Is that why they were twinkling?

 

[zooterkin]

See post #557 for a start.

Or #99 May 11.

Also, post 99 is before you specifically mentioned dark skies, and how it should be perfectly possible to have the stars visible in the photos the astronauts took, so it doesn't support your case at all.

Post 127:

The problem is as I see it from Allen's POV is that the debunking explanations re his queries about shadows, lighting and dark skies seem to be on a level of insulting the intelligence of a primary school class. For example, Dr. Tony Cook in the OP video brushes it off by showing us pix of shadows going every which way in a local street and then we are given the facile, oh try taking a pic of the night sky whilst standing under a street lamp, as if the average photographer doesn't understand how lighting and apertures work. Please! I've taken pics of the night sky. No problem in catching the stars.

You have been shown here, many times, why your statements are wrong.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As the topic title suggests, it is a weighing up of the claims of the deniers versus the debunkers. It is possible to take a neutral stance although the general view here seems to be it is taboo to look at the claims of the sceptical side. I looked up Kaysing's book on Amazon but unfortunately it's £20 and not available on Kindle. As I already have several books in my 'to read' pile it might not be soon.

Why are you now falling back on Kaysing, when you started by telling us about the compelling claims of Allen? How long were you in your neutral stance before you gleaned that his claims had no merit whatsoever?

You're not fooling anyone by pretending to think we regard looking at the Apollohoaxers' claims as taboo. Nothing in this thread supports that. Bring them forth yet again and let everyone see how wrong they are and why.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Is that why they were twinkling?

Wrinkling.