Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

They don't twinkle, due to the lack of atmosphere. Reminding us of another of your slips.

Please quit the point-scoring. 'Twinkling' is a turn of phrase, already discussed.

 

[Mojo]

The Earth is protected to a large degree from the sun because of its atmosphere. The full sun on the Moon reaches 120°C, iirc. In addition, its shadows are pitch black.

But we have been through all this already.

Do you understand that the sun is not any dimmer on the Moon than it is on Earth? What the AI has told you here doesn't actually answer the question.

 

[Vixen]

Do you understand that the sun is not any dimmer on the Moon than it is on Earth? What the AI has told you here doesn't actually answer the question.

At no point have I said the sun was dimmer on the Moon.

 

[Pixel42]

Please quit the point-scoring. 'Twinkling' is a turn of phrase, already discussed.

It's an accurate description of stars if you're observing them on earth. It's not an accurate description on the moon.

 

[Vixen]

Why rely on AI?

Why not go to an astronomy source?

It's really kind of you to offer me your wise advice but I can just about get by without it, thanks.

 

[Vixen]

It's an accurate description of stars if you're observing them on earth. It's not an accurate description on the moon.

Yes, I got that point. What is the point of repeating it?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Please quit the point-scoring. 'Twinkling' is a turn of phrase, already discussed.

An incorrect turn of phrase in context. If you can restrain yourself from claiming to be the first to have mentioned points on which you were corrected, I can stop revisiting them too.

 

[zooterkin]

At no point have I said the sun was dimmer on the Moon.

You implied it when you suggested that photos taken in daylight on the moon should show stars in the sky.

 

[Pixel42]

Yes, I got that point. What is the point of repeating it?

The point is that it's not just a turn of phrase, it's a meaningful description.

 

[Vixen]

You implied it when you suggested that photos taken in daylight on the moon should show stars in the sky.

Did you miss where we discussed the early lunar angle of the sun and the black shadows concomitant with semi-darkness?

 

[Vixen]

The point is that it's not just a turn of phrase, it's a meaningful description.

I never said it wasn't. Foster Zygote highlighted the point. Point taken. So we are now never going to hear the end of it? Why?

 

[steenkh]

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.

That depends. If the Soviet Union had claimed that they had sent humans to the Moon, that fakery would have been exposed immediately.

 

[Vixen]

I stand admonished (and rightly so) by a master debater. Maybe you are much more intelligent than everyone else in this thread, Vixen.

The problem is, a small minority (it seems) likes to discuss ideas. Everybody else, apart from a few, just wants to shut them down.

 

[zooterkin]

Did you miss where we discussed the early lunar angle of the sun and the black shadows concomitant with semi-darkness?

No, I saw it, and saw how you failed to understand all the aspects of it.

You eventually conceded an exposure of several seconds would be required to record the stars, which was a setting not available to the Apollo 11 astronauts. You've yet to admit that means that stars would not be visible in any of the photos they took.

 

[JayUtah]

Five pages of Vixenwhinging!

@Vixen, if you knew it took tens of seconds to expose stars, why did you think it was valid for Marcus Allen to claim they should be seen in photos that were taken with only fractions of a second?

 

[LondonJohn]

The problem is, a small minority (it seems) likes to discuss ideas. Everybody else, apart from a few, just wants to shut them down.

Yes. You certainly hold the moral and intellectual high ground. Well done. Maybe your fine efforts in this thread will feature in the next Mensa Monthly......

 

[JayUtah]

The problem is, a small minority (it seems) likes to discuss ideas.

On this subject the most proper thing to discuss is facts. There are facts to be had about the physical world and how it behaves. There are facts about the machines we build and how they work. There are many other kinds of facts.

These facts don't care the slightest for any idea you might have to the contrary. If your ideas contradict fact, your ideas are wrong. You either know enough facts to know whether your subsequent ideas are right or wrong, or you don't. When you don't, you must rely on people who know more facts to correct you.

I'm not discussing. I'm telling you how your ideas are wrong.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Earth is protected to a large degree from the sun because of its atmosphere. The full sun on the Moon reaches 120°C, iirc. In addition, its shadows are pitch black.

But we have been through all this already.

What exactly will "reach 120°C"?

And, as you've been informed several times now, most shadows on the Moon (apart from within relatively deep ravines) are not pitch black: the light of the sun scatters off the lit surface and serves to cast some of this scattered light onto the parts that are in shadow. Please educate yourself by at least looking at some of the Apollo photographs.

And yes, we've been through all this already - but you seem unwilling or unable to learn.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please quit the point-scoring. 'Twinkling' is a turn of phrase, already discussed.

No. The facts are as follows:

1) Stars do indeed often appear to twinkle when viewed from the Earth's surface; this is due to atmospheric disturbance of the starlight. It's therefore perfectly acceptable to discuss the appearance of stars - as viewed from the Earth's surface - as "twinkling".

2) Stars never appear to twinkle when viewed from the surface of the Moon, on account of the fact that the Moon has no atmosphere to disturb the starlight.

3) You erroneously and ignorantly referred to starlight "twinkling" on the Moon. You were wrong. Own it.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's really kind of you to offer me your wise advice but I can just about get by without it, thanks.

As I said before: putting prompts into google and reading off AI or Quora results is an absolute boon to anyone who's fundamentally ignorant about the topic in question - I'm sure you agree.