Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Matthew Best]

If you were on the Moon you would very much want a pic of the starry skies.

Why? What purpose would it serve?

 

[Mojo]

No, that was Mojo's claim. He kept claiming Moon daylight was the same as the earth, all other things excepted. His argument was you can't take pics of stars during daytime on Earth and applied it to the Moon, failing to realise the completely different circumstances,

You can't take photos of stars in the daytime on Earth for exactly the same reason the the astronauts couldn't take photos of stars on the Moon: because the film, shutter speed and aperture settings needed to photograph stars would result in everything else being completely overexposed.

 

[sackett]

Why? What purpose would it serve?

It would show astronauts & their rocket ship standing in full sunlight
under a black sky studded with twinkling stars! just like in the movies and
on the cover of Astonishing Stories. Maybe with a green monster-villain too. Or a
Flame-Man of Io.

That'd put those commie russians' foot in their mouth!

 

[JayUtah]

Why? What purpose would it serve?

Nothing @Vixen said there had anything to do with what I asked. The question is not what photos could or should have been taken. The question is about the photos that were taken.

Marcus Allen shows us those Apollo 11 surface exploration photos and tells us that if they had really been taken on the Moon, you should see stars in the black sky. But Vixen tells us it takes tens of seconds to expose stars against a black sky on that film. My question is how to reconcile that. Was Marcus Allen's expectation reasonable in light of the facts?

 

[Vixen]

For those interested in Marcus Allen's views, here's an interview with The Moore Show. (Skip to 3:00 to avoid the blurb.)

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

So if the U.S. falsely says it sent people to the moon nine times, then the Soviet Union won't be able to point out that its tracking network sees nothing, and that none of the communications are coming from the moon or lunar orbit, but rather from low earth orbit, unless they know in advance that the U.S. was planning on faking it?

That makes no sense. It's literally like saying that the Soviet missile tracking network couldn't track an incoming ICBM attack unless they knew it was coming in advance.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

As I recall that discussion mostly involved expressing amusement regarding your incredulity about the Soviet Union having radio technology.

 

[zooterkin]

For those interested in Marcus Allen's views, here's an interview with The Moore Show. (Skip to 3:00 to avoid the blurb.)

All points which have already been addressed, debunked, and dismissed multiple times in this thread. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and if you keep repeating his points, neither do you.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, that was Mojo's claim. He kept claiming Moon daylight was the same as the earth, all other things excepted. His argument was you can't take pics of stars during daytime on Earth and applied it to the Moon, failing to realise the completely different circumstances,

But he's right.
You have had this explained many times already

 

[JayUtah]

For those interested in Marcus Allen's views...

I do not need you to instruct me on the hoax claims, as I am already a recognized expert in the field.

I'm asking about a particular claim. Marcus Allen tells us that stars should be visible in the existing Apollo 11 photos. But you have agreed that it takes tens of seconds to expose stars on that film. Are Marcus Alllen's expectations on this point therefore reasonable?

 

[Andy_Ross]

You haven't followed the thread as I have never claimed the Moon had an atmosphere; quite the opposite as I have pointed out many times. BUT when the sun on the Moon is very low in the sky, it casts pitch black shadows (if you can find a black wall of rock blocking these rays, in theory, you have a perfect dark room for star photography using anti-UV filters). It is a fact that as soon as you step into a shadow on the Moon you are in pitch blackness.

You are just trolling now

 

[Andy_Ross]

If you can find a valley or trough that puts you in pitch black darkness with a very early morning sun with day having barely broken I don't see why they wouldn't be visible. The sun is blazing away here and yet I can see a waxing gibbous [corr.] Moon in the sky very clearly.

Because the moon reflects sunlight.

Are you being deliberately stupid now?

 

[Andy_Ross]

But why would you do that? That works for touristy-type holiday snaps, where you want pics of Aldrin posing in his spacesuit. But you can take such a picture on Earth. If you were on the Moon you would very much want a pic of the starry skies. Obviously it wouldn't be a fast shutter speed of guys posing in bright sunlight.

You'd find a nice dark spot, select a long shutter speed, perhaps trying out different ranges. Sure some won't come out but what's stopping you from even trying?

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Why would you want a picture of the starry sky when you can take the same picture on earth?

 

[LondonJohn]

The sun is blazing away here and yet I can see a waxing gibbous [corr.] Moon in the sky very clearly.

You corrected "I can see a crescent Moon in the sky very clearly" to "I can see a waxing gibbous Moon in the sky very clearly".

A crescent Moon and a waxing gibbous Moon look extremely different from one another. No way could one confuse them.

You claimed to see the Moon in the sky very clearly.

How therefore did you confuse a crescent Moon with a waxing gibbous Moon?

Or did you perhaps change "crescent" to "waxing gibbous" in order to try to sound more knowledgeable and erudite....?

ETA: Or, most likely, did you suddenly think to look up the actual current phase of the Moon - which is indeed waxing gibbous - and then correct your statement? Which in itself leads to the question: how and why did you originally write "I can see a crescent Moon in the sky very clearly", when obviously you could in reality see no such thing, "very clearly" or otherwise?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why? What purpose would it serve?

They would allow hoax promoters to claim they had to be taken on Earth because it wasn't possible on the moon. Plus, why would they waste time taking pictures of the stars?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So if the U.S. falsely says it sent people to the moon nine times, then the Soviet Union won't be able to point out that its tracking network sees nothing, and that none of the communications are coming from the moon or lunar orbit, but rather from low earth orbit, unless they know in advance that the U.S. was planning on faking it?

That makes no sense. It's literally like saying that the Soviet missile tracking network couldn't track an incoming ICBM attack unless they knew it was coming in advance.

Yes, it is an extraordinarily stupid argument. Which explains why the person who is making that argument is making that argument.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Not to mention that there were other technological nations with the ability to track objects in space, and determine whether signals were being emitted by objects in low earth orbit, or on or around the moon.

 

[steenkh]

So if the U.S. falsely says it sent people to the moon nine times, then the Soviet Union won't be able to point out that its tracking network sees nothing, and that none of the communications are coming from the moon or lunar orbit, but rather from low earth orbit, unless they know in advance that the U.S. was planning on faking it?

Well, I can give @Vixen a hint of how to deal with this argument: of course the fakery involved setting up relay stations on the Moon to issue those radio transmissions so that the silly Russians would think there were humans on the Moon. Just like they sent fake moon landers, mirrors, and devices to make tracks in the regolith so that future lunar orbiters would be fooled as well.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You corrected "I can see a crescent Moon in the sky very clearly" to "I can see a waxing gibbous Moon in the sky very clearly".

A crescent Moon and a waxing gibbous Moon look extremely different from one another. No way could one confuse them.

You claimed to see the Moon in the sky very clearly.

How therefore did you confuse a crescent Moon with a waxing gibbous Moon?

Or did you perhaps change "crescent" to "waxing gibbous" in order to try to sound more knowledgeable and erudite....?

ETA: Or, most likely, did you suddenly think to look up the actual current phase of the Moon - which is indeed waxing gibbous - and then correct your statement? Which in itself leads to the question: how and why did you originally write "I can see a crescent Moon in the sky very clearly", when obviously you could in reality see no such thing, "very clearly" or otherwise?

I always thought "waxing gibbous" sounded like it should mean: "waxing eloquent a la Edward Gibbon."

 

[Mojo]

You haven't followed the thread as I have never claimed the Moon had an atmosphere; quite the opposite as I have pointed out many times. BUT when the sun on the Moon is very low in the sky, it casts pitch black shadows (if you can find a black wall of rock blocking these rays, in theory, you have a perfect dark room for star photography using anti-UV filters). It is a fact that as soon as you step into a shadow on the Moon you are in pitch blackness.

Not if any illuminated area is still visible to you.