Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Reformed Offlian]

It is a fact that as soon as you step into a shadow on the Moon you are in pitch blackness.

Not only is this not a fact, it is utterly ridiculous. If you were in pitch blackness you would be unable to see anything (since seeing stuff requires light reaching you from somewhere). An astronaut standing in the shadow of the LM could still see all the sunlit areas of the moon about him, which means that light reflected from those areas was reaching him. That's why we are still able to see the astronauts standing in the shadowed part of the LM in photographs.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Would you be able to take photographs of them using the film speed and camera settings available to the Apollo astronauts on the Moon?

 

[threadworm]

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

And it takes no time at all, once Allen gets through his standard well-worn patter to fill air time, to come across the first set of fallacies. Allen had decided that a specific form of evidence was required to satisfy him, namely the radiation environment of the lunar surface. He is unable to find any, ergo there is some sort of problem and he can start his JAQ-ing off routine.

The moon exists in space, and has no protection from radiation, and ample evidence of the nature of radiation in space was available at the time. His gatekeeping of sources is his problem, not the lack of them.

Hoax claimant SOP: demand a very specific form of evidence that they hope doesn't exist, move the goalposts if it turns out it does.

 

[catsmate]

Read carefully in future. I didn't say Apollo was a 'big fake'.

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

Strawman.

 

[catsmate]

Some of us don't feel threatened by intellectual discussion.

Then stop evading it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

Do you still find his view that stars should have been visible in the astronauts' Hasselblad photos to be convincing?

 

[catsmate]

Please quit with the derogatory language.

Do you know what 'wittering' actually means?

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

No, that is not a fact. Sunlight reflected from the surroundings will light you up.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Do you know what 'wittering' actually means?

RAF base near Stamford?

 

[I Am The Scum]

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.

The conspiracy goes all the way to the top! (The moon is at the top)

 

[catsmate]

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.

Untrue.

But we have been through all this already.

Indeed. But you haven't learned.

 

[catsmate]

The shadows can be pitch black yet the quality of daylight semi-darkness.

This is incoherent and nonsensical rubbish.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The Earth is protected to a large degree from the sun because of its atmosphere.

Which is handy for phenomena like ultraviolet EM, but has very little effect on visible light. This can vary greatly depending on atmospheric particulates, light pollution and cloud cover, but on a clear night, especially at higher altitudes, the difference in apparent magnitude of stars between earth and moon is only a few percent.

The full sun on the Moon reaches 120°C, iirc.

Irrelevant to a discussion of stellar photography.

In addition, its shadows are pitch black.

Only under very unusual conditions. Sure, contrast is higher between light and shadow because of the lack of "fill light" from the sky, but most shadows will have some light reflecting into them from surrounding surfaces.

Here's AS16-106-17354 a photo of House Rock. Note that the area shaded from direct sunlight is, nevertheless, illuminated by light reflecting from the surrounding terrain.


And you're forgetting one very important reflective surface - the earth. The earth's albedo is 158% higher than the moon's, it has a profile 1,246% greater than the moon, and it was always gibbous and in the sky above the landing sites.

But this is all academic, because...

But we have been through all this already.

The thing we've been try to get you to acknowledge is that simply waiting for darkness isn't going to enable a camera to image stars. Someone with an SLR like the Hasselblad 500 who's been taking photos all day, can't look up at the stars in the middle of the night and say, "hang on! Let me go get my camera", then run to the car and grab it, point it at the sky without any adjustment, and later develop images that look like what they saw of the stars with their eyes. You've come close to correcting this assumption by acknowledging that, among other considerations, you'd need to expose the film for thousands (10³) of times more than the appropriate exposure time for sunlight photography, but you've yet to come straight out and acknowledge that Allen's claims are factually impossible.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Please quit with the derogatory language.

Do you know what 'wittering' actually means?

Wittering is an English word. Why would anyone even suspect @Vixen knows what it means?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

You do realize that querying AI just gets you a a mix of everything on the internet, regardless of accuracy, regurgitated into a blender and served in smoothie form, yes?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

No. Did you miss all the replies explaining your misconceptions?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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?

I'm pretty sure it was someone else who pointed that out.

 

[steenkh]

No, that is not a fact. Sunlight reflected from the surroundings will light you up.

And earthlight, which is much stronger than moonlight on Earth

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

It's more like one person doesn't like having it pointed out that those ideas are based on false assumptions/claims.

If you don't like reading responses informing you that being in 1/6g doesn't make you 1/6 as strong "because weight ratios", or that being exposed to ionizing particle radiation doesn't make you radioactive, or that you can't photograph stars with a camera using ISO 160, f-5.6 and 1/125 exposure, or any of the numerous other erroneous claims and assumptions you've presented, perhaps you should try educating yourself before you start contradicting science that's decades, and even centuries old.

Or, if you just want people to congratulate you on how clever you are, you could just go to an Apollo conspiracy theory forum. They won't bother checking anything you say/parrot as long as you don't check anything they say/parrot. They'll be happy to pat your back as long as you pat there's. Then you can all feel smugly superior to millions of actual scientists and engineers all over the world.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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,

The only other "completely different circumstance " that you've managed to posit is that the sky is black. But that doesn't mean that you can photograph stars with the cameras as they were using them. The sad thing is that you clearly know this because you went and looked up "how to photograph stars" and learned that it's much more complicated than "wait 'till the sky is black", because you've since admitted the need for an exposure time of at least several seconds. But you can't bring yourself to admit that Allen, and you, are wrong.