Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[steenkh]

A picture that @Vixen thinks is taken in a Moon set on Earth is probably not going to to persuade her that when on the Moon, being the shade will turn off every other available light source.

 

[threadworm]

A picture that @Vixen thinks is taken in a Moon set on Earth is probably not going to to persuade her that when on the Moon, being the shade will turn off every other available light source.

Oh I'm absolutely certain there will be some goalpost shifting any time now. She didn't mean that sort of shadow, she meant other sorts of shadows, shadows that were photographed at 10am on a Wednesday by a dwarf in clown shoes...

 

[Vixen]

So we can start coming to some conclusions in respect of the Terms of Reference for this thread, as in the thread title, namely the so-called 'hoaxers' versus the 'debunkers'.

Proposition no. 1. As put by Marcus Allen and Trevor Weaver (see OP video): "The Apollo 11 photos cannot have been taken on the Moon because they show a clear secondary source of light other than the Sun".

• Debater Jack by the Hedge (thanks for that) confirms clear details on a boulder on the boulder's shadow side.
• Debater Foster Zygote confirms this (albeit by his deafening silence in his distraught inability to spit it out verbalize that shadows on the Moon are indeed pitch black).

Conclusion: Debunk fails. Check.

Proposition no. 2. In the Steve Short Show interview video (up thread)

• (i) Marcus Allen points out that Houston fails to ask whether the guys on the spacecraft are okay after having passed through the highly radioactive Van Allen Belts, as one might expect, given Van Allen was on the NASA team as the expert in this matter.

• (ii) In addition, we see the NASA medic recue crew on 'splashdown' (which we do not see) are completely unconcerned about the radiation hazard risk to the astronauts' health, who are simply sprayed with antiseptic for 'Moon Germs'.

The 'debunker, Pat Norris in the OP video claims - laughingly - the guys could have avoided the highly dangerous radioactivity on the Moon's surface by 'hiding behind a rock'.

Conclusion: The 'debunk' is roundly 'debunked' as utter bunk by Mr. Buncom himself. Check.

Proposition no. 3: It is pointed out by Allen and Weaver in the OP video there are no stars in the black sky in the Apollo 11 photos supposedly taken by a handheld Hasselblad on the Moon surface.

• Patrick Moore at the press conference with the three astronauts asks what stars they saw and Neil Armstrong replies, 'I don't recall'.
• Debunker Jay Utah claims this is because it is impossible to have taken pics of the stars in the sky from the Moon's surface.

Conclusion: It seems highly unlikely the astronauts saw no stars from the Moon surface. As with propositions two and three being rejected as being 'debunked', it remains to be seen whether they were even on the Moon, as claimed. Not debunked as never established to begin with.

Outcome of the debate: "Houston, we have a checkmate!"

 

[steenkh]

I do believe the shadows are almost as dark as @Vixen describes them when you are on the far side of the Moon at full Moon (as seen from Earth). Then you only have starlight and the Milky Way lighting up the shadows.

 

[steenkh]

Proposition no. 1. As put by Marcus Allen and Trevor Weaver (see OP video): "The Apollo 11 photos cannot have been taken on the Moon because they show a clear secondary source of light other than the Sun".

• Debater Jack by the Hedge (thanks for that) confirms clear details on a boulder on the boulder's shadow side.
• Debater Foster Zygote confirms this (albeit by his deafening silence in his distraught inability to spit it out verbalize that shadows on the Moon are indeed pitch black).

Conclusion: Debunk fails. Check.

Nobody, including @Foster Zygote has said that shadows on the Moon are indeed pitch black! I am seriously questioning your reading abilities. Conclusion Debunk succeeded. Check.

Proposition no. 2. In the Steve Short Show interview video (up thread)

• (i) Marcus Allen points out that Houston fails to ask whether the guys on the spacecraft are okay after having passed through the highly radioactive Van Allen Belts, as one might expect, given Van Allen was on the NASA team as the expert in this matter.

• (ii) In addition, we see the NASA medic recue crew on 'splashdown' (which we do not see) are completely unconcerned about the radiation hazard risk to the astronauts' health, who are simply sprayed with antiseptic for 'Moon Germs'.

The 'debunker, Pat Norris in the OP video claims - laughingly - the guys could have avoided the highly dangerous radioactivity on the Moon's surface by 'hiding behind a rock'.

Conclusion: The 'debunk' is roundly 'debunked' as utter bunk by Mr. Buncom himself. Check.

A joke is not a confirmation that the Moon surface is highly dangerous. Why didn't you quote all the 'debunkers' telling you that the radioactive exposure was measured, and posed no danger to the astronauts, nor the rescue crews?
Conclusion: The debunk has succeeded yet again. Check.

Proposition no. 3: It is pointed out by Allen and Weaver in the OP video there are no stars in the black sky in the Apollo 11 photos supposedly taken by a handheld Hasselblad on the Moon surface.

• Patrick Moore at the press conference with the three astronauts asks what stars they saw and Neil Armstrong replies, 'I don't recall'.
• Debunker Jay Utah claims this is because it is impossible to have taken pics of the stars in the sky from the Moon's surface.

Conclusion: It seems highly unlikely the astronauts saw no stars from the Moon surface. As with propositions two and three being rejected as being 'debunked', it remains to be seen whether they were even on the Moon, as claimed. Not debunked as never established to begin with.

Outcome of the debate: "Houston, we have a checkmate!"

The astronauts couldn't recall which stars they saw on the Moon, because they were more interested in the Moon itself, and that doesn't mean that they couldn't see any stars. And there is no reason whatsoever why anybody on their first trips to Moon would want to photograph stars. A photograph of the Moon's surface will not show the stars, which has been explained to you ad nauseam.
Conclusion: Another success for debunk. Check.

Outcome of the debate: A complete failure for @Vixen who has demonstrated low reading comprehension, no understanding of physics, and a lying disposition.

 

[threadworm]

So we can start coming to some conclusions in respect of the Terms of Reference for this thread, as in the thread title, namely the so-called 'hoaxers' versus the 'debunkers'.

Proposition no. 1. As put by Marcus Allen and Trevor Weaver (see OP video): "The Apollo 11 photos cannot have been taken on the Moon because they show a clear secondary source of light other than the Sun".

• Debater Jack by the Hedge (thanks for that) confirms clear details on a boulder on the boulder's shadow side.
• Debater Foster Zygote confirms this (albeit by his deafening silence in his distraught inability to spit it out verbalize that shadows on the Moon are indeed pitch black).

Conclusion: Debunk fails. Check.

Proposition no. 2. In the Steve Short Show interview video (up thread)

• (i) Marcus Allen points out that Houston fails to ask whether the guys on the spacecraft are okay after having passed through the highly radioactive Van Allen Belts, as one might expect, given Van Allen was on the NASA team as the expert in this matter.

• (ii) In addition, we see the NASA medic recue crew on 'splashdown' (which we do not see) are completely unconcerned about the radiation hazard risk to the astronauts' health, who are simply sprayed with antiseptic for 'Moon Germs'.

The 'debunker, Pat Norris in the OP video claims - laughingly - the guys could have avoided the highly dangerous radioactivity on the Moon's surface by 'hiding behind a rock'.

Conclusion: The 'debunk' is roundly 'debunked' as utter bunk by Mr. Buncom himself. Check.

Proposition no. 3: It is pointed out by Allen and Weaver in the OP video there are no stars in the black sky in the Apollo 11 photos supposedly taken by a handheld Hasselblad on the Moon surface.

• Patrick Moore at the press conference with the three astronauts asks what stars they saw and Neil Armstrong replies, 'I don't recall'.
• Debunker Jay Utah claims this is because it is impossible to have taken pics of the stars in the sky from the Moon's surface.

Conclusion: It seems highly unlikely the astronauts saw no stars from the Moon surface. As with propositions two and three being rejected as being 'debunked', it remains to be seen whether they were even on the Moon, as claimed. Not debunked as never established to begin with.

Outcome of the debate: "Houston, we have a checkmate!"

The safest conclusion to which we can arrive is that you have failed to pay attention to anything that has been posted in this thread. The deluded grifting of hoax proponents consists of an entire raft of fallacies and a dearth of facts,. You have been provided with facts buyt choose to ignore them.

Proposition no. 1: Allen has not demonstrated that there is a secondary light source, he has merely claimed it. The secondary lights source of Earth has naturally been ignored. Not all shadows are pitch black, because light reflects of things. That reflection serves to make observing and photographing stars difficult, even if eyes and cameras were deployed within them. Your claim that the debunk has failed, fails.

Proposition no. 2: If I ran the zoo, yet again. People not doing things the way you think they should be done is not a sign that they weren't done, weren't done correctly or appropriately, or that you are correct. Your claim that the debunk has failed, fails.

Proposition no. 3: Moore was asking, in a badly phrased question, about stars in the solar corona. Armstrong did not see any stars in the solar corona. Here are Armstrong's exact words:

"We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see."

(my emphasis). His recollection of seeing stars is specifric to photographing the corona. That corona is in the Syrveyor 7 image I posted previously, an image that took 15 minutes to take and revealed very few stars.

They saw stars on the surface, through the optics. I am pretty sure that Jay did not say it was impossible to photograph stars from the surface, just impossible with the equipment available and the circumstances at the time. Your claim that the debunk has failed, fails.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I do believe the shadows are almost as dark as @Vixen describes them when you are on the far side of the Moon at full Moon (as seen from Earth). Then you only have starlight and the Milky Way lighting up the shadows.

Yes because that is night time

 

[Andy_Ross]

Vixen does all this deliberately.

There's no way anyone could get wrong every detail on every subject they post about.
Not only that but continue to repeat the errors when shown them, then add new errors on top.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So we can start coming to some conclusions in respect of the Terms of Reference for this thread, as in the thread title, namely the so-called 'hoaxers' versus the 'debunkers'.

Proposition no. 1. As put by Marcus Allen and Trevor Weaver (see OP video): "The Apollo 11 photos cannot have been taken on the Moon because they show a clear secondary source of light other than the Sun".

• Debater Jack by the Hedge (thanks for that) confirms clear details on a boulder on the boulder's shadow side.
• Debater Foster Zygote confirms this (albeit by his deafening silence in his distraught inability to spit it out verbalize that shadows on the Moon are indeed pitch black).

Conclusion: Debunk fails. Check.

Proposition no. 2. In the Steve Short Show interview video (up thread)

• (i) Marcus Allen points out that Houston fails to ask whether the guys on the spacecraft are okay after having passed through the highly radioactive Van Allen Belts, as one might expect, given Van Allen was on the NASA team as the expert in this matter.

• (ii) In addition, we see the NASA medic recue crew on 'splashdown' (which we do not see) are completely unconcerned about the radiation hazard risk to the astronauts' health, who are simply sprayed with antiseptic for 'Moon Germs'.

The 'debunker, Pat Norris in the OP video claims - laughingly - the guys could have avoided the highly dangerous radioactivity on the Moon's surface by 'hiding behind a rock'.

Conclusion: The 'debunk' is roundly 'debunked' as utter bunk by Mr. Buncom himself. Check.

Proposition no. 3: It is pointed out by Allen and Weaver in the OP video there are no stars in the black sky in the Apollo 11 photos supposedly taken by a handheld Hasselblad on the Moon surface.

• Patrick Moore at the press conference with the three astronauts asks what stars they saw and Neil Armstrong replies, 'I don't recall'.
• Debunker Jay Utah claims this is because it is impossible to have taken pics of the stars in the sky from the Moon's surface.

Conclusion: It seems highly unlikely the astronauts saw no stars from the Moon surface. As with propositions two and three being rejected as being 'debunked', it remains to be seen whether they were even on the Moon, as claimed. Not debunked as never established to begin with.

Outcome of the debate: "Houston, we have a checkmate!"

You know this is garbage. We know this is garbage.

Now can we finally move on to you answering the question about whether the Hasselblad photos from the lunar surface ought to have shown stars?

(I already know the answer is no, we can't, you won't.)

 

[Mojo]

A picture that @Vixen thinks is taken in a Moon set on Earth is probably not going to to persuade her that when on the Moon, being the shade will turn off every other available light source.

And light reflected from other parts of the surface will be unable to get into the shadows because of the lack of atmosphere. That's why the Moon is invisible.

Moonlight is a hoax!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Proposition no. 1. As put by Marcus Allen and Trevor Weaver (see OP video): "The Apollo 11 photos cannot have been taken on the Moon because they show a clear secondary source of light other than the Sun".

False. They don't. This would not confuse a child. You know they don't show a clear secondary source of light other than the sun. Just like on earth, shadows are filled with sunlight reflected from nearby objects. Unlike earth, there is no contribution from the blue sky.

If there were a "clear secondary source", objects would cast a clear secondary shadow, but they do not. Debunk sustained.



Now will you answer the question about stars in photos?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Proposition no. 2. In the Steve Short Show interview video (up thread)

• (i) Marcus Allen points out that Houston fails to ask whether the guys on the spacecraft are okay after having passed through the highly radioactive Van Allen Belts, as one might expect, given Van Allen was on the NASA team as the expert in this matter.

• (ii) In addition, we see the NASA medic recue crew on 'splashdown' (which we do not see) are completely unconcerned about the radiation hazard risk to the astronauts' health, who are simply sprayed with antiseptic for 'Moon Germs'.

Gibberish, and you know it.

The Van Allen belts are not radioactive as you perfectly well know by now and you're just deliberately unresponsive to constant corrections on this.
The astronauts' state of health was being constantly monitored and there was no such expectation of asking them if they felt okay.

There is nothing the rescue crew could do about whatever radiation dose the astronauts had been exposed to. You know that.

Neither of these points stands up. Debunk sustained.



Now will you answer the question about stars in photos?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Proposition no. 3: It is pointed out by Allen and Weaver in the OP video there are no stars in the black sky in the Apollo 11 photos supposedly taken by a handheld Hasselblad on the Moon surface.

• Patrick Moore at the press conference with the three astronauts asks what stars they saw and Neil Armstrong replies, 'I don't recall'.
• Debunker Jay Utah claims this is because it is impossible to have taken pics of the stars in the sky from the Moon's surface.

Conclusion: It seems highly unlikely the astronauts saw no stars from the Moon surface. As with propositions two and three being rejected as being 'debunked', it remains to be seen whether they were even on the Moon, as claimed. Not debunked as never established to begin with.

Why do you lie?

Jay explained in detail why those cameras could not have photographed stars, and that entirely debunks the proposition.

We are waiting in vain for you to address that point.

 

[threadworm]

Have some Apollo star photography.

This Apollo 16 image, taken on the way back to Earth, was captured with a Nikon camera, on film specifically intended for low light photography, an aperture of f1.2, and an exposure time of 1 second. Lights in the command module were cut to a minimum, and shielding used to hide what light remained. The brightest object is Venus. Mars and Saturn are also present. The Milky Way, not so much. Even wth specific equipment, the majesty of the heavens is a difficult thing to photograph.

March to the Moon

Digital image archive for NASA Apollo Gemini Mercury mission photography.

tothemoon.im-ldi.com

 

[LondonJohn]

Foster Zygote, shadows on the Moon are always pitch black, yes or no?

No.


You don't have the first idea what you're talking about. It's pathetic.

 

[JayUtah]

So we can start coming to some conclusions...

There is no "we." I've been doing this for decades. You're just getting started, and doing worse than literally everyone else except in the department of maximizing attention paid to you.

Proposition no. 1. As put by Marcus Allen and Trevor Weaver (see OP video): "The Apollo 11 photos cannot have been taken on the Moon because they show a clear secondary source of light other than the Sun".

Asked and answered. No actual evidence of any "secondary source" is presented. Instead, photographers the world over demonstrate how reflected light works despite the utter mystification of "experts" like Allen. I did so in the OP video, and Weaver cites to me as an expert in his book.

Proposition no. 2. In the Steve Short Show interview video (up thread)

• (i) Marcus Allen points out that Houston fails to ask whether the guys on the spacecraft are okay after having passed through the highly radioactive Van Allen Belts, as one might expect...

No, only as Marcus Allen expects.

• (ii) In addition, we see the NASA medic recue crew on 'splashdown' (which we do not see) are completely unconcerned about the radiation hazard risk to the astronauts' health, who are simply sprayed with antiseptic for 'Moon Germs'.

Because they know how radiation works, and you and Allen don't.

Proposition no. 3: It is pointed out by Allen and Weaver in the OP video there are no stars in the black sky in the Apollo 11 photos supposedly taken by a handheld Hasselblad on the Moon surface.

​

• Patrick Moore at the press conference with the three astronauts asks what stars they saw and Neil Armstrong replies, 'I don't recall'.

Asked and answered twice. Ignored by you now three times.

• Debunker Jay Utah claims this is because it is impossible to have taken pics of the stars in the sky from the Moon's surface.

And you agreed.

You found out it takes tens of seconds to expose stars on ISO 160 film, only you're too dishonest to admit this simple fact known to photographers worldwide makes Allen's "expert" opinion laughable.

No, you're not the smartest person in the room. No, you're not the scorekeeper for your own debate. No, you don't know what you're talking about. No, Marcus Allen wasn't a sincere seeker after truth.

 

[JayUtah]

I am pretty sure that Jay did not say it was impossible to photograph stars from the surface, just impossible with the equipment available and the circumstances at the time. Your claim that the debunk has failed, fails.

Correct. The notion that the Hasselblad 70 mm cameras were meant to cover all possible or contemplated photographic tasks is absurd. Apollo 11 also carried a special 35 mm camera for taking close ups of the lunar surface. You can see this device in the pictures Armstrong took when he walked back to West Crater while carrying it. Similarly when the time came in the Apollo program plan to take photographs of the stars in the UV band not visible from Earth, a special camera was provided.

The Hasselblad cameras were modified to make them simpler to operate on the lunar surface for the photography they were intended for. As a consequence, this made it impossible to set them up to photograph stars.

But that's not the right question.

Marcus Allen claims stars should be incidentally visible in the Apollo 11 70 mm photography. Marcus Allen is flatly wrong according to the physical facts, and every serious photographer the world over knows this. Allen's claims only fool lazy lay people, and he made them only to sell his magazine to gullible people. He's not an expert photographer. He's not even a competent photographer.

@Vixen made the mistake of discovering and reporting the correct answer for how long it would take to expose stars on ISO 160 film. Now she's being typically evasive against having to admit that Allen's expectations were at once seen to be laughably unreasonable. She already committed to his claim, and now she knows full well that the claim is easily false. All the vigorous gymnastics about whether shadows on the Moon are dark are purely to distract from her characteristic dishonesty.

Maybe if she keeps fringe-resetting we can make it to 200 pages before the end of July.

 

[steenkh]

Yes because that is night time

Well, nighttime on the Earth-facing side is much brighter than we are used to on Earth

 

[SteveAitch]

Vixen does all this deliberately.

There's no way anyone could get wrong every detail on every subject they post about.
Not only that but continue to repeat the errors when shown them, then add new errors on top.

Ah, errors all the way down? I always thought there was something odd about the universe...

 

[Reformed Offlian]

So we can start coming to some conclusions in respect of the Terms of Reference for this thread, as in the thread title, namely the so-called 'hoaxers' versus the 'debunkers'.

Every one of the points you listed was already addressed and debunked thoroughly. Fringe reset attempt fail.