Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

This is where the avoidance of the question comes in ...

Yeah, I've noticed a bit of that.

Are you ever going to get around to addressing the question of whether the photos should have shown stars?

(Nope, obviously.)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This is descending into the realms of faith and philosophy rather than simple objective fact gathering.

Tell us about the simple objective fact that 1/125 sec exposure at f5.6 on ISO160 film is not going to resister stars.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Please concentrate.

Please answer the question you said you were going to answer next but then didn't.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Okay so I am out.

Let's call it au revoir.

 

[Andy_Ross]

This is where the avoidance of the question comes in in the OP video. Kaysing states the astronauts refuse to speak about the stars (to paraphrase his belief) yet instead of debunking the claim NASA made a 'conscious decision' to leave the stars out, according to Kaysing, Tony Cook simply launches off into a non sequitur - as does Patrick Moore - of what the human eye can and cannot see instead of answering the 'hoaxer' question. Simply adopting a condescending tone of 'let's reassure the five-year-old-children there is no bogeyman under the bed <fx ha ha ha let's just laugh it off as childlike silliness> is really what makes it a poor 'debunk' to a reasonable point. And we can see that Moore has a tone of faux-jollity to carefully place the question in a specific term rather than the broader one as set by Kaysing.

View attachment 73062


View attachment 73063

View attachment 73064

View attachment 73065


See how the claim is dismissed by instead of answering Kaysing's point, they start focusing on a very specific example of 'if you are on the daylight side of the Moon (=implying full bright sunshine and full albedo [ha! got the word in]) then the human eye <fx yawn launches into a totally obfuscating lecture on how the human eye works> so I am afraid it made me frown at how the question was neatly side-stepped and presented as a 'debunk' when it was nothing of the sort. For one, the astronauts were there at Moon dawn not 'daylight'.

You yourself handwave it away as you've taken pictures of solar eclipses and you don't recall seeing stars (er, of course not!) but these guys were the 'first men on the Moon', remember? Heightened emotions and awareness, rather like the day you got married or graduated or your kid was born. Not, oh we had a great holiday on the Moon, but can't remember whether we saw stars. 'Erm, ahem, this would be because the human eye blah blah blah...'

Well done!

 

[Darat]

Okay so I am out.

That's honesty - there is nothing to be ashamed of if your intelligence isn't up to following a topic. I remember a thread here about a member's tired photons, I could follow up to a certain point but had to bow out and admit that the topic was now beyond my ability to understand, knowing your own limits is a good thing.

 

[threadworm]

This is where the avoidance of the question comes in in the OP video. Kaysing states the astronauts refuse to speak about the stars (to paraphrase his belief) yet instead of debunking the claim NASA made a 'conscious decision' to leave the stars out, according to Kaysing, Tony Cook simply launches off into a non sequitur - as does Patrick Moore - of what the human eye can and cannot see instead of answering the 'hoaxer' question. Simply adopting a condescending tone of 'let's reassure the five-year-old-children there is no bogeyman under the bed <fx ha ha ha let's just laugh it off as childlike silliness> is really what makes it a poor 'debunk' to a reasonable point. And we can see that Moore has a tone of faux-jollity to carefully place the question in a specific term rather than the broader one as set by Kaysing.

View attachment 73062


View attachment 73063

View attachment 73064

View attachment 73065


See how the claim is dismissed by instead of answering Kaysing's point, they start focusing on a very specific example of 'if you are on the daylight side of the Moon (=implying full bright sunshine and full albedo [ha! got the word in]) then the human eye <fx yawn launches into a totally obfuscating lecture on how the human eye works> so I am afraid it made me frown at how the question was neatly side-stepped and presented as a 'debunk' when it was nothing of the sort. For one, the astronauts were there at Moon dawn not 'daylight'.

You yourself handwave it away as you've taken pictures of solar eclipses and you don't recall seeing stars (er, of course not!) but these guys were the 'first men on the Moon', remember? Heightened emotions and awareness, rather like the day you got married or graduated or your kid was born. Not, oh we had a great holiday on the Moon, but can't remember whether we saw stars. 'Erm, ahem, this would be because the human eye blah blah blah...'

Kaysing's claim can be dismissed because it's false.

We are stardust...

Apollo astronaut star quotes

onebigmonkey.com

 

[Andy_Ross]

Okay so I am out.

No you aren't, you will post exactly the same ◊◊◊◊ again because it gets a reaction.

 

[LondonJohn]

At least we've now factually established that shadows on the lunar surface aren't always pitch black.........

 

[Axxman300]

For one, the astronauts were there at Moon dawn not 'daylight'.

Wow, just wow.

 

[Mojo]

Please concentrate. I was responding to Mojo's claim of what an astronaut might do were he or she to feel radiation sickness versus what actually observably happened.

Did any of the astronauts suffer from radiation sickness?

 

[SuperMurrio]

<snip> Simply adopting a condescending tone of 'let's reassure the five-year-old-children there is no bogeyman under the bed <fx ha ha ha let's just laugh it off as childlike silliness> is really what makes it a poor 'debunk' to a reasonable point.

It's not condescending if the point being debunked is something a five-year-old can figure out though... For example:

<snip> For one, the astronauts were there at Moon dawn not 'daylight'.

A five-year-old could tell you it's daylight at dawn haha.

(Not to mention also read the Apollo 11 flight plan which would tell you when in the lunar day they landed).

 

[JayUtah]

This is descending into the realms of faith and philosophy rather than simple objective fact gathering.

Let me know when you find some.

 

[JayUtah]

,,,is really what makes it a poor 'debunk' to a reasonable point.

Moore's question was reasonable. So was the answer. It wasn't the answer Kaysing wanted, so he made up a bunch of stuff.

You yourself handwave it away as you've taken pictures of solar eclipses and you don't recall seeing stars (er, of course not!) but these guys were the 'first men on the Moon', remember? Heightened emotions and awareness...

No, that's not how the brain works.

 

[dudalb]

Well, all the Gamma Rediation in space is what gave the Fantastic Four their powers......

 

[Thermal]

Apologies, but I fell behind on the thread. Could @Vixen or someone explain why we should think the behavior of reflecting light would change on the moon's surface? Do photons not reflect in a vacuum or something? I can't even loosely follow this 'pitch black' line of thinking on a daytime, sunlit moonscape.

Eta: from.memory, the regalith on the moon's surface has known and understood reflecting properties, yes? Does Vixen deny this?

Eta2: how does Vixen explain seeing a full moon from down here, if light is not reflecting off the moon's surface in that predictable way we know to be true?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

This is where the avoidance of the question comes in in the OP video. Kaysing states the astronauts refuse to speak about the stars (to paraphrase his belief) yet instead of debunking the claim NASA made a 'conscious decision' to leave the stars out, according to Kaysing, Tony Cook simply launches off into a non sequitur - as does Patrick Moore - of what the human eye can and cannot see instead of answering the 'hoaxer' question. Simply adopting a condescending tone of 'let's reassure the five-year-old-children there is no bogeyman under the bed <fx ha ha ha let's just laugh it off as childlike silliness> is really what makes it a poor 'debunk' to a reasonable point. And we can see that Moore has a tone of faux-jollity to carefully place the question in a specific term rather than the broader one as set by Kaysing.

View attachment 73062


View attachment 73063

View attachment 73064

View attachment 73065


See how the claim is dismissed by instead of answering Kaysing's point, they start focusing on a very specific example of 'if you are on the daylight side of the Moon (=implying full bright sunshine and full albedo [ha! got the word in]) then the human eye <fx yawn launches into a totally obfuscating lecture on how the human eye works> so I am afraid it made me frown at how the question was neatly side-stepped and presented as a 'debunk' when it was nothing of the sort. For one, the astronauts were there at Moon dawn not 'daylight'.

You yourself handwave it away as you've taken pictures of solar eclipses and you don't recall seeing stars (er, of course not!) but these guys were the 'first men on the Moon', remember? Heightened emotions and awareness, rather like the day you got married or graduated or your kid was born. Not, oh we had a great holiday on the Moon, but can't remember whether we saw stars. 'Erm, ahem, this would be because the human eye blah blah blah...'

Speaking of not answering questions, when are you going to answer JayUtah's about whether Marcus Allen's claim of being able to image stars with the camera settings used on the moon EVAs was reasonable?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Apologies, but I fell behind on the thread. Could @Vixen or someone explain why we should think the behavior of reflecting light would change on the moon's surface? Do photons not reflect in a vacuum or something? I can't even loosely follow this 'pitch black' line of thinking on a daytime, sunlit moonscape.

 

[Thermal]

View attachment 73081

There's a fine line between belief in magic and general dumbassery, no?

On second thought, maybe no important difference.

 

[JayUtah]

I can't even loosely follow this 'pitch black' line of thinking on a daytime, sunlit moonscape.

It started with @Vixen trying to say you could see and photograph stars easily from the lunar surface because the sky is "pitch black," which she took to mean it's the same as nighttime on Earth. Then it changed to being able to see and photograph stars easily by stepping into the shadow of something, because she thinks "it's pitch black in the shadows" without really understanding what "it" is. Now it's just its own thing—the latest thing she's wrong about and won't let go of. But saying something newly wrong about it every day saves her from having to answer the Marcus Allen photography question.