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 hisbelief) 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.
I would have thought a "triple niner" could have composed a more cogent sentence.
Kaysing's
belief is not based on facts. You've already conceded that the cameras used would require exposure times thousands of times longer than those used in order to image stars. So why are you still citing Kaysing's ignorance based beliefs as facts? Kaysing assumed, out of ignorance, that because the sky was black he should see stars in it.
He didn't know what he was talking about. His hypothesis that NASA didn't know how to fake the stars convincingly so they just left the sky black is utterly
stupid. Not only was he ignorant of the requirements for photographing stars, but he was ignorant of the compositing techniques that could have added them. And they would have been convincing because they would have been images of real stars. But if NASA had done that, professional photographers all over the world would have been asking what the hell was up because, unlike you and Bill Kaysing, they know the limits of photographic equipment.
And the limits of human vision aren't a non sequitur just because they don't conveniently support your ignorance based argument. The Apollo crews were almost always exposed to bright light sources. If you're outdoors at night under bright artificial lightning, like at a sports event, you aren't going to see stars any better than the Apollo crews could. Even if you suddenly turn off all the lights, you'll still need minutes to see even a few stars, and about half an hour for your vision to become completely dark adapted to where you can really see the stars.
You keep talking about facts, but the only "truth" you're interested in is the one you've already decided to believe before attempting to find or construct facts leading to it.
And why would NASA have felt compelled to debunk Kaysing's claims during the interview you're referencing? He didn't make those claims until years later, and even after he did he was an obscure crackpot for many more years after that.
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.
There is no bogeyman under the bed. Don't you realize that in your analogy you're the five-year-old child insisting that there's a monster under your bed? You couldn't have picked a better analogy for your position than this.
And again, none of these people had heard of Bill Kaysing, or his idiotic ideas about stars and photography.
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.
Performative incredulity doesn't make the facts about light levels and human vision any less real. If you're standing in the open in bright sunlight, your eyes aren't going to be able to perceive anything as dim as stars. The visor assemblies used during the EVAs had multiple shades and tinted visors to help the crews deal with the bright light.
For one, the astronauts were there at Moon dawn not 'daylight'.
No. They were there at the earth equivalent of an hour after dawn. And again, because you keep ignoring facts you don't like, lunar dawn is not like earth dawn. There is no pale, predawn light in the east - no gradual increase in light level - no soft, atmospherically filtered glow - no reddish-orange sun dim enough to look at directly with no retinal damage. Without an atmosphere, once the sun has cleared the horizon, it's as bright as it's going to get until it sets.
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...'
Heightened emotions indeed.
Like with your other conspiracy theory threads, you've comprehensively lost this argument, which was never about anything more than trying to play the role of the brilliant outsider who sees what no one else is clever enough to see.
You've been exposed to a plethora of facts that disprove the hoax claims you've presented. You've had your misconceptions explained to you, multiple times. But the sad fact is that you'd rather continue advancing dumb arguments than admit that you were wrong.
www.dreamstime.com
