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.
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.
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.
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.
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
