Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[zooterkin]

Anyone can say anything.

As you constantly demonstrate. Shame it's all nonsense.

 

[Vixen]

People have been altering and retouching photos since the advent of photography. Allen, Percy, and other claims the Apollo photos were composited and retouched to add such details as the photogrammetry crosshairs.

@Foster Zygote asked you the same question I did about Marcus Allen's claim. Allen says stars should incidentally be visible in the Apollo 11 photos. But you know it takes tens of seconds to expose stars on ISO 160 film. Is Marcus Allen's expectation reasonable according to the facts? Do you intend to keep pretending you don't know the correct answer to that question?

Yes, you can play about with contrast and graininess and crop and edit stuff. But knowing where to insert stars from the perspective of a certain point on the Moon at a certain time - to coincide with a 'live' tv broadcast - was wisely scrapped.

 

[JayUtah]

Houston were 100% unconcerned about the potential hazards of radiation.

Unlike any of your sources, Houston properly understood the potential hazards of radiation and extensively documented the science and engineering required to address them.

You said you were not claiming that astronauts never went to the Moon. Does that mean you accept that such missions would have had to safely transit the Van Allen belts in order to do that?

 

[Trausti]

What I don't understand about the Moon hoax is how the US could have pulled it off, multiple times, without the Soviets knowing about it. Surely, if it was fake, they'd know. They had spies and informants everywhere. Yet, they went along with it? And the Soviets had their own unmanned Moon mission at the same time, which failed. So they faced the humiliation of their own failure and congratulated the capitalists for beating them to the Moon? Yeah, that doesn't make any sense.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, you can play about with contrast and graininess and crop and edit stuff. But knowing where to insert stars from the perspective of a certain point on the Moon at a certain time - to coincide with a life broadcast - was wisely scrapped.

Asked and answered.

Marcus Allen says we should be seeing incidental stars in the Apollo 11 photos. But you agree it takes tens of seconds to expose stars on ISO 160 film. Was Allen's expectation reasonable according to the facts? Are you going to continue to pretend this question doesn't have an obvious answer that you are evading?

 

[JayUtah]

What I don't understand about the Moon hoax is how the US could have pulled it off, multiple times, without the Soviets knowing about it. Surely, if it was fake, they'd know. They had spies and informants everywhere.

...including within the Apollo program proper. This was discussed earlier in the thread. You'll find that most people in this thread except for @Vixen agree with your assessment that the Soviets could not have been fooled and would have had no reason to keep quiet about it had they discovered a hoax.

 

[Vixen]

I'm actually rather surprised she hasn't claimed the moon buggy would have burst into flames because of being an EV!

Amazing General Motors invented a fold up EV buggy (or, rather one with a battery/engine in each wheel) yet never mass produced it. It was designed to 'fold up' to fit into the Lunar Module. Meaning the astronauts had to assemble it before use. An amazing invention yet how come these fold up cars never made it to the market, not even today. Instead we had poor old Sir Clive Sinclair inventing the C5 and get mocked and laughed at for it.

 

[JayUtah]

Amazing General Motors invented a fold up EV buggy

Asked and answered. It was made by Boeing.

...yet never mass produced it.

Asked and answered. There is no general market for a lunar rover.

It was designed to 'fold up' to fit into the Lunar Module. Meaning the astronauts had to assemble it before use.

Correct. The training was extensively documented.

An amazing invention yet how come these fold up cars never made it to the market, not even today.

There is no mass market for a foldable lunar rover.

 

[Vixen]

As you constantly demonstrate. Shame it's all nonsense.

Please do concentrate. I was responding to the point that 'someone said they heard the radio transmissions all the way there and back and located them as being correct and proper'. Please resist lapsing into boring tu quoque logical fallacy. <YAWN.>

 

[Steve]

This was the 1960's, remember?

"If you can remember the 60's you weren't really there!"

 

[Vixen]

Asked and answered. It was made by Boeing.


Asked and answered. There is no general market for a lunar rover.


Correct. The training was extensively documented.


There is no mass market for a foldable lunar rover.

That's very convenient!

 

[Mojo]

Amazing General Motors invented a fold up EV buggy (or, rather one with a battery/engine in each wheel) yet never mass produced it. It was designed to 'fold up' to fit into the Lunar Module. Meaning the astronauts had to assemble it before use. An amazing invention yet how come these fold up cars never made it to the market, not even today.

Perhaps they didn't manage to set up a distribution deal with any dealerships on the Moon.

 

[JayUtah]

That's very convenient!

Please see the first line of my forum signature.

 

[Steve]

What I don't understand about the Moon hoax is how the US could have pulled it off, multiple times, without the Soviets knowing about it. Surely, if it was fake, they'd know. They had spies and informants everywhere. Yet, they went along with it? And the Soviets had their own unmanned Moon mission at the same time, which failed. So they faced the humiliation of their own failure and congratulated the capitalists for beating them to the Moon? Yeah, that doesn't make any sense.

Tell Vixen. This is just one of a plethora of facts that refuse to take up residence in her brain.

 

[Vixen]

...including within the Apollo program proper. This was discussed earlier in the thread. You'll find that most people in this thread except for @Vixen agree with your assessment that the Soviets could not have been fooled and would have had no reason to keep quiet about it had they discovered a hoax.

Would could should, when they were likely faking a lot of stuff. "It must be true or the Soviets would have exposed it!" is the worst argument of the lot.

 

[Vixen]

Please see the first line of my forum signature.

See mine.

 

[JayUtah]

"It must be true or the Soviets would have exposed it!" is the worst argument of the lot.

According to whom?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

A conspiracy theorist is someone who believes bonkers theories

Dictionaries agree:

conspiracy theorist
noun

someone who believes in a conspiracy theory (= the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people):

• Conspiracy theorists believe the moon landings were faked.
• There are always conspiracy theorists who think referees support one team over another.

Many dictionaries omit the word bonkers but, like the dictionary I quoted above, use outstandingly bonkers conspiracy theories as examples.

Believing the moon landings were faked is at least as bonkers as believing Covid-19 was a hoax, and the other three examples you gave were less bonkers than believing the moon landings were faked. (There are historical examples of deaths caused by contaminated or poorly administered vaccines, of plots to replace populations, and two-tier policing.)

This clever way of describing people who are aware that MV Estonia and Apollo 11 are almost certainly 'classified' just gives abusive people an excuse to well, abuse with impunity.

"Conspiracy theorist" is an accurate, factual way to describe people who believe those historical events were broadly hidden from scrutiny.

 

[JayUtah]

See mine.

I assume yours is meant ironically.

You simply repeated the same wrong facts about the lunar rover as you did when you first raised the subject, ignoring even the simple factual corrections you encountered back then.

Marcus Allen says stars should be incidentally visible in the Apollo 11 photos. But in your quest for truth, you learned that it takes tens of seconds to to expose stars on ISO 160 film. Is Allen's expectation therefore reasonable in light of what you know to be true? Will you accept the truth? Will you acknowledge the truth?

 

[Andy_Ross]

That's very convenient!

Suppose you did buy a lunar rover
Where would you use it?