• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

Vixen said:
Citation. Jodrell said they heard the communications just before descent. Anyone can say they heard all of the transmissions and could prove they came from 250K miles away. Anyone can say anything. We know that as of the point they came out of the VA Belt, Houston didn't even bother asking if they were okay. Probably because there was no need for any concern.
Click to expand...
If they were faking it, why wouldn't they fake concern?

I can just see you hearing that an acquaintance had a couple of X-Ray taken at the hospital, and asking them if the doctors inquired, with grave concern, if they were feeling well afterward.
 
Vixen said:
Anyone can say they heard all of the transmissions and could prove they came from 250K miles away. Anyone can say anything.
Click to expand...
<fx eyes closed, fingers in ears> "La la la la I can't hear you la la la you have no evidence la la la."

Do you understand how stupid it looks when you do stuff like this and then try to tell everyone that the debunking fails to carry its burden? Baysinger published his recordings of the Apollo surface conversation. Radiotelescopes in Germany, Italy, UK, and the USSR published tracking information. Photographs of the ship en route to the Moon were published in astronomy magazines.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, just because multiple witnesses saw my client enter and leave the house, and just because multiple security cameras photographed him ransacking the bedroom, and just because his cell phone was recorded ping the wifi router in the house, and just because the pawn shop clerk received the victim's jewelry from my client—doesn't mean he did it. Anyone can say anything!"
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
The stars that you can't see with a camera photographing in full sunlight?

The fact that you keep pretending not to see questions about your earlier admission that you can't photograph stars as Allen claimed, and try to drop smoke bombs, confirms what I observed earlier - that you regret having admitted that fact.
 
Vixen said:
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.>
Click to expand...
Adds "Vixen doesn't know how directional antennae, like radio telescopes, work" to the very, very long list.
 
Vixen said:
Some can see the bigger picture and understand how classified information works. So you might say, "It's a bonkers conspiracy fantasy that Prince Philip had a mistress for years and they had a daughter together" and you can, because it is classified information (for 50? 70? years). People like yourself can describe people who espouse this as being stark raving mad, but do you know what...?

You can't get past what you've been told in the newspapers. As they are not allowed to mention it you can make a decision to hurl abuse at anyone who mentions it ...because, er, it's not official.
Click to expand...
This was a pretty big picture, as far as I'm concerned. And we've all seen it.

1783349002756.png
 
Foster Zygote said:
Adds "Vixen doesn't know how directional antennae, like radio telescopes, work" to the very, very long list.
Click to expand...
I think she's trying to say that anyone who owns a very big radio telescope can just call a press conference and say, "We are tracking Apollo to the Moon." Who's to say they aren't? How would some hypothetical reporter fact-check that?

But if that same person says, "...and here's the list of times and locations we obtained from our data," that puts a testable claim on the table. Those of us who understand spacecraft dynamics and control, and orbital mechanics, can verify that those times and locations are consistent with a translunar trajectory. And someone else who has a very big radio telescope can bring out his own list of times and locations and say, "Why yes, that agrees closely with our tracking."

But then this means all those third parties are now in on the conspiracy. It's always a bad day when the only way you can fix a hole in your conspiracy theory is to vastly expand it.
 
Foster Zygote said:
The fact that you keep pretending not to see questions about your earlier admission that you can't photograph stars as Allen claimed, and try to drop smoke bombs, confirms what I observed earlier - that you regret having admitted that fact.
Click to expand...
"I'm just looking for the truth," rings so very hollow when you find it but then can't admit that it doesn't fit your desired belief. Her allegiance is to the conspiracy theory, not to the truth.

She knows the right answer to the question. Thousands of photographers the world over—from enthusiastic amateurs to the world's most celebrated astrophotographers—know the right answer to the question.

No, you shouldn't expect to see stars in photos taken on ISO 160 film with shutter speeds in the hundredths of seconds. Yes, it takes tens of seconds for stars to begin to show up on that film. And most importantly,

No, it is not reasonable according to the facts for Marcus Allen to expect to see incidental stars in Apollo 11 photos.​

This isn't some gray area. This isn't a matter of some obscure bit of knowledge that only an expert would know. It's just plainly, colossally, obviously wrong. It's worse than trying to send your ceviche back because it's cold.

The problem is that Marcus Allen made his claim under color of expertise. His claim isn't just, "You should see stars incidentally in these photos." It's that, plus, "...and I know because I'm an expert." This is worse than someone saying, "I'm an expert in Latin American cuisine, and I'm appalled that this ceviche is cold." Again, this is not something upon which reasonable people can differ or which depends on some obscure experts-only knowledge.

It's just wrong.

What should we do when someone who claims to be an expert tells us something under color of that expertise that we know for a fact is irredeemably counterfactual? Either Allen isn't the expert he claims to be, or he is an expert but willing to lie.

Either way it's just a lie.

Obviously he got the "no stars" argument from Bill Kaysing, who isn't a competent photographer and never claimed to be. Allen's mistake was copying Kaysing's ignorance and pretending that repeating it while claiming to be an expert strengthens the argument. It doesn't; it just reveals Allen as the liar he is.

That was @Vixen's mistake too. She insinuated she had confirmed Allen's "should see stars" claims empirically. Of course she hadn't, but she fell into the inevitable pitfall of the conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy theorists like @Vixen use those theories to pretend to be smarter than they are. They wrongly think the conspiracy claims are at least plausible enough that they can adopt those claims and convince others they know what they're talking about. "Yeah I made award winning ceviche that impressed the judges with how piping hot it was!"

But here's the problem. Now that Marcus Allen has incontrovertibly proven that he's lying about his photographic expertise, how are we supposed to evaluate his softer claims?

"I'm a photography expert and I'm telling you these pictures used fill lighting."
"I'm a photography expert and I'm telling you these pictures are way too high quality to have been taken in the field."

How are we supposed to evaluate claims like that when we know Allen isn't the expert he claims to be? It's the claim to expertise that tries to give the statements more evidentiary weight than, "Durn it all, it just don't look right to me." He doesn't have any actual evidence for the fill lights so we're just supposed to trust his authority, which he lied about.

This is why Vixen absolutely will never admit she was wrong about Marcus Allen. If she did that, Allen's dishonesty overshadows all the rest of his claims—the ones where we have to trust that he just knows what real Moon photos should look like because of his photo "expertise."

But more to the point, now that it's absolutely beyond question that Allen is deliberately lying, the question of whether the debunkers were unfair or harsh to him has a more straightforward answer. Of course in the video we simply addressed the factual claims without name-calling or value judgments. We explained how photography works—the same facts Vixen discovered and reported here—and then we demonstrated that even at 1/60 second at f/5.6 (our light was not quite as bright as the sun) you can't see stars in the photos. And we left it there.

Marcus Allen was a liar. There can be no question of that, and Vixen absolutely knows it whether she will admit it or not. But he got off easy in that video. We simply demonstrated the contravening facts and let the viewer draw the obvious conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is well within the Van Allen Belt. As you know but keep trying to equate it with almost 250,000 more miles away.
Click to expand...

LEO also has an orbital period of two hours, give or take. A spacecraft in LEO passes from the western horizon to the eastern horizon in about an hour.

It's easy to tell if signals are coming from a craft approaching the moon, because its signals keep coming from the direction of the moon for the entire ~12 hours that the moon is in the sky, drifting from east to west as the moon does. You can't do that from LEO.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow. Mind blown.
Mass produced for what market? Extremely expensive, extremely limited range, and the wheels probably couldn't support it's weight in earth gravity.
It was assembled by Boeing. My wife's neighbor worked on it. The Astronauts just had to pull a couple of cords to unfold it. All meticulously planned and practiced. It performed the intended task for the intended few hours.
Who the ◊◊◊◊ on Earth needs a fold-up car?
 
Vixen said:
Citation. Jodrell said they heard the communications just before descent. Anyone can say they heard all of the transmissions and could prove they came from 250K miles away. Anyone can say anything. We know that as of the point they came out of the VA Belt, Houston didn't even bother asking if they were okay. Probably because there was no need for any concern.
Click to expand...


Moonwatch Newsletter | Smithsonian Libraries

library.si.edu library.si.edu




 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom