Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[catsmate]

As Trevor Weaver points out in the OP video, they had no proof, so who's going to take them seriously except assume it's sour grapes.

Rubbish as usual. If the landing missions were faked it would be trivially simple to show this.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Nonsensical strawmannery. As usual.

 

[threadworm]

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.

Aah the old "I'm in a special club and you're all too stupid to figure it out" gambit.

 

[zooterkin]

This was the 1960's, remember? There was no photoshop or easy way of manipulating photos, with negatives. Digital didn't really arrive until the nineties.

Funny, I could have sworn you'd claimed some sort of knowledge about photography. If you knew the first thing about the history of it, you'd know that from the very earliest days people were able to manipulate images, in camera or in post processing.

Here's just a few examples - https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20260216-10-early-photographic-fakes-that-trick-the-eye

 

[Steve]

Funny, I could have sworn you'd claimed some sort of knowledge about photography. If you knew the first thing about the history of it, you'd know that from the very earliest days people were able to manipulate images, in camera or in post processing.

Here's just a few examples - https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20260216-10-early-photographic-fakes-that-trick-the-eye

My high school graphic arts class (1968-69) included some sessions on photography and image manipulation. If a rank beginner high school kid could do it.....

 

[SteveAitch]

Don't be stupid, there is no general market for such a vehicle. Remember the C5.......

Oh, I'm sure there would be a (small) number of well off nerds who would love to have a, somewhat modified, Lunar Rover to play with. Lunar Rover racing? Well, there's already lawnmower racing.

Wouldn't be surprised if some Apollo Fan had built one himself.

 

[Darat]

Oh, I'm sure there would be a (small) number of well off nerds who would love to have a, somewhat modified, Lunar Rover to play with. Lunar Rover racing? Well, there's already lawnmower racing.

Wouldn't be surprised if some Apollo Fan had built one himself.

But don't forget the ratios - it's weight and density would have made it be like a tank on the earth, the roads wouldn't have been able to cope with its power!


ETA: Except you could have used it for underwater drag racing - the buoyancy!!!

 

[Darat]

Funny, I could have sworn you'd claimed some sort of knowledge about photography. If you knew the first thing about the history of it, you'd know that from the very earliest days people were able to manipulate images, in camera or in post processing.

Here's just a few examples - https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20260216-10-early-photographic-fakes-that-trick-the-eye

If taking a picture of the moon at night with your smartphone doesn't make you an expert what does?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Ah yes, the "lack of stars". Remember when you admitted that it's impossible to photograph stars with ISO 160, f-5.6 and 1/125 sec. exposure time? I bet you wish you hadn't done that, because it must be awkward pretending you never acknowledged that fact.

This was the 1960's, remember? There was no photoshop or easy way of manipulating photos, with negatives. Digital didn't really arrive until the nineties.

Yes there was.

There were no negatives. You are not paying attention.

When someone speaks of negatives in the context of Ektachrome 160, as @Vixen did above, then their ignorance of that era's photography deserves to be described by something stronger than "You are not paying attention."

 

[SteveAitch]

But don't forget the ratios - it's weight and density would have made it be like a tank on the earth, the roads wouldn't have been able to cope with its power!

Ah, would that be this Earth or Vixen Earth?

ETA: Except you could have used it for underwater drag racing - the buoyancy!!!

Though, to be serious, with modern light-weight alloys/composites and modern re-chargeable batteries I don't see it as impossible. The plans appear to be available on t'internet. It'd never be road-legal and you'd probably have to bung NASA a few dollars as a licensing fee if it was a commercial enterprise, but...

 

[W.D.Clinger]

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/Apollo17log.pdf

Having owned a Hallicrafters SX-101 way back when I was an active amateur radio operator (Amateur First Extra Class, FCC Radiotelephone First Class, FCC Radiotelegraph Second Class), I appreciated their use of an R-390 to demodulate the signal captured by a 30' dish and down-converted to the 10-meter band.

I haven't run the numbers, but the Doppler shifts recorded in that data (for Apollo 17) look to be in the right ballpark. From those Doppler shifts, you could come close to reconstructing the spacecraft's flight path.

 

[JayUtah]

My high school graphic arts class (1968-69) included some sessions on photography and image manipulation. If a rank beginner high school kid could do it.....

It's an expected part of a photographer's skill set. It's not a dark art.

I haven't run the numbers, but the Doppler shifts recorded in that data (for Apollo 17) look to be in the right ballpark. From those Doppler shifts, you could come close to reconstructing the spacecraft's flight path.

Quite close, depending on your measurement accuracy. The method is given in Roger Bates' Fundamentals of Astrodynamics.

When someone speaks of negatives in the context of Ektachrome 160, as @Vixen did above, then their ignorance of that era's photography deserves to be described by something stronger than "You are not paying attention."

Something like not knowing her aperture from a hole in the ground? For the non-photographers: Ektachrome is slide film. There is no negative. The positive image is developed directly on the film and is more properly called a transparency.

 

[Vixen]

Once again here is a link to video of Apollo 15 deploying the rover.
It's over an hour long.

Below it are rhe highlights in a much shorter video

How can anyone bear those crackly 'deep macho-US radio voices'...sounds like they were using a voice-changing loudhailer, rather like the ones kiddies used to get for Christmas to sound like a Dalek.

 

[JayUtah]

How can anyone bear those crackly 'deep macho-US radio voices'...sounds like they were using a voice-changing loudhailer, rather like the ones kiddies used to get for Christmas to sound like a Dalek.

...which means it was fake because _______________ ?

 

[Foster Zygote]

There are stars in some of those pics! But they are in the wrong positions.

And that brings up the interesting point that most science fiction films set in space show lots of stars because they're in the business of making a visually appealing spectacle, and because people expect to see them, not because they're in the business of scientific accuracy. The only two films I can think of offhand that realistically depicted the lack of visible stars when viewing sunlit objects in space were 2001: A Space Odyssey and Interstellar.

 

[threadworm]

...which means it was fake because _______________ ?

Patriarchy, obviously.

 

[Darat]

And that brings up the interesting point that most science fiction films set in space show lots of stars because they're in the business of making a visually appealing spectacle, and because people expect to see them, not because they're in the business of scientific accuracy. The only two films I can think of offhand that realistically depicted the lack of visible stars when viewing sunlit objects in space were
2001: A Space Odyssey and Interstellar.

That's because Kubrick re-used the sets!

 

[Andy_Ross]

How can anyone bear those crackly 'deep macho-US radio voices'...sounds like they were using a voice-changing loudhailer, rather like the ones kiddies used to get for Christmas to sound like a Dalek.

Bandwidth and compression.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Once again here is a link to video of Apollo 15 deploying the rover.
It's over an hour long.

Below it are rhe highlights in a much shorter video

And important to note that the LRV was designed to unfold, but not to be folded back up again.

As long as we're discussing the stupidest conspiracy theory arguments, I'll nominate incredulity that the LRVs were technologically possible.

 

[JayUtah]

And that brings up the interesting point that most science fiction films set in space show lots of stars because they're in the business of making a visually appealing spectacle, and because people expect to see them...

It's an obvious visual cue to say, "We're in space." But star fields also provide a background against which motion can be more intuitively depicted.

The only two films I can think of offhand that realistically depicted the lack of visible stars when viewing sunlit objects in space were 2001: A Space Odyssey...

Stanley Kubrick depicted some space scenes without stars, but he also famously used star fields in the customary cinematic way. He even surprisingly used moving star fields to suggest motion. These were all conscious decisions. Kubrick knew what it should look like and just chose to do something for cinematic effect instead of scientific realism.