Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Oh, for ◊◊◊◊◊ sake! Now you're just grasping at any random thing to object to. You think Joseph Allen's voice sounds deep?

And you wonder why people mock your arguments.

 

[JayUtah]

Sooner or later the frenzy of, "Find things suspicious about the Apollo record," devolves into petty, mean-spirited criticism. Hoax claimants stop looking for things that they think prove a hoax and just start pointing out things they don't like. We're supposed to believe these folks are just honestly searching for truth amid all their obvious animus.

 

[Mojo]

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.

You need to make it clear for at least one person in the thread whether you mean a thirty-foot or thirty-inch dish.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.....

By coincidence, just yesterday my brother showed me some prints he found, which my sister and I made as kids. One was a gigantic Saturn looming over our house at night and the other had a monstrous alien spaceship hovering over our neighbourhood which, after a moment, you realise is just a giant Casio calculator.

I remember a lot of wasted 10 x 8 photo paper went into getting those right right but we were so pleased with the results.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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."

Good catch. I'd missed that. The color photographs from the Hasselblad 500s were shot on reversal film, so there were no negatives.

 

[Steve]

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.

Yet again - "I can't understand it so no one can!" From the smartest person in the world room Vixen's basement.

 

[Steve]

You need to make it clear for at least one person in the thread whether you mean a thirty-foot or thirty-inch dish.

Or 30 minutes or 30 seconds.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

Okay, but did you *watch* the video? Did you absorb any information about how the lunar rovers were deployed?

Even if you think the missions were fake, the video clearly shows that the rover existed, that it stowed flat into the side of the LM, and that its wheel assemblies then folded out.

But no, let's not acknowledge that we saw that; let's talk about the astronauts' sounding like Daleks. Real triple-9 observations, that.

 

[PSXer]

Are you now claiming stars should have been visible in TV broadcasts?

There was a star visible for a short time in the TV broadcast when Alan Bean accidentally pointed the camera at the Sun.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

...which means it was fake because _______________ ?

Well she only objects to the deep macho voices. So I guess Buzz's communications are fake, but Neil's are okay.

 

[JayUtah]

There was a star visible for a short time in the TV broadcast when Alan Bean accidentally pointed the camera at the Sun.

Bean discovered the hard way just how sensitive the SEC pickup tube can be. It's very sensitive, militarily so. The SEC tube in the Westinghouse cameras was one of the few items on Apollo that was classified at the time of the mission, but of course has been declassified now for a long time.

And yes, the SEC was capable of imaging stars. It was designed for night vision. Yes, the Apollo 11 crew carried a lens for it that could open to f/1 and, if pointed carefully, could have imaged the stars or photographed the lunar night side using only earthshine. The iris on that lens was preset to f/22 as it was deployed on the MESA to capture Neil Armstrong coming down the ladder. That was an appropriate iris setting for objects lit only indirectly and is stopped down too far to see stars. Armstrong replaced that lens with one that offered an f/50 setting for photographing sunlit objects with the incredibly sensitive tube. Again, too stopped down for stars also to be visible.

 

[GlennB]

Or 30 minutes or 30 seconds.

I thought it was degrees?? Now I'm confused.

 

[Steve]

I thought it was degrees?? Now I'm confused.

Better check with Vixen. She is not at all confused .

 

[Foster Zygote]

I thought it was degrees?? Now I'm confused.

And are we talking hundreds of thousands of degrees (or feet, inches, seconds or minutes), or millions?

 

[Steve]

And are we talking hundreds of thousands of degrees (or feet, inches, seconds or minutes), or millions?

In Vixen's world it is all interchangeable.

 

[Trebuchet]

Bean discovered the hard way just how sensitive the SEC pickup tube can be. It's very sensitive, militarily so. The SEC tube in the Westinghouse cameras was one of the few items on Apollo that was classified at the time of the mission, but of course has been declassified now for a long time.

And yes, the SEC was capable of imaging stars. It was designed for night vision. Yes, the Apollo 11 crew carried a lens for it that could open to f/1 and, if pointed carefully, could have imaged the stars or photographed the lunar night side using only earthshine. The iris on that lens was preset to f/22 as it was deployed on the MESA to capture Neil Armstrong coming down the ladder. That was an appropriate iris setting for objects lit only indirectly and is stopped down too far to see stars. Armstrong replaced that lens with one that offered an f/50 setting for photographing sunlit objects with the incredibly sensitive tube. Again, too stopped down for stars also to be visible.

But... But....But!! The stars on the moon are TOTALLY DIFFERENT from Earth stars! NASA couldn't have figured out where they'd be! So they had to fake it!!!!!!!!!! Taking a flash photo at night would show the stars brilliantly!!!!!!!!

Am I doing it right?

 

[Vixen]

Well she only objects to the deep macho voices. So I guess Buzz's communications are fake, but Neil's are okay.

Tongue-in-cheek. But they could just as easily have been recorded on Earth . They obviously had loads of rehearsals beforehand surely.

Radio crackle sound effects here:

 

[Vixen]

But... But....But!! The stars on the moon are TOTALLY DIFFERENT from Earth stars! NASA couldn't have figured out where they'd be! So they had to fake it!!!!!!!!!! Taking a flash photo at night would show the stars brilliantly!!!!!!!!

Am I doing it right?

You do know planets orbit? Aspects?

 

[zooterkin]

You do know planets orbit? Aspects?

You know relative distances?

 

[Pixel42]

She has got to be kidding us. Surely.