Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

They didn't try.

Evasion noted as usual. The answer of course is no, none of the available settings would have shown stars.

You're like one of those Trump supporters up before a committee and squirming because they won't admit Biden was duly elected president.

 

[threadworm]

Doesn't follow. Their film magazine was designed by Kodak to take literally hundreds of photos. Of course Kodak would allow for dud shots.

It does follow. Increasing the number of photos taken either reduces the number of photos available for other things, or you have to take more film, at the expense of something else where mass matters

Given that hoaxers whine about how many photos were actually taken, imagine how much more they'd whine if they took 3 times as many.

 

[Vixen]

The LM was designed and built by Grumman who are famous for designing and building aircraft.
All the plans and specifications are available, csn you show us any reason it wouldn't work as seen?

Also aircraft can land vertically, they have been able to do it since the 1960s.

View attachment 73551


Also, Grumman built a training rig.
The Lunar Lander Research Vehicle.

View attachment 73553

Nobody said it can't. But remember how the Soviets had their module crashed into the surface (they claim) just before Apollo 11, in an effort to beat them? So whilst landing on earth, one has the buoyancy of air to help deaccelerate - hence the multiple parachutes and rapid deacceleration on earth-reentry and splashdown - and into an ocean - there is no atmosphere on the Moon, no air to cushion the impact with the ground, and no body of water. Being 1/6th of Earth's gravity doesn't make it any less highly dangerous.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Haha you just did a quick google to discover I was right. So now it's a game of semantics.

No, Vixen, I used my memory. Unlike you, I didn't just suddenly get "interested" in space science when this thread was started. I've read articles about water ice in deep polar craters dating back to when it was merely a speculative possibility.

You gave no indication of knowing anything beyond having skimmed some mention of lunar ice. Your wording strongly suggested that you were assuming that the moon has a permanently dark side. Given the level of ignorance you regularly display regarding the subjects you pretend to thoroughly understand, that seems quite likely.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Having human pilots, who are able to choose a flat landing spot, free of boulders made it a lot more likely the Apollo lunar module could put down safely and without toppling over compared to the completely automated Soviet craft.

 

[zooterkin]

Nobody said it can't. But remember how the Soviets had their module crashed into the surface (they claim) just before Apollo 11, in an effort to beat them? So whilst landing on earth, one has the buoyancy of air to help deaccelerate - hence the multiple parachutes and rapid deacceleration on earth-reentry and splashdown - and into an ocean - there is no atmosphere on the Moon, no air to cushion the impact with the ground, and no body of water. Being 1/6th of Earth's gravity doesn't make it any less highly dangerous.

Are you under the impression that all those factors were unexpected when Armstrong and Aldrin arrived at the Moon?

 

[Vixen]

Which side of the moon never receives sunlight?

As from the link, above:

As you watch the Moon over the course of a month, you'll notice that different features are illuminated by the Sun at different times. However, there are some parts of the Moon that never see sunlight. These areas are called permanently shadowed regions, and they appear dark because unlike on the Earth, the axis of the Moon is nearly perpendicular to the direction of the sun's light. The result is that the bottoms of certain craters are never pointed toward the Sun, with some remaining dark for over two billion years. However, thanks to new data from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, we can now see into these dark craters in incredible detail.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/side

Do look up the numerous meanings of side in respect of a location.

 

[Vixen]

Evasion noted as usual. The answer of course is no, none of the available settings would have shown stars.

You're like one of those Trump supporters up before a committee and squirming because they won't admit Biden was duly elected president.

You are the one evading debate. Claiming there is nothing to debate.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Do look up the numerous meanings of side in respect of a location.

If you find one that says the bottom of a crater is a 'side' of the moon please do come straight back and tell us.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, we get that Armstrong was legendary and an amazing test pilot. But is landing a lunar module onto the moon's surface really just like landing a plane..?

Test pilots fly all kinds of experimental aircraft.

ISS, SpaceX = space stations. So big deal.

For the second time, SpaceX is not a space station.

Please stop using the 'millions of people' appeal.

It remains a problem for your theory, which you have addressed only with straw men. So no.

That is not correct. It was simply a factual correction. Please can you not mention it again. Thanks.

I'm going to bring it up again every time you pretend to be smarter than you are and use the wrong language.

...what Aldrin is doing, the argument might go...

Irrelevant. Your attempt to tell the story is full of basic errors.

And you'll note that Marcus Allen also argued that none of the photos were 'bracketed'. This is a good point.

It's an irrelevant point. You know Marcus Allen is lying about the exposure needed to photograph stars. Yet you continue to cite to him as a source. Shame on you.

...one has the buoyancy of air to help deaccelerate...

Buoyancy has nothing to do with aerobraking, just as "mean standard deviation" is something you made up to sound smart.

Being 1/6th of Earth's gravity doesn't make it any less highly dangerous.

It makes it much easier compared to Earth gravity, if you have a descent rocket.

You are the one evading debate. Claiming there is nothing to debate.

No. You desperately want to have a debate about exposure bracketing instead of having to admit you found out Marcus Allen is a chronic liar.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You are the one evading debate. Claiming there is nothing to debate.

No. I am pointing out the debate has been had. You are hardly debating. You are parroting already debunked arguments when frankly you should already know better. Like the new-to-you bracketing claim, which makes zero sense to anyone who has read the thread this far and already grasps the well defined and completely predictable lighting conditions the astronauts were going to encounter.

 

[Vixen]

It does follow. Increasing the number of photos taken either reduces the number of photos available for other things, or you have to take more film, at the expense of something else where mass matters

Given that hoaxers whine about how many photos were actually taken, imagine how much more they'd whine if they took 3 times as many.

Oh come on. You are a wedding photographer or just an amateur photographer taking a pic of the smiling couple or your kid newly-born or at their graduation. You take just one pic...? Missed taking a pic of the blushing bride apart from one, when she had her back to you? There is just one pic of Armstrong by Aldrin. Really? Yet Armstrong was the first man on the Moon. And a very poor pic at that.

 

[Smock]

ISS, SpaceX = space stations. So big deal.

SpaceX != space station. SpaceX = Company which manufactures vehicles for space exploration.

Care to try again?

 

[JayUtah]

Oh come on.

Wow, you're throwing everything in the path of the pursuer in order to avoid having to admit that Marcus Allen lied.

Why is that?

 

[threadworm]

Nobody said it can't. But remember how the Soviets had their module crashed into the surface (they claim) just before Apollo 11, in an effort to beat them? So whilst landing on earth, one has the buoyancy of air to help deaccelerate - hence the multiple parachutes and rapid deacceleration on earth-reentry and splashdown - and into an ocean - there is no atmosphere on the Moon, no air to cushion the impact with the ground, and no body of water. Being 1/6th of Earth's gravity doesn't make it any less highly dangerous.

Gee, if only there was a device attached to it to slow it down or something.

 

[Foster Zygote]

As from the link, above:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/side

Do look up the numerous meanings of side in respect of a location.

Now who's playing semantic games?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh come on. You are a wedding photographer or just an amateur photographer taking a pic of the smiling couple or your kid newly-born or at their graduation. You take just one pic...? Missed taking a pic of the blushing bride apart from one, when she had her back to you? There is just one pic of Armstrong by Aldrin. Really? Yet Armstrong was the first man on the Moon. And a very poor pic at that.

It wasn't a wedding. They didn't need that perfect shot of a blushing Armstrong. They took a huge number of photographs. They had a plan and stuck to it. You got nothin'.

 

[threadworm]

Oh come on. You are a wedding photographer or just an amateur photographer taking a pic of the smiling couple or your kid newly-born or at their graduation. You take just one pic...? Missed taking a pic of the blushing bride apart from one, when she had her back to you? There is just one pic of Armstrong by Aldrin. Really? Yet Armstrong was the first man on the Moon. And a very poor pic at that.

Imagine being a wedding photographer and you only take photos of yourself.

 

[Vixen]

If you find one that says the bottom of a crater is a 'side' of the moon please do come straight back and tell us.

Side to mean aspect is perfectly clear English, especially in relation to geographical features. In this case, the Moon's South Pole side IIRC.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Gee, if only there was a device attached to it to slow it down or something.

Hang on, does she think parachutes work because of buoyancy?