Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

Vixen, do you think it is reasonable to expect stars to show up on photos of the lunar sky, taken with the film and camera settings used by the Apollo 11 astronauts for taking photos of the sunlit surface of the Moon?

This has been answered numerous times. The sceptics who say the TV broadcast was faked claim that would be the reason NASA left out the night sky view as - they propose - the filming/photography was shot in advance in Nevada or Arizona desert. The debunkers claim, it is not possible to photograph the stars, is based on how the camera was actually set by NASA/Ektachrome. But Kodak/Ektachrome has the technology to have added a setting for starry sky pics.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I think this is the crux of the matter: Vixen does not have much knowledge of the subject matter that she wants to discuss, and she does not have the precision of language that is usual in science. Geostationary vs. geopositioned are both wrong, but much energy is spent on ridiculing her poor choice of words, rather than her wrong ideas. And more importantly, the discussion about the terms give her an opportunity to deflect from her wrong ideas and keep the discussion unfocused.

The "side of the Moon where the Sun never shines" is an example of this, where everybody know what she means, and she can keep the discussion going on for pages by coming up with one faulty concept after another because she'll rarely admit to be in error (amazingly, she did correct her concept of parachutes working by buoyancy to drag).

She is constantly wrong, but many pages could be saved by treating her words with a certain flexibility.

That kind of latitude tends only to be offered to people willing to admit their mistakes, accept facts and who don't loudly tout their superiority to those who do know what they're talking about.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

This has been answered numerous times. The sceptics who say the TV broadcast was faked claim that would be the reason NASA left out the night sky view as - they propose - the filming/photography was shot in advance in Nevada or Arizona desert. The debunkers claim, it is not possible to photograph the stars, is based on how the camera was actually set by NASA/Ektachrome. But Kodak/Ektachrome has the technology to have added a setting for starry sky pics.

You have not answered it, and the above post is yet another example of your evasion.

Could the camera settings used to take pictures of stuff on the moon also be used to take pictures of the stars? Could you get them both in frame at the same time without details on the moon's surface being overexposed? Or would the camera settings need to be different to photograph each of those things?

 

[Vixen]

In the process of posting a factoid about water ice on the moon, of which every other thread participant was already well aware, you stated that there was a side of the moon which never received sunlight. Whilst trying to explain away that schoolboy error, you managed to make even more schoolboy errors about several other subjects. If you don't want posters to point and laugh, you need to stop making schoolboy errors. Try taking the time to read and understand the articles you google for, instead of just glancing at them and then trying to summarise them in your own words and getting it completely wrong.

We are all adults here. On a chat list it is necessary to assume people have presumed knowledge. Of course some may not, in which case, if one is not sure which area is being mined or is being speculated then Google or Wikipedia is your friend. Common sense tells one mining isn't going to be half the globe. Look it up and it becomes apparent that this particular crater is about 21 kms. The claim ppl thought it was the'dark side of the Moon' is hard to believe. In any case noone expects a full length research paper on a chat forum. Your claim it is a 'schoolboy error' (it was not) is typical point scoring and not debating.

 

[junkshop]

... how the camera was actually set by NASA/Ektachrome. But Kodak/Ektachrome has the technology to have added a setting for starry sky pics.

You don't know what Ektachrome is, do you?

 

[Vixen]

You have not answered it, and the above post is yet another example of your evasion.

Could the camera settings used to take pictures of stuff on the moon also be used to take pictures of the stars? Could you get them both in frame at the same time without details on the moon's surface being overexposed? Or would the camera settings need to be different to photograph each of those things?

We already referred to bracketing. At least aim the lens away from the sun's glare and have a bash using different settings.

 

[threadworm]

This has been answered numerous times. The sceptics who say the TV broadcast was faked claim that would be the reason NASA left out the night sky view as - they propose - the filming/photography was shot in advance in Nevada or Arizona desert. The debunkers claim, it is not possible to photograph the stars, is based on how the camera was actually set by NASA/Ektachrome. But Kodak/Ektachrome has the technology to have added a setting for starry sky pics.

The reason you keep getting asked it is because you haven't answered the question, merely repeated the false and baseless assertions in the OP video aithout checking their veracity.

How were views of Earth captured in advance? Where was the set? Who built and crewed it? When?

The film does not have a setting, it has a capability. The camera has settings. There was no combination of setting and capability to photograph stars on the surface (UV imagery excepted). Bright planets, yes.

There was such a combination in lunar orbit and cislunar space, which was used to photograph stars.

 

[Vixen]

You don't know what Ektachrome is, do you?

Look up Ektachrome's role in the Apollo 11 photography if you are not sure.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

They were on the highly radioactive Moon surface.

About how many microsieverts would an astronaut on the lunar surface absorb per hour?

​

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You have not answered it, and the above post is yet another example of your evasion.

Could the camera settings used to take pictures of stuff on the moon also be used to take pictures of the stars? Could you get them both in frame at the same time without details on the moon's surface being overexposed? Or would the camera settings need to be different to photograph each of those things?

And the elephant in the room, there was no benefit to taking photos of the stars from the surface of the moon with those cameras and lenses.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

We already referred to bracketing. At least aim the lens away from the sun's glare and have a bash using different settings.

So, no, it would not be reasonable to see stars in the photos the astronauts actually took, with the settings they actually used, even assuming those were taken on the moon; thus, there is nothing suspicious about the fact that we don't see stars in those pictures.

You are left with wondering why the astronauts didn't make a point of also taking photos of the stars while they were out there. Which isn't an argument that the landings were fake.

 

[zooterkin]

You don't know what Ektachrome is, do you?

<fx Sounds of frantic googling...>

 

[Vixen]

The reason you keep getting asked it is because you haven't answered the question, merely repeated the false and baseless assertions in the OP video aithout checking their veracity.

How were views of Earth captured in advance? Where was the set? Who built and crewed it? When?

The film does not have a setting, it has a capability. The camera has settings. There was no combination of setting and capability to photograph stars on the surface (UV imagery excepted). Bright planets, yes.

There was such a combination in lunar orbit and cislunar space, which was used to photograph stars.

As I understand it, Kodak/Ektachrome set up the film, settings and mechanisms for the bespoke Hasselblads the astronauts were to use.

 

[Vixen]

<fx Sounds of frantic googling...>

Sorry to disappoint you yet again. Just because you and Junkshop didn't know it really doesn't follow that I don't either.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

So...

Still failing on some basics of several sciences which should be known at school level (well, given that O-level physics in Middlesex was apparently harder than the physics Nephew#1 studied at Sheffield University a few years back) - not knowing what electrolysis is; not knowing differences between elemental and compound forms; not knowing the difference between radioactive and irradiated, radioactive particles and electro-magnetic radiation; I could go on and on and on...

The usual Humpty Dumpty stuff...Rather than, as is the norm in sciences, medicine, engineering and any other technical occupation, being precise and accurate in commonly accepted and agreed terminology...

The usual lack of knowledge about when something is debatable, rather than when there are just plain FACTS and EVIDENCE...

The same pseudo-miffedness and claimed victimhood (FFS, Carrot Flower Queen compares me to Lucy at least twice a week) when Demonstrable Repeated Rongness is called out...

The constant re-setting in the hope that everyone else cannot read and remember the rest of the "discussion"...

The complaints of, on the one hand, folk thought-reading and, on the other hand, folk not thought-reading...

And heading rapidly for 300 pages...

FFS.

 

[Vixen]

So...

Still failing on some basics of several sciences which should be known at school level (well, given that O-level physics in Middlesex was apparently harder than the physics Nephew#1 studied at Sheffield University a few years back) - not knowing what electrolysis is; not knowing differences between elemental and compound forms; not knowing the difference between radioactive and irradiated, radioactive particles and electro-magnetic radiation; I could go on and on and on...

The usual Humpty Dumpty stuff...Rather than, as is the norm in sciences, medicine, engineering and any other technical occupation, being precise and accurate in commonly accepted and agreed terminology...

The usual lack of knowledge about when something is debatable, rather than when there are just plain FACTS and EVIDENCE...

The same pseudo-miffedness and claimed victimhood (FFS, Carrot Flower Queen compares me to Lucy at least twice a week) when Demonstrable Repeated Rongness is called out...

The constant re-setting in the hope that everyone else cannot read and remember the rest of the "discussion"...

The complaints of, on the one hand, folk thought-reading and, on the other hand, folk not thought-reading...

And heading rapidly for 300 pages...

FFS.

I wrote 'electrolysis or combustion' and ppl misread it (or claimed to) that these are the same thing (as if). How do you know I have a lack of knowledge? Some hecklers told you so?

 

[zooterkin]

I wrote 'electrolysis or combustion' and ppl misread it (or claimed to) that these are the same thing (as if). How do you know I have a lack of knowledge? Some hecklers told you so?

Because even if we allow your 'typo' explanation, electrolysis and combustion do completely opposite things with regard to oxygen and hydrogen, and to equate them in this context is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what you're talking about.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I wrote 'electrolysis or combustion' and ppl misread it (or claimed to) that these are the same thing (as if). How do you know I have a lack of knowledge? Some hecklers told you so?

I've read all your posts in this very thread and seen the words used in them; I don't need to be told by "hecklers"; I compare with what I was taught and what I can find out from proper sources.

I forgot at add above: Throws out attempts at insults while whinging that other folk are being nasty...

 

[P.J. Denyer]

<fx Sounds of frantic googling...>

The googling comes after the doubling down and digging deeper.

 

[Vixen]

The reason you keep getting asked it is because you haven't answered the question, merely repeated the false and baseless assertions in the OP video aithout checking their veracity.

How were views of Earth captured in advance? Where was the set? Who built and crewed it? When?

The film does not have a setting, it has a capability. The camera has settings. There was no combination of setting and capability to photograph stars on the surface (UV imagery excepted). Bright planets, yes.

There was such a combination in lunar orbit and cislunar space, which was used to photograph stars.

AIUI the Earth is always gibbous to the Moon, so not difficult to add.