Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

LOL what a lot of googlespeak that was. All to (try to) avoid admitting that you made yet another mistake. Keep on keeping on!

Yes I know it makes you deliriously happy.

 

[zooterkin]

Ektachrome is a brand name but then, so is Kodak. Ektachrome supplied the bespoke film magazines to a particularly thin base AIR and fit the specifications to the Hasselblads. For example, modifying what needed to be done when changing the film. This film has never been made for the public or mass-produced.

Yes, they produced a special version of the film that enabled more shots to be taken. The ISO value (ASA, at the time) of 160 was unchanged.

How did that affect whether stars should appear in the photos taken?

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes I know it makes you deliriously happy.

No, it both amuses and fascinates me. I suspect it would fascinate a fair few professionals as well.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... As for geopositioned satellites the point being made there was that there wasn't a geopositioned (or geostationed) one in place as of the time of the 'live' TV broadcast. I went on to describe this as orbiting the said planet (Moon) at the same speed so that it was stationary to the fixed spot. Thus, your complaint of wrong word is just a distraction from the point being made that as well as having to plan successful landing and timing with Collins, still in orbit, they somehow also had the additional burden of organising a satellite that could beam film from the camera to earth at that exact spot.

No wonder nobody could work out what you were talking about. It seems that by "geopositioned" you intended to mean a satellite which orbits the moon and appears at a stationary point in the sky when viewed from the moon. The lunar equivalent of a geostationary satellite above the earth.

As the earth rotates every 24 hours, a geostationary satellite has to orbit every 24 hours too. That fixes the height of its geosynchronous orbit, which works out at at a bit less than 36,000 km above the earth's equator.

As the moon only rotates once every month, your "geopositioned" satellite would have to orbit the moon every month too. That makes its lunar synchronised orbit a good deal larger. More than 380,000 km. There is in fact an object which already does this. It's the planet earth. The earth, you will note, appears to hover at a fixed point in the sky when viewed from the moon. Any artificial satellite trying to perform the same task would be the same distance from the moon.

So in a funny way, your "geopositioned" terminology works. It is a satellite which is in the same position as the Earth. Geo-positioned. There was indeed a direct line-of-sight radio link from Tranquility Base to the "geopositioned" satellite we call "Earth".

 

[zooterkin]

I was responding to your query as to how come they got the position of the Moon right (as claimed by yourself).

You were doing what?

Please quote this post of mine you think your post was in response to.

 

[zooterkin]

As Vixen appears to have trouble following conversations, here's that particular thread:

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.

Then you understand wrong, as usual.

First, phase of the Earth is irrelevant to the settings needed to capture stars. Second, the settings needed would add unnecessary complexity to the range of options the astronauts had, and they didn't want to capture the stars. Third, we know they didn't have those settings, so it's again irrelevant to the question of whether stars should appear in the photos taken on the Moon.

Care to try again with a straight answer?

I was responding to your query as to how come they got the position of the Moon right (as claimed by yourself).

I don't actually remember anyone asking how they got the position of the Moon right, but happy to be proved wrong. It certainly wasn't me.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This has been answered numerous times.

Really? Was the answer "no"?

 

[catsmate]

Please may I ask you do not quote me out of context. The thrust of my post was about the possibility of mining water ice for the purpose of refuelling.

No. You spouted a stream of nonsense regarding oxygen, electrolysis and other subjects.

 

[threadworm]

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

The Earth's phase as viewed from the moon is the opposite to the moon's as seen from the Earth. That much is obvious.

The weather, on the other hand...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

Which of the settings had, at least in principle, any chance of capturing stars when they "had a bash"? Is it none of them?

Yep. It's none of them. The stars were far, far too faint.

 

[catsmate]

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.

This is rubbish.

 

[catsmate]

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.

You made a number of stupid errors and continually refuse to admit them. Grow up.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

Where did you get that "understanding" from?

Kodak made the Ektachrome film. It was 160 ASA colour reversal ("slide") film, on an especially thin plastic base so they could fit extra long rolls into the film canisters. Why you thought Kodak modified the cameras I cannot imagine.

 

[catsmate]

I wrote 'electrolysis or combustion' and ppl misread it (or claimed to) that these are the same thing (as if).

No. You're lying again

How do you know I have a lack of knowledge? Some hecklers told you so? I

You multiple simple errors clearly expose your ignorance.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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?

We learn this from reading the words you write.

 

[catsmate]

Wrong again! Ektachrome bods designing the specs were central to the Apollo photography programme.

No. This is grossly stupid, even by your standards.

 

[catsmate]

Ektachrome is a brand name but then, so is Kodak.

No. Again more stupidly.

Kodak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Carrot Flower King]

You are free to entertain whatever opinion you like. But I think in polite society it is best to understand rules of debate and logic, and avoid the logical fallacy of ad hominem just because one doesn't agree with the argument presented.

This isn't a debate...This is an area where there are facts or not, there isn't anything to "debate".

Ad hom coming from you is a bit rich when you have directly accused me of trolling (you must remember where and when, given your perfect memory), especially when I haven't ad hom'd you.

Pointing out things you haven't understood is not an ad hom. Accusing someone of trolling is. Sort out your motes and beams, please.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

That may be AYUI, but YUI incorrectly. The moon sees Earth phases just the same way we on Earth see moon phases. Consider when the moon passes between the Earth and the sun. The Earth appears fully lit from the moon's point of view. Conversely, when the Earth is between the moon and sun, the moon sees only the dark side of the Earth. Once per month.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ektachrome is a brand name but then, so is Kodak.

What you're saying is like "Big Mac is a brand name but then so is McDonalds".
Ektachrome is a product, and Kodak is the company which made it.