Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[EHocking]

I don't recall that at all. I doubt I have ever called anyone a troll.

You do realise that the search function now works on the forum.
This lie is easily disproved

 

[zooterkin]

I am not going to argue as to whether it was Eastman Kodak or Kodak Ektachrome or just Ektachrome for short. And it was especially modified for lunar photography so I am not sure what the salient point is. You say tomato I say tomato.

How was it modified?

We already know; not in any way that affects the exposure values required. The film was thinner to allow more exposures for the same volume of film.

 

[Steve]

Then your understanding is lacking.

I think you might mean nonexistent.

 

[Steve]

My understanding tops yours because they did indeed.

You have yet to demonstrate understanding, of any topic discussed in the ISF.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, stars are extremely bright in outer space.

No. No they are not. They are about 12%-20% brighter than they are on Earth*, and the same brightness as they are on the Moon.

 

[LondonJohn]

Of which I am one.

No, you're not. We've been through this before.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Please may I ask you do not quote me out of context.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. Changing the subject to do I know what a side is was typical distraction instead of acknowledging that the plans for refuelling stations using this 'water' was perfectly correct. People are so focused on yelling, 'wrong!' instead of contributing. Obviously I am not referring to those who do contribute positively to the thread, just the occasions people prefer to talk about typos, or hurling insults.

No one disputed that the presence of water ice in polar craters has the potential for use as a resource for lunar colonization and as a source of rocket propellants. It's that in attempting to describe this you get so much of it wrong, like saying that electrolysis is used to "make water", or referring to "the side of the moon that never sees sunlight", even as you pretend that you're lecturing us on a subject that only you were aware of.

ETA 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.

Guess where a lunar-stationary satellite would be. The same distance as the earth. So your "satellite" is the earth, which happens to have a network of powerful radio telescopes around its surface, making it essentially a very large communications satellite.

Why do you ignore information about com satellites existing to relay signals to receivers beyond line-of-sight? Com signals are strong enough that they don't need an intermediary transmitter/receiver to boost them along.

But let's ignore that point - although someone did answer it - and focus on the word 'geopositioned' twenty pages later, instead.

But as we see here, even if we ignore your invented terminology, such as "geopositioned", your points are still typically wrong. Whether you refer to a geostationary or a "geopositioned" satellite, the notion that one was necessary is still nonsense.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You know perfectly well the sense was electrolysis OR combustion. You only seem to contribute digs. It is very tiresome for the reader.

No. You wrote this:

Sorry, there should have been a comma there indicating or, as in a different method, by combustion. Although it should have been obvious electrolysis and combustion are two different methods of producing water.

You unambiguously stated that electrolysis is a method of producing water.

The more you pretend to be six steps ahead, the more you confirm your inability to admit error.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I don't recall that at all. I doubt I have ever called anyone a troll.

It's true that you accused me of trolling. Note the actual words I have used and don't try and wriggle out by claiming that words mean something else, eh, Humpty Dumpty? (Oooooh the nasty man called me names! Oooooh!)

Now, given you claim not to be able to remember that, stop the claims of being so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ clever and having such a good memory, as both things cannot be true.

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen, you were wrong about Kodak vs Ektachrome, and about their nature of interaction with the Hasselblad cameras. You were wrong until you'd been corrected multiple times, at which point you switched to being partly wrong and partly correct.

 

[EHocking]

Soz, 64 ASA was the Earth standard ATT. The lunar surface one was 160 ASA (now ISO).

I even gave you a link to the NASA data on this (which you unsuprisingly have ignored)
But as per usual you believe your uninformed opinion has more weight that verifiable data, vis,



SO-368 and SO-168 denotes (NASA) Special Order Kodak Ektachrome 70mm colour reversal film.
Rated at base speeds of 64 and 160 ISO/ASA respectively.
The 3400 was 70mm negative film, nominally rated at 40 ISO/ASA

 

[Smock]

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

Ektachrome is a product. Kodak is a company that manufactured said product. Your statement is a akin to "Frosted Flakes are appearing before the Senate Committee on a healthy breakfast" instead of "Kelloggs Corporation is appearing before the Senate Committee on a healthy breakfast".

 

[Mojo]

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?

Well, if the film was longer, it will have taken longer to go through the camera, so the exposures will have been longer, obvs.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

And we've talked about the "technology" all the way back to the early pages of this thread. You remember them, yes? And if you did use a tripod and cable release, and set the aperture wide open and the shutter to bulb, and exposed the film for at least tens of seconds, you'd get pictures of stars. But only the stars, because pointing the camera, in that configuration, at any sunlit subject in the foreground would result in an extremely overexposed image.

Again, you can either get this:

Or you can get this:

So what would be the point of taking all that extra time to take images of just stars that look no different than they would from earth?

 

[catsmate]

Do you mind?

Not in the slightest. I have no problem with pointing out your errors, evasions, attempts at misdirection and lies, and I will continue to do so

 

[catsmate]

No, stars are extremely bright in outer space.

No. This is nonsense.

 

[catsmate]

Refer to previous answer. On Earth they twinkle on the Moon they appear 'crisp'.

This doesn't answer the question.

 

[Steve]

Do you mind?

Why would catsmate mind pointing out the blatantly obvious?

 

[catsmate]

Stop judging others by your own standards.

A ridiculous accusation.

 

[catsmate]

Soz, 64 ASA was the Earth standard ATT. The lunar surface one was 160 ASA (now ISO).

You are wrong.