Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Steve]

Stop judging others by your own standards.

It is your plethora of uninformed and frankly stupid statements that are being judged. Judged against proven and well known scientific standards.

 

[wollery]

It would depend (a) where on the Moon, (b) time of day and (c) level of glare, together with the overall background brightness of the ground (or albedo).

Let's start by assuming it is night, that the Sun is on the opposite side of the Moon and Earth, so Insolation and glare are not an issue.

Let's also assume that the sky on Earth is clear and free from clouds, and that the air is still.

Well?

Any numbers?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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?

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 also wrote electrolysis and combustion, then described them as two different methods of producing water.

If you didn't constantly try to convince everyone that you know as much or more than they do regarding any and every subject, you wouldn't paint yourself into these corners where you can't weasel your way out by blaming some linguistic quirk or error.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

No. During a full moon on earth, someone on the lunar near side would see the night side of the earth, with a thin little circle of light where the sunlight passes through the atmosphere.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Not so. First the two elements need to be combined to make water. As an engine propellent, separating the two, is another process altogether quite separate from mining.

For ◊◊◊◊'s sake, we were talking about water ice already on the moon. Combining hydrogen and oxygen is what (certain types of) rockets do. Why would you first get a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen, then combust it into water, then use electrolysis to separate out the hydrogen and oxygen again, so you could combust it again in a rocket engine???

 

[JayUtah]

Thus, your complaint of wrong word is just a distraction from the point being made...

No. Pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about, and hence that you use the wrong words to describe it, is valid.

You know perfectly well the sense was electrolysis OR combustion.

That's not what you wrote.

This has been answered numerous times.

Yes, and it will keep coming up as long as you dodge the fact that Marcus Allen lied.

The debunkers claim, it is not possible to photograph the stars, is based on how the camera was actually set by NASA/Ektachrome.

No. Marcus Allen claims the stars should have been incidentally visible in Apollo photos. He claims this on the basis of his purported expertise. He's flatly wrong. He lied. You found out the lie, but you won't admit it. You're committed to the lie.

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

You have no idea what "Ektachome" means, do you?

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

No. Kodak is a company. Ektachrome is one of their products.

Ektachrome supplied the bespoke film magazines....

Neither Kodak or Hasselblad supplied the film magazines.

This film has never been made for the public or mass-produced.

The Ektachrome E-3 process film was the most popular reversal film in the 1960s. The processes E-3 through E-6 all used the polyester base, as does all film now. I've shot hundreds of rolls of it. Ektachrome film was chosen because it was so well understood.

No, stars are extremely bright in outer space.

It still takes tens of seconds to photograph them on ISO 160 film.

I am not going to argue as to whether it was Eastman Kodak or Kodak Ektachrome or just Ektachrome for short.

Unfortunately getting things right matters. Nobody gets things as wrong as you do unless they are ineducable or trolling.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Yes, but I wanted Vixen to tell me.

 

[Vixen]

Bollocks it was.

As already mentioned, Ektachrome was 160 ASA on Earth, and on the Moon.

I am not sure why there is the need for crude language. I am citing HJP "Douglas" Arnold, who worked with Kodak in the UK 1966 - 74 during Apollo.

 

[Smock]

I am not sure why there is the need for crude language. I am citing HJP "Douglas" Arnold, who worked with Kodak in the UK 1966 - 74 during Apollo.

And where might that "cite" be? I see no links or attributions in your posts regarding Ektachrome film.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, there should have been a comma there indicating or, as in a different method, by combustion.

Yes, if you wanted to convey the right concept, you should have written something different.

Although it should have been obvious electrolysis and combustion are two different methods of producing water.

It's obvious to us that electrolysis and combustion are different. It's equally obvious to us that you didn't know that.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, if you wanted to convey the right concept, you should have written something different.


It's obvious to us that electrolysis and combustion are different. It's equally obvious to us that you didn't know that.

Rubbish. There are two processes: extracting the 'water' from the crater, which may require a choice of more than one process depending on its structure. Being embedded in Moon soil points to this. The usage as a propellent in flight is quite another.

 

[JayUtah]

I am citing HJP "Douglas" Arnold, who worked with Kodak in the UK 1966 - 74 during Apollo.

You're more likely citing him as quoted by David Percy. You should be aware that Arnold was interviewed under false pretenses and that he later repudiated Percy and Percy's use of his expertise to support hoax claims.

 

[Vixen]

And where might that "cite" be? I see no links or attributions in your posts regarding Ektachrome film.

Some of us still read books, newspapers and magazines.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Some of us still read books, newspapers and magazines.

Uh huh? And are you in indeed referencing Arnold as quoted by Percy?

 

[JayUtah]

Rubbish. There are two processes...

You can say that now because we told you. Before we told you, you thought electrolysis was a kind of combustion. That's why you're frantically trying to patch it up with, "What I really meant to say was..."

You didn't say it. You said something different.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Some of us still read books, newspapers and magazines.

If you post it to support a claim you should show us where you got it.
Your claim, your burden of proof.

 

[JayUtah]

Some of us still read books, newspapers and magazines.

I know your sources far better than you do. I recognize the information being quoted.

 

[zooterkin]

I am not sure why there is the need for crude language. I am citing HJP "Douglas" Arnold, who worked with Kodak in the UK 1966 - 74 during Apollo.

Please give an actual citation. Link, please.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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

Lunar eclipses must really confuse you, then.

 

[JayUtah]

H.J.P. Arnold firmly believed the Apollo missions were real. When his name comes up in the context of a hoax theory, there is literally only one source it can have come through: David Percy, either his book Dark Moon, his video What Happened on the Moon? or his website AULIS. Percy lured Arnold into an interview without telling him that the thesis was going to be that Apollo was faked. Percy borrowed Arnold's credibility in astrophotography to lend authority to the hoax claims, which Arnold himself strongly disputes.