Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[W.D.Clinger]

So much hilarity to enjoy, so much wrongness to point out. Luckily (although luck has nothing to do with it), most of the wrongness has already been pointed out. I apologize for beating the dead horses @Vixen has been shooting.

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

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.

Laughing at the argument presented is not ad hominem. I'm positive about that.

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

160 ASA film. Not 64 ASA. Didn't you wonder why everyone keeps saying 160? Kodak's famous Kodachrome film was familiarly available in 64 ASA. Perhaps that's where you got that number from. Goodness knows.

Bollocks it was.

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

Kodak most definitely marketed 64 ASA versions of Ektachrome for use on earth. Ektachrome-X came out in 1963, Ektachrome Pro 64 Daylight (using the E-6 process) in 1976, Ektachrome 64 Daylight (not Pro, so it was tolerant of a wider range of temperatures in storage) in 1977, and Ektachrome 64T in 1987. IIRC, I used some 64 ASA version of Ektachrome as my primary slide film throughout the 1980s. (I'm away from those slides at the moment, so I can't confirm.)

 

[Andy_Ross]

So much hilarity to enjoy, so much wrongness to point out. Luckily (although luck has nothing to do with it), most of the wrongness has already been pointed out. I apologize for beating the dead horses @Vixen has been shooting.




Laughing at the argument presented is not ad hominem. I'm positive about that.






Kodak most definitely marketed 64 ASA versions of Ektachrome for use on earth. Ektachrome-X came out in 1963, Ektachrome Pro 64 Daylight (using the E-6 process) in 1976, Ektachrome 64 Daylight (not Pro, so it was tolerant of a wider range of temperatures in storage) in 1977, and Ektachrome 64T in 1987. IIRC, I used some 64 ASA version of Ektachrome as my primary slide film throughout the 1980s. (I'm away from those slides at the moment, so I can't confirm.

Kodak revived Ektachrome in 2018 with Ektachrome E100

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen: care to elaborate upon (and quantify) your bold claim that "stars are extremely bright in outer space"?

<sfx: adopts pointing and laughing pose>

 

[Axxman300]

One of the other deciding factors leading me to escape CT Land was the lack of quality experts on the CT side of things. As I got older this lack of educated, experienced input forced me to look at the BS I was flinging around. In this thread, every claim has been explained, and debunked by an average of 11 different posters of various technical backgrounds, usually more, and at no point has anyone other than the OP backed any of the hoax claims. The other thing that stands out is not only how little the OP knows about science as apllied to manned space flight, but the amount of work done to tap-dance, and move the goal posts as each claim is destroyed by long established facts.

I forgot how much work being at CTist was.

 

[Vixen]

Please give an actual citation. Link, please.

There isn't a link.

 

[JayUtah]

There isn't a link.

Citation, then. If your source isn’t ultimately Percy, then what is it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

There isn't a link.

So how do we know you didn't just make it up?

 

[Smock]

Some of us still read books, newspapers and magazines.

How does the reading of books, newspapers and magazines preclude the ability to cite a source? Is your assertion that before the internet, people just randomly tossed out "facts" without proper attribution so they may seem more erudite than they actually are?

 

[wollery]

Any advance on how much brighter (numerically) stars are on the Moon than they are on the Earth?

Remember, we're assuming no sunlight for either, and clear skies on Earth.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

And twinkle = dimmer and crisp = bright?

"Hey Bob, those stage lights are a little crisp. Could you make them a little twinklier?"

 

[Foster Zygote]

Any advance on how much brighter (numerically) stars are on the Moon than they are on the Earth?

Remember, we're assuming no sunlight for either, and clear skies on Earth.

I, for one, would settle for a percentage difference. It doesn't have to be expressed as apparent magnitude.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Of which I am one.

A professional what?

 

[JayUtah]

Of which I am one.

The subject was photographic film. You are not a professional photographer.

 

[bknight]

Four pages of pure bovine excrement, I'm not going back to what I missed but it seems that I will miss a few posts tat contain more unproved aquations by OP.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Vixen, pretending you're addressing a completely different issue isn't fooling anyone. You're just trying to weasel out of your statement that electrolysis is a way of making water.

 

[steenkh]

So in your world "The side of the moon that never receives sunlight" can be interpreted as "craters on the moon that never receive sunlight"? Your flexibility of language is similar to Vixen's. Remarkable!

Indeed. She was talking about mining ice, and most here would immediately know what she was talking about, and ignore the gibberish.

If a child had said something similar, would you have replied in a similar fashion? This is the level of knowledge that we are dealing with here; just look at her newest misconception of Earth phases as seen from the Moon.

 

[sackett]

A lady who was helping to set up a buffet at the Big Horn Women's Club tasted the fresh-brewed coffee
and found it weak. She declared, "Well! If I was going to make coffee, I'd make coffee! If I was going
to make water, I'd make water!" Two beat pause. Then she realized what she'd said.

Source: My mother's account of the incident when she got home. It became a staple joke at our house.
Now its a staple at mine.

ETA: You can have it if you want it.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I, for one, would settle for a percentage difference. It doesn't have to be expressed as apparent magnitude.

You're being too generous there: I want it expressed as apparent magnitude, as loads of hilarity could follow and my, already unhealthy, tendency to schadenfruede is all aquiver with anticipation.

 

[JesseCuster]

There isn't a link.

You know a citation or reference doesn’t need to include a link? Even a dimwit like me earned how to cite books, papers, etc. in my pre-internet days at school.

 

[Steve]

Indeed. She was talking about mining ice, and most here would immediately know what she was talking about, and ignore the gibberish.

If a child had said something similar, would you have replied in a similar fashion? This is the level of knowledge that we are dealing with here; just look at her newest misconception of Earth phases as seen from the Moon.

You seem to be quite unfamiliar with Vixen and her threads. Giving the benefit of the doubt on any claim or comment she makes on any topic would only encourage more wrongness. This is, after all, the International Skeptics Forum, and being skeptical of anything Vixen posts is appropriate based on copious history.

Yes, Vixen's level of knowledge is childlike, but she is not a child.