Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Mojo]

~ do. ~

- do. -

 

[Mojo]

Still none the wiser.

But if you paid attention to what other people post, you would at least be better informed.

 

[Vixen]

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?

A fact does not require attribution. A fact is not attributable to anyone. The Ektachrome 160 ASA used for Apollo 11 is factual. You can google it or wikipedia it.

 

[junkshop]

View attachment 73605


Still none the wiser.

Allow me to assist:

Seriously, go read some basic geology first to get an understanding of the structure of the planet.

Stop trolling. You know perfectly well I was responding to someone else's post.

 

[Vixen]

A professional what?

Chartered accountant.

Definition of professional

A professional is a person who earns a living through a specific, specialized occupation that usually requires advanced education, specialized training, and adherence to formal ethical codes.
The term can also describe someone who displays high competence, serious dedication, and expert conduct in their field. [1, 2, 3] Indeed

 

[JayUtah]

15% - 30%.

Correct. Easily looked up.

Now compute how much shorter a shutter speed you will need to expose something that's 30% brighter than a thing that takes at least 10 seconds to expose.

Hint: I already did this for you many pages ago.

 

[Mojo]

A fact does not require attribution. A fact is not attributable to anyone. The Ektachrome 160 ASA used for Apollo 11 is factual. You can google it or wikipedia it.

You claimed that you were "citing HJP "Douglas" Arnold, who worked with Kodak in the UK 1966 - 74 during Apollo", but you failed to provide an actual citation. That's is what is being talked about here.

Please provide the citation.

 

[JayUtah]

A fact does not require attribution.

You attributed it and other statements to H.J.P. Arnold. Please cite to the work where his statements appear.

 

[JayUtah]

Chartered accountant.

The topic at hand was photography, specifically what the word "Ektachrome" means in the field. Did they teach a lot of photography in accountant school?

 

[Vixen]

As you are clearly out of your depth, you should avoid repeating your mistakes, and instead just admit to the errors, and move on. But time and again you attempt to hold on to your misconceptions, and just make a fool of yourself.

You definitely have a problem admitting to mistakes. Here we 260 pages later, and you still will not admit that you are dead wrong about stars in the pictures from the Moon, and you are bumbling around from one mistake to another in I'll-advised attempts to salvage the wreckage.

It is worrying that you think that you are the smartest person in the room, but is not able to get a single fact right. You remind me of a certain U.S. president, but at least he has the excuse that he is surrounded by sycophants telling him that he is god-like in his infallibility.

If people are interested in an issue or a topic they will go to the relevant source themself. They certainly don't go to some random post on a chat forum.

We need to bring in 'Trump's Law' as in invoking Godwin. Any time you need a put down, just compare them to the rotund orange one.

 

[Vixen]

The topic at hand was photography, specifically what the word "Ektachrome" means in the field. Did they teach a lot of photography in accountant school?

Someone asked a question and I responded.

 

[Mojo]

Chartered accountant.

why would chartered accountants, specifically, find your behaviour amusing?

 

[MostlyHarmless]

If people are interested in an issue or a topic they will go to the relevant source themself. They certainly don't go to some random post on a chat forum.

We need to bring in 'Trump's Law' as in invoking Godwin. Any time you need a put down, just compare them to the rotund orange one.

Are you going to start doing that soon?

 

[Vixen]

Correct. Easily looked up.

Now compute how much shorter a shutter speed you will need to expose something that's 30% brighter than a thing that takes at least 10 seconds to expose.

Hint: I already did this for you many pages ago.

No, that doesn't work. Aside from the Lunar Orbiters NASA at the time had no idea just how well the photography on the Moon surface would work, short of sending up probes.

 

[JayUtah]

If people are interested in an issue or a topic they will go to the relevant source themself.

I am the relevant source. I have suitable training and hands-on experience. I have shown empirically that Marcus Allen's claims are false. You agreed. Allen claimed to be an expert, but obviously cannot be. You refuse to acknowledge his lie.

 

[Vixen]

You claimed that you were "citing HJP "Douglas" Arnold, who worked with Kodak in the UK 1966 - 74 during Apollo", but you failed to provide an actual citation. That's is what is being talked about here.

Please provide the citation.

Please use the clickback arrow to discover what I was responding to.

 

[JayUtah]

No, that doesn't work. Aside from the Lunar Orbiters NASA at the time had no idea just how well the photography on the Moon surface would work, short of sending up probes.

No, the Moon is irrelevant to my question.

If you have something that's a certain brightness, and you've experimentally proven that it takes 10 seconds for it to show up on film, how many fewer seconds will it take if the thing is 30% brighter?

It's simple math, Vixen. Did they teach you any of that in accountant's school?

 

[JayUtah]

Please use the clickback arrow to discover what I was responding to.

You responded by citing to H.J.P. Arnold, and went on to imply you found his statements in a book, newspaper, or magazine. Please cite to the source for the statements you're attributing to Arnold.

 

[Vixen]

I am the relevant source. I have suitable training and hands-on experience. I have shown empirically that Marcus Allen's claims are false. You agreed. Allen claimed to be an expert, but obviously cannot be. You refuse to acknowledge his lie.

I certainly hope to get to the bottom of it.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

I certainly hope to get to the bottom of it.

Keep digging!