Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

apart from the whole showing stars thing, you mean?



Your eidetic memory is failing you again. "This issue arose" because many moons (ha!) ago, you parroted Marcus Allen's ignorant notion that one should expect to see stars in the surface photographs taken during the Apollo EVAs. That doomed thesis is now even more exposed than those photos showing stars would have to be, and your only remaining recourse is to post irrelevant AI images, pretending that they're actually "offical NASA" photographs.

You need a better argument.

Marcus Allen made some good points. All the people on the 'debunking' side can come up with is claiming Eastman Kodak were incapable of producing Ektachrome transparency film - never made available to the public, nor announced as a prize winner - that could take pictures on the Moon of its astral environment. We have never received an adequate explanation of why use slide film, unless you're marketing to glossy magazines?

 

[zooterkin]

But uncannily accurate, you must admit. (Well, I am aware hell will freeze over before that happens.)

Uncannily accurate, if you think the Earth looks like the Moon.

 

[Vixen]

Already showed you that earlier in this thread. Try using those awesome search powers.

A meaningless slur IOW.

 

[JayUtah]

Marcus Allen made some good points.

Marcus Allen intentionally lied.

All the people on the 'debunking' side can come up with is claiming Eastman Kodak were incapable of producing Ektachrome transparency film - never made available to the public, nor announced as a prize winner - that could take pictures on the Moon of its astral environment.

Asked and answered.

We have never received an adequate explanation of why use slide film, unless you're marketing to glossy magazines?

Irrelevant.

How long does it take to expose stars on ISO 160 film? We know you know the answer to this, Vixen. Your honesty as a human being is being tested. Act accordingly.

 

[zooterkin]

Citation, please re 'eidetic memory'.

My memory is excellent thanks - almost eidetic. I rarely forget a face; I am a high 'face recogniser'. I often meet someone and I just know I have met them before somewhere, even if I am lousy at names. I also remember complete poems, songs and mottos from early childhood. I expect the 'bad memory' thing comes from the recent misogynistic round of attacks on myself in which people stated that one of their female relatives had alzheimers, therefore, all females are demented and ill. BTW here is how choirs are recorded in the studio (skip to about 0:30):

 

[Vixen]

Here's what you said.

*In the context of carrying your own weight on your back* ceteris paribus

 

[Reformed Offlian]

A meaningless slur IOW.

If you say so. It was *your* description, applied to yourself.

 

[JayUtah]

*In the context of carrying your own weight on your back* ceteris paribus

Irrelevant, and wrong.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Marcus Allen made some good points.

If so, that certainly wasn't one of them.

All the people on the 'debunking' side can come up with is claiming Eastman Kodak were incapable of producing Ektachrome transparency film - never made available to the public, nor announced as a prize winner - that could take pictures on the Moon of its astral environment.

I suspect nobody outside of your complex ideas ever said that.

We have never received an adequate explanation of why use slide film, unless you're marketing to glossy magazines?

I'm not sure if that's true, and at any rate it's not relevant.

 

[JayUtah]

A meaningless slur IOW.

You described your own memory as "near eidetic." This has been quoted and cited to you several times. The fact that you can't remember this means your statement is neither meaningless nor correct.

 

[Vixen]

Thank you for confirming the context re *near* eidetic was all about music and a defence against misogynistic guys claiming women whom they disagree with must be demented by Alzheimer's, a really shocking comparison to a horrendous illness that can affect a large percentage of people, and which should never be used as a term of abuse. So my challenging the wholly untrue claim I suffer from a terminal illness is now used as an alternative insult. I am glad you have made it clear it was not a boast but a perfectly reasonable correction on my part.

 

[Steve]

Citation, please re 'eidetic memory'.

Cited above by Zooterkin. We await your dodge.

ETA late to the party - dodge duly noted.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Thank you for confirming the context re near eidetic was all about music and a defence against misogynistic guys claiming women who they disagree with must be demented by Alzheimer's, a really shocking comparison to a horrendous illness that can affect a large percentage of people and which should not be used as a term of abuse. So my challenging the wholly untrue claim I suffer from a terminal illness is now used as an alternative insult. I am glad you have made it clear it was not a boast but a perfectly reasonable correction on my part.

You are being mocked for boasting an ability that you clearly don't have. Don't like it? Stop engaging in empty bluster.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Marcus Allen made some good points. All the people on the 'debunking' side can come up with is claiming Eastman Kodak were incapable of producing Ektachrome transparency film - never made available to the public, nor announced as a prize winner - that could take pictures on the Moon of its astral environment. We have never received an adequate explanation of why use slide film, unless you're marketing to glossy magazines?

It was the fastest colour film available at the time.

Why do you think a glossy magazine that wants high quality photographs with accurate colour rendition would use slide film, along with just about every professional photographer?

 

[Vixen]

If so, that certainly wasn't one of them.



I suspect nobody outside of your complex ideas ever said that.



I'm not sure if that's true, and at any rate it's not relevant.

You're the arbiter as to whether transparency film was the optimal type for Moon conditions?

 

[Thermal]

Thank you for confirming the context re *near* eidetic was all about music and a defence against misogynistic guys claiming women whom they disagree with must be demented by Alzheimer's, a really shocking comparison to a horrendous illness that can affect a large percentage of people and which should not be used as a term of abuse. So my challenging the wholly untrue claim I suffer from a terminal illness is now used as an alternative insult. I am glad you have made it clear it was not a boast but a perfectly reasonable correction on my part.

The context was a blanket "excellent memory, near eidetic," and then a bunch of examples ranging from faces to music to poems and every other rambling thing that sprung to mind. You did not restrict the claimed excellence to any particular context at all.

 

[Vixen]

It was the fastest colour film available at the time.

Why do you think a glossy magazine that wants high quality photographs with accurate colour rendition would use slide film, along with just about every professional photographer?

Do look up the pros and cons.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You're the arbiter as to whether transparency film was the optimal type for Moon conditions?

The people who were clearly thought it was the right choice.

On what basis do you propose to second-guess them?

 

[JayUtah]

You're the arbiter as to whether transparency film was the optimal type for Moon conditions?

Both transparency and ordinary negative films were used.

Since you can't accurately describe "Moon conditions" in terms of illumination, you shouldn't be questioning the wisdom of your betters.

 

[JayUtah]

Do look up the pros and cons.

I know the pros and cons.

You discuss them, please, and tell me what you think they should have done and why.