Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Reformed Offlian]

Stating that Tom, Dick and Harry agree with you adds no weight to the debate. It is a recognised logical fallacy.

Perhaps not, but pointing out that Irving, Patrick, Graham, and D.Q. agree with him does.

 

[JesseCuster]

What do you mean, 'available'? It was bespoke made especially for the occasion.

Ektachrome ASA 160 film stock was not bespoke made for the occasion.

It already existed.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What do you mean, 'available'? It was bespoke made especially for the occasion.

It's was coated on a thin 2.7-mil polyester support base to allow extended lengths of film inside modified Hasselblad magazines.
You have been told this.
The emulsion itself was SO-368 for Apollo 11 which has an integrated haze filter. This was found not to be needed so the later missions used SO-168 without the filter.

 

[Vixen]

I read that post of yours in context. Your accusations that you were being accused of having dementia (let alone a "fatal illness") were pathetic and were entirely your invention. The only thing he wrote was that you have a poor memory. Which, demonstrably, you do have.

YAWN

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I read that post of yours in context. Your accusations that you were being accused of having dementia (let alone a "fatal illness") were pathetic and were entirely your invention. The only thing he wrote was that you have a poor memory. Which, demonstrably, you do have.

Looking over that thread, I've been wondering if there's an AAH with the offending posts. Because in the thread as it stands, Vixen was the one who brought up Alzheimers apropos of nothing, simply in response to somebody suggesting she had a bad memory.

 

[Vixen]

I'm sure that your ideas are complex. That's why they contain so many imaginary terms.

Einstein said, 'Imagination is more important than knowledge'. Thank you for the unintended compliment. I understand. I believe you are genuinely baffled by the topic.

 

[sackett]

OT, possibly*

"If you set high standards for yourself, you will be held to them by others."

Now that is about the unfairest declaration that I can ever recall hearing, even
in grade school, where I spent eight years under the control of virtually 19th
century schoolmarms.

The stern warning I quote** above above teaches a clear lesson to a child learning
how to make his way through life: Hold yourself to low standards, and others will
forgive your poor performance. You will recieve the usual rewards for duitiful striving
(as it will appear to be) without the soul-destroying toil of the boastfully ambitious. Aim for
the nearest targets! Miss the farther ones! and then humbly ask, "Please kin I have
summore bullets? I wanna keep trying. Sirs." You will rise higher than many who deserve more..

* AFAIU, but maybe not.
** Took me four or five scrolls to get the wording AND the punctuation. But I don't claim
to have one them idiotic memories.

 

[zooterkin]

Einstein said, 'Imagination is more important than knowledge'. Thank you for the unintended compliment. I understand. I believe you are genuinely baffled by the topic.

Whoosh!

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I believe you are genuinely baffled by the topic.

You seem to believe a lot of stuff. You believed the images you posted with stars in them were genuinely photographs, for example.

 

[Foster Zygote]

A fact cannot be changed however much one might hate it or fear it.

For example, it will always be a fact that water is not a product of electrolysis. The same applies to the fact that exposure to radiation doesn't make someone radioactive. It is likewise a fact that a communications satellite isn't needed to make transmissions between earth and moon possible. And you cannot take the fact that mid 20th Century film photography technology could not image both stars and sunlit objects at the same time and wish it away to the cornfield.

 

[JayUtah]

Einstein said, 'Imagination is more important than knowledge'. Thank you for the unintended compliment. I understand. I believe you are genuinely baffled by the topic.

No, you're not the smartest person in the room.

 

[JesseCuster]

Whether it was negative or slide film, or whether the film stock was bespoke made for NASA, etc. is of course a red herring…

The film speed was ASA 160.

The exposure time was 1/125 or 1/250 seconds.

The aperture was f/5.6 - f/11.

Anyone with a clue about photography knows that with those settings (even Vixen has conceded that you need at least 10 seconds+ to expose stars), you simply are not going to expose stars in the night sky, whether on the moon or on the earth or orbiting in the ISS…

Instead, as is Vixen’s modus operandi, she will argue endlessly about some pointless details she doesnt understand, to cover the glaring flaws in the overall argument that we should see stars in the Apollo 11 lunar surface photography.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

OT, possibly*

"If you set high standards for yourself, you will be held to them by others."

Now that is about the unfairest declaration that I can ever recall hearing, even
in grade school, where I spent eight years under the control of virtually 19th
century schoolmarms.

The stern warning I quote** above above teaches a clear lesson to a child learning
how to make his way through life: Hold yourself to low standards, and others will
forgive your poor performance. You will recieve the usual rewards for duitiful striving
(as it will appear to be) without the soul-destroying toil of the boastfully ambitious. Aim for
the nearest targets! Miss the farther ones! and then humbly ask, "Please kin I have
summore bullets? I wanna keep trying. Sirs." You will rise higher than many who deserve more..

* AFAIU, but maybe not.
** Took me four or five scrolls to get the wording AND the punctuation. But I don't claim
to have one them idiotic memories.

My school experiences weren't as traumatic as yours, apparently; nonetheless, even as a child I learned: "Don't boast if you aren't ready to be called on it." And I don't ever recall finding that to be particularly unfair, even if I was guilty of that particular offense on more than one occasion.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You only assume it's ignorance because you can't conceive that people are capable of complex ideas.

Vixen, saying something like "electrolysis makes water" isn't a complex idea. It's just a wrong statement.

 

[JesseCuster]

Einstein said, 'Imagination is more important than knowledge'. Thank you for the unintended compliment. I understand. I believe you are genuinely baffled by the topic.

“Non-geopositioned satellites”

The only one using these kind of bafflingly incoherent pseudo-scientific statements is you.

 

[JesseCuster]

BTW Vixen, you never actually explained, despite being asked several times, what you mean by “geopositioned”. It’s not a word that means geosynchronous or geostationary. It’s not a term used to describe orbits at all.

What do you mean by it and why continue to use it after its been pointed out it’s a gibberish meaningless phrase?

What do YOU mean by “geopositioned satellite” and why do you insist on using this bafflingly unscientific terminology after being corrected? (you’re not going to answer or be able to actually answer this question in plain simple language)

 

[Foster Zygote]

Wait. This issue arose because a previous AI-composed image by Dream time - in lieu of scant photography of the Moon at sunrise - was claimed to be inaccurate. But it is very close to the one recently taken by Artemis II, so all those who sneered it was an impossible photograph now have to pretend it was something else they objected to.

You mean the image that showed the moon, as seen from the other moon?

Sorry, Vixen, but that kind of AI crap is never going to be evidence regarding claims about reality. There's just no polishing that turd.

 

[Vixen]

For example, it will always be a fact that water is not a product of electrolysis. The same applies to the fact that exposure to radiation doesn't make someone radioactive. It is likewise a fact that a communications satellite isn't needed to make transmissions between earth and moon possible. And you cannot take the fact that mid 20th Century film photography technology could not image both stars and sunlit objects at the same time and wish it away to the cornfield.

The electrolysis was a reference to separating hydrogen from oxygen and applicable to rocket fuel. I have never said radiation makes you radioactive. Live TV broadcast in 1969 would have required a method of geopositioning so that the picture remained stationary. Eastman Kodak brought in top experts to develop a bespoke film for Moon filming on the Moon surface. These were top bod consultants in Ektachrome technology.

Saying it's not possible for a camera film to take pics of the firmament is a circular argument when they had one job.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No, that is a brazen fib. I said it would not be any less arduous to carry around ceteris paribus.

Semantic games don't make you any less wrong.

 

[Vixen]

My school experiences weren't as traumatic as yours, apparently; nonetheless, even as a child I learned: "Don't boast if you aren't ready to be called on it." And I don't ever recall finding that to be particularly unfair, even if I was guilty of that particular offense on more than one occasion.

Thankfully that doesn't apply to me.