Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[catsmate]

Still relying on logical fallacies, I see.

You don't seem to understand what the term means.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Actually he said:
Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
Perhaps you should educate yourself?

 

[catsmate]

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.

So much stupidity in one place.....

 

[Mojo]

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.

You don't really expect her to remember what she posted, do you?

 

[Mojo]

The electrolysis was a reference to separating hydrogen from oxygen and applicable to rocket fuel.

Nope:

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.

 

[Mojo]

Einstein was speaking as and to someone who was already maxing out their knowledge, perhaps to the detriment of their imagination.

He wasn't saying that any ignoramus who imagined some kind of nonsense was doing important thinking.

You shouldn't take everything Einstein said personally. Most of it doesn't really apply.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

 

[Mojo]

Facts about the pros and cons of transparency film can soon be looked up on the web.

Can you do so, and see if you can identify some relevant and realistic results, please?

 

[Mojo]

Eastman Kodak is the brand. Ektachrome is the product.

This is something a chartered accountant would know.

...and we're off into the long grass again. The claim was that Ektachrome 160 stock "was bespoke made especially for the occasion."

 

[Mojo]

Er, it's trademarked by Eastman Kodak.

[adds IP to the list]

 

[Vixen]

Eastman Kodak is the brand. Ektachrome is the product.

This is something a chartered accountant would know.

Er, I have diplomas in this stuff (branding).

Ektachrome - Wikipedia https://share.google/MiHdjQNq7Rd10J4ym

 

[Vixen]

...and we're off into the long grass again. The claim was that Ektachrome 160 stock "was bespoke made especially for the occasion."

It is factual NASA hired Ektachrome bods to develop camera film specifically for the Moon photos.

 

[Mojo]

It is factual NASA hired Ektachrome bods to develop camera film specifically for the Moon photos.

When did they hire them?

 

[Mojo]

It is factual NASA hired Ektachrome bods to develop camera film specifically for the Moon photos.

...and, to get back to the point, how would this have enabled photos taken to correctly expose the Moon's sunlit surface to also show stars in the sky?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

When did they hire them?

Must have been before NASA realised they would make a "massive failure" of failing to account for the brightness of the stars, as Vixen opined before. What other reason could there be for no stars appearing in the lunar surface photos than the incompetence of the Ektachrome bods?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It is factual NASA hired Ektachrome bods to develop camera film specifically for the Moon photos.

No they didn't hire anyone.
A contract was issued to Kodak.
Ektachrome was chosen because it was the fastest film available with a well understood process for developing the film
Apart from the thin base to allow longer rolls the emulsions used were not special for Kodak. I even told you the specific emulsions that were used.
Other Kodak films were used for black and white photography.

 

[Matthew Best]

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

She might be posting while sitting on the toilet.

 

[zooterkin]

I did correct you. You self-evidently had no idea originally that Ektachrome was a type of photographic film made by Kodak (Eastman Kodak).
...

And, specifically, was not apparently aware that it was a colour transparency film, not negative.

 

[threadworm]

Turn my back for 5 minutes and all of a sudden we get a flurry of activity.

If only @Vixen would put some effort in verifying the sources with which she agrees.

The image of Earth rising over the moon shows Earth as a crescent, but has the sun peeping over the horizon. It is very obviously AI generated for clicks. People who know about and follow space missions of any era have a very good understanding of the genuine image catalog - it really isn't difficult to identify fakes.

Even if it was genuine, again, stars would not be possible in that photo.

And no, people do not claim Apollo is genuine because they saw it on TV. They tell people they saw it on TV, as I did. What is in those TV broadcasts is, however, verifiable. How could live TV broadcasts contain those verifiable details vixen? Maybe spend some time answering the question you've avoided instead of guzzling google's garbage.

 

[Vixen]

No they didn't hire anyone.
A contract was issued to Kodak.
Ektachrome was chosen because it was the fastest film available with a well understood process for developing the film
Apart from the thin base to allow longer rolls the emulsions used were not special for Kodak. I even told you the specific emulsions that were used.
Other Kodak films were used for black and white photography.

This is the difference between you and me. You: personal opinion based, me; based on sources.

I think HJP "Doug" Arnold, who worked for Kodak knows better than you.

"For some reason NASA chose to use reversal film, rather than colour negative film which would have provided a far greater exposure latitude. “There were two reasons for this,” Douglas explained, “and the matter was given a great deal of thought at the time. Firstly, when you present the lab with a negative film for them to produce the positives, they would normally expect to have some gauge by which to print it. On Earth we would use skin tones, but dressed from head to toe in a spacesuit, you do not have that availability and so the labs don’t have a norm from which to print. With a transparency the colours are locked in the film; secondly you had higher resolution with transparency film compared with negative/positive film.” Nevertheless, in our view, negative/positive film could have been used if, at the start of each roll and especially at each new location, the astronauts were to have exposed a colour chart (lit by the same light that was falling on the surrounding terrain) then there would be a very accurate colour reference for the processing laboratory. This procedure is common practice in the motion picture industry, which uses colour negative stock and had such film been used it would have provided greater flexibility." (from "Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers" by "Mary Bennett, David S Percy").

 

[Vixen]

Must have been before NASA realised they would make a "massive failure" of failing to account for the brightness of the stars, as Vixen opined before. What other reason could there be for no stars appearing in the lunar surface photos than the incompetence of the Ektachrome bods?

I think if one is planning a once-in-a-lifetime visit to another planet, then you would want film that is optimal for the condtions, not film that would look good in a glossy magazine. But then, maybe....just maybe...the glossy mags were the aim after all.