• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why do you think Ektachrome looks good in a glossy magazine?

Why do you think professional photographers use it?

Could it be anything to do with it's resolution and colour rendering?
 
Vixen said:
I think HJP "Doug" Arnold, who worked for Kodak knows better than you.
“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.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I've trimmed Bennett and Percy's opinions.

Which parts of Douglas' comments as quoted there do you think supports your argument?
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
As we know, the film was indeed the optimal choice, properly exposed for the conditions, and performed very well.

As we also know, the photos would not have incidentally shown background stars because they were too faint, but that was of no consequence.

As we also know, Vixen also knows this and quite hilariously she still steadfastly refuses to admit it even now.
 
Foster Zygote said:
You specifically said that electrolysis was one method of producing water. Do we need to link to the actual post?


Again, you implied the living crap out of it, with a dramatic story about how people you knew had to be decontaminated after exposure to radioactive samples, and scoffing at the fact that the Navy dive teams and NASA took no precautions against radiation during the Apollo recovery operations.


This is complete nonsense. TV signals from the Westinghouse or RCA television cameras was broadcast via line of sight to the Deep Space Tracking Network on earth. Even in the one case of the lunar surface being shown from the CSM in orbit, the full broadcast shows that your sources were lying about the camera not moving over the terrain.


Ektachrome was introduced in 1946. ASA 160 Ektachrome in 1959. The only change for Apollo was that the actual film was thinner, to allow more exposures per roll. The emulsion itself was still standard ASA 160 Ektachrome.

And what is your point? Are you saying that because you believe that they invented a new film emulsion for Apollo that they should have been able to image sunlit objects and stars at the same time? Where do you think this is going?


No one said that photographing stars was impossible. This is going beyond straw man arguments, beyond lying, and into the territory of gaslighting.

And they had quite a few jobs, none of which were to photograph stars. Astronomers already had far better photographs of stars and their spectra than anything Apollo could have provided (with the exception of Apollo 16's Far Ultraviolet Camera Spectrograph images).
Click to expand...

There were two issues here: obtaining water deep within Moon rock on a dark aspect of the Moon that has never had sunlight and thus water is frozen deep within the rocks where it was vaporised by falling meteorites breaking up on impact. This extraction could indeed entail a chemical process to produce water in the form as we know it on earth. The other issue was the planned process to utilise this mined Moon 'water' as a form of fueling station to cut short the journey required for this purpose. In rocket technology this water is split into hydrogen and oxygen. Somewhere along the way in the thread, these two separate issues became conflated leading to some confusion.

As for the radioactivity issue, I merely remarked that instead of spraying the returning capsule with antiseptic for 'Moon Germs' they might have been better employed partaking in standard decontamination procedures - and I quipped they would be better off running a Geiger counter over it, rather than worrying about a non-existent ecosystem, any remainders of which would have been destroyed on reentry, and in any case, meteorites and rocks hit the earth all the time from outer space - because the astronauts HAD been in a highly hazardous environment, once on the Moon surface and secondly, the two to four hours passing through the highly hazardous Van Allen belts.

Finally, your other point: you saw how quickly the solar eclipse passed yesterday. This si due to both the Earth and the Moon being in constant orbit. That should give you a clue why you need logistics to ensure the 'live broadcast' - especially in 1969 from 250,000 miles away is geostationary. Vague guff about 'radio waves' doesn't cut the mustard.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
What type of film do you think would be "optimal" for simultaneously exposing the sunlit lunar surface correctly and showing stars in the sky? Can you name one, just one, capable of doing this?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
As we know, the film was indeed the optimal choice, properly exposed for the conditions, and performed very well.

As we also know, the photos would not have incidentally shown background stars because they were too faint, but that was of no consequence.

As we also know, Vixen also knows this and quite hilariously she still steadfastly refuses to admit it even now.
Click to expand...

If this film was so great, how come it has never been released for public sale and how come it was not listed in the 'prize winners' marketing material?

Stars viewed from space are nowhere near as 'faint' as seen on earth.
 
Vixen said:
This was the one job the Ektachrome bods were hired to do.
Click to expand...
No it wasn’t. That makes no sense at all. NASA hired “Ektachrome bods” to develop a film that could not only expose something as bright as the lunar surface but as extremely dim as stars in the sky, in the same exposure? That’s stupid.

I’d ask for evidence that this is what “Ektachrome bods” were explicitly hired to do, but you’re not going to provide said evidence, because you made it up.

Citation please! (You won’t provide a valid citation)
 
Vixen said:
There were two issues here: obtaining water deep within Moon rock on a dark aspect of the Moon that has never had sunlight and thus water is frozen deep within the rocks where it was vaporised by falling meteorites breaking up on impact. This extraction could indeed entail a chemical process to produce water in the form as we know it on earth. The other issue was the planned process to utilise this mined Moon 'water' as a form of fueling station to cut short the journey required for this purpose. In rocket technology this water is split into hydrogen and oxygen. Somewhere along the way in the thread, these two separate issues became conflated leading to some confusion.

As for the radioactivity issue, I merely remarked that instead of spraying the returning capsule with antiseptic for 'Moon Germs' they might have been better employed partaking in standard decontamination procedures - and I quipped they would be better off running a Geiger counter over it, rather than worrying about a non-existent ecosystem, any remainders of which would have been destroyed on reentry, and in any case, meteorites and rocks hit the earth all the time from outer space - because the astronauts HAD been in a highly hazardous environment, once on the Moon surface and secondly, the two to four hours passing through the highly hazardous Van Allen belts.

Finally, your other point: you saw how quickly the solar eclipse passed yesterday. This si due to both the Earth and the Moon being in constant orbit. That should give you a clue why you need logistics to ensure the 'live broadcast' - especially in 1969 from 250,000 miles away is geostationary. Vague guff about 'radio waves' doesn't cut the mustard.
Click to expand...
What are "standard decontamination procedures" for a returning Apollo mission ?

Also, there is direct line of sight between the earth and the moon. What "logistics" do you think were missing and why?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Stars viewed from space are nowhere near as 'faint' as seen on earth.
Click to expand...
Yes they are. Stars viewed from the lunar surface are only a few percent brighter than the same stars viewed under the best conditions from earth.

They are NOWHERE near the 100s to 1000s brighter they’d need to be to appear in exposures of at most 1/125 second on ASA 160 film at f/5.6 to f/11.

Again, I’ll ask for citation knowing you wont provide one (or a relevant one).
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please throw away your zoo management handbook. They took film and cameras specific for the purpose. They worked as intended.
 
Vixen said:
If this film was so great, how come it has never been released for public sale and how come it was not listed in the 'prize winners' marketing material?

Stars viewed from space are nowhere near as 'faint' as seen on earth.
Click to expand...
It was released for public sale. It used standard Ektachrome emulsions on an Estar base.
 
Vixen said:
If this film was so great, how come it has never been released for public sale and how come it was not listed in the 'prize winners' marketing material?

Stars viewed from space are nowhere near as 'faint' as seen on earth.
Click to expand...
As anyone who has read this thread knows, all of these points have already been addressed. I can't be arsed to go through it again but am tempted to use Vixen's favoured approach of just telling her to look back in the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom