Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

Yes, you were confused about what electrolysis is. You said it was a method of producing water. In fact it is a method that can split water into hydrogen and oxygen. You were also confused about space stations being used for refueling, and thought the ISS was one of those and SpaceX was another.


Yes, your misunderstanding of radiation led you wrongly to think the spaceship needed to be radiologically decontaminated. That's our point. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to radiation.


Just more bluff and bluster. You can't seem to explain what part of the process, exactly, needs something to be "geostationary." Vague guff about "in constant orbit" doesn't cut the mustard. Not how people photographing the eclipse didn't need to wildly slew their cameras to follow the action. It was just there in the same place in the sky as seen from Earth for those few minutes.

A spacecraft near or on the Moon is already at a reasonably fixed place (i.e., moving slow enough to track) in the sky as seen from Earth, and there was famously a network of Earth tracking stations set up to receive the signals. Those are the logistics you mention.

As I explained at length previously, you seem to be confusing the operation of the Deep Space Network with the claims your authors made about one television broadcast from lunar orbit that they claim shows images taken from some camera platform that had to have been fixed in place over sites on the surface. They are simply wrong. Your conflation is even more wrong.

I am not at all 'confused'.

 

[JayUtah]

I think if one is planning a once-in-a-lifetime visit to another planet...

NASA planned several trips to the Moon, and as such supplied several different film types to cover all the possibilities.

...then you would want film that is optimal for the condtions, not film that would look good in a glossy magazine.

Why isn't Ektachrome a good film to use here?

But then, maybe....just maybe...the glossy mags were the aim after all.

Or maybe film isn't as narrowly single-purpose as you seem to imagine.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not at all 'confused'.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Vixen]

It was.

Kodak Ektachrome is one of Eastman Kodak's most successful product lines. It was successful before Apollo.


Asked and answered.

You were shown how to compute atmospheric attenuation of visible light. I computed it for you and expressed it in terms of adjusted camera settings. Why have you ignored that completely? I'm sure you've already asked the AI who told you that it takes tens of seconds to expose stars on ISO 160 film, and I'm sure it showed you that if it takes 10 seconds from underneath atmosphere, it will still take 7-8 seconds outside the atmosphere.

Just because something's a best seller with the public, doesn't= quality. All the photographers I knew used Ilford.

 

[Vixen]

NASA planned several trips to the Moon, and as such supplied several different film types to cover all the possibilities.


Why isn't Ektachrome a good film to use here?


Or maybe film isn't as narrowly single-purpose as you seem to imagine.

Now you are sounding like a Press Officer.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Then it would appear as a black disc with a red ring, if a lunar eclipse.

No.

This is @Vixen repeating her belief that, as seen from the moon, the earth looks to be the same size as the moon seen from earth:

But from the Moon, the Sun and the Earth should both appear as the same size. (Otherwise, how can there be a solar eclipse..?). Ed: Sorry, careless error, now corrected. Now put brain in gear.

When corrected on that point, she edited the post in which she made that false claim, attributing it to a "careless error, now corrected."

But now, having had plenty of time to put her brain in gear, she has forgotten all about that correction and has relied on her false claim to make a new false claim about how the earth would appear from the moon if it were between the moon and the sun.

If it makes you cringe that someone corrects an untrue claim, what does it say about your inner view of the world?

It remains to be seen whether @Vixen, cringing from these repeated corrections of her untrue claim(s), will simply ignore those corrections or try once again to explain away her mistakes.

 

[JayUtah]

These days any paparazzi will tell you they might take 200 shots in quick succession - in this digital age - to capture a potentially profit-making shot.

Then why aren't they carefully bracketing their shots, as Marcus Allen tells us is the rule?

Yes, I used to photograph for a ballet academy and in those all-day sessions I would take around 10,000 frames. I can do this because digital photography allows it. Film photography takes bulky magazines. In the film days when my mentor and I shot graduations, we would need entire satchels of film. Weight and space were at such a premium on Apollo missions that the cameras themselves were deemed expendable.

The Apollo 11 mission had one roll of color film.

 

[JayUtah]

Now you are sounding like a Press Officer.

That's the best answer you have?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

No, it doesn't. As I said, people I know who worked with radioactive substances went through decontamination procedures after every shift. One died very young of bone cancer.

Yes, it does. The phenomenon you are alluding to here involves actual contamination (i.e., the radioactive materials actually sticking to you and continuing to irradiate you). That is what decontamination procedures mitigate.

Simply being exposed to radiation does not make one a radiation threat to others. Nor would decontamination procedures mitigate radiation damage already done by such exposure.

 

[JayUtah]

Then in that case, look up a source that you can follow.

There is no source other than you for what you think happened or should have happened. We are not students asking you to teach us. I am a recognized expert on this subject in which you are leveling claims of fraud. I'm the examiner testing your evidence. You can either cooperate or continue to be laughed at.

 

[JayUtah]

No, it doesn't. As I said, people I know who worked with radioactive substances went through decontamination procedures after every shift. One died very young of bone cancer.

And still you do not understand the difference between irradiation and contamination. That's the point. You're conflating two different concepts because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[JayUtah]

Just because something's a best seller with the public, doesn't= quality. All the photographers I knew used Ilford.

Dodge.

You claim the Apollo color film was "bespoke" and not available to the public. You are factually wrong and won't admit it.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Another planet?

For certain values of "planet."

 

[JayUtah]

Don't be silly: as if there are tangible hills in space.

I'm simply repeating what you tried to claim. You didn't know what a Hill sphere was or how it got its name, so you imagined it to be some kind of description of a physical phenomenon akin to an actual hill.

 

[Vixen]

That's the best answer you have?

I don't need to hear how wonderful Kodak Ektachrome is. I know how business works. You are talking about product differentiation; that's what all brands strive for. Being popular with the public means diddly squat when it comes to assessing quality.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, it does. The phenomenon you are alluding to here involves actual contamination (i.e., the radioactive materials actually sticking to you and continuing to irradiate you). That is what decontamination procedures mitigate.

Simply being exposed to radiation does not make one a radiation threat to others. Nor would decontamination procedures mitigate radiation damage already done by such exposure.

I never said it did. Stop twisting my words, it's incredibly boring.

 

[Vixen]

I'm simply repeated what you tried to claim. You didn't know what a Hill sphere was or how it got its name, so you imagined it to be some kind of description of a physical phenomenon akin to an actual hill.

Oh please.

 

[Vixen]

Dodge.

You claim the Apollo color film was "bespoke" and not available to the public. You are factually wrong and won't admit it.

That's what Percy claims, and he's a film maker.

 

[Vixen]

And still you do not understand the difference between irradiation and contamination. That's the point. You're conflating two different concepts because you don't know what you're talking about.

Utter rubbish.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

We were talking about Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins logistics in having to arrange a live TV broadcast from a specific location at a specific time from 250,000 miles away,

...that specific location being a point on the surface of the moon, reasonably close to the middle of its visible disk. If you can see the moon, you can get radio signals from it. Light and radio waves propagate the same way.

Sending radio waves to the moon and back is not black magic; people have been doing it since the late 1940s -round trip, even, not just one way. Sending TV images back from the moon is not black magic, either. NASA had been doing that since the mid 1960s. They'd even gotten TV images back from Mars at that point.

You have yet to articulate a logistical problem with beaming TV back from the moon to earth that NASA could not overcome with the technology they had in 1969, or to explain how a "geopositioned" satellite, whatever that even is, would solve such. All you have is mockery and incredulity, informed by ignorance and conspiracy thinking.

as well as all the other stuff they had to coordinate via a crib sheet.

What "crib sheet"? Do you mean the mission timeline? Yes, mission control and the Apollo crews had to coordinate stuff, and some of that stuff had to be planned for. So what?

So NASA 'explains' it as their having to point the actual TV cameras at a monitor that only NASA had access to. Those images could have come from anywhere.

However, the signals that sent them could only have come from the moon. It has already been explained several times to you how one would know this.