Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Andy_Ross]

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

Then he's wrong.
Ektachrome was a popular film from It's introduction in 1959

 

[Vixen]

Name three films David Percy made besides his hoax video.

I know a whole lot more about this than David Percy does, which is why I'm the consulted expert and he is not. He knows this too, which is why he has run away from every invitation to debate me directly on this subject.

Did Percy ever give a reason for declining to debate with you?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's become a pretty pass when the best debunker arguments are:

1. that persons who come into contact with radioactivity will glow green in the dark​
2. that there exists a hill on the Moon that is 66K kilometres high​
3. Armstrong simply walked into Jessops and bought some Ektachrome 160 ISO for his trip.​

What is the point of posting ◊◊◊◊ like this?

 

[JayUtah]

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...

They point the high-gain antenna at Earth and they point the camera at the thing they want Earth to see. The computer actually points the antenna because it knows where Earth is, so I am struggling to imagine what "logistics" you think would be necessary.

So NASA 'explains' it as their having to point the actual TV cameras at a monitor that only NASA had access to.

Only NASA had access to the signal conversion equipment they designed and built. The Soviets designed and built their own and decoded the television picture on their own from the S-band signals they picked up on their own.

Those images could have come from anywhere.

Except they were observed by third parties to come from the Moon.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Please quote anyone saying any of those things, or admit that they are strawman arguments that you have just pulled from your nether regions.

Oh, also, the idiom is “come to a pretty pass”, as anyone educated to O level standard in Middlesex should know.

It's a bit of a damp squid

 

[Vixen]

I'm a recognized expert on this subject. Your sources are garbage, for the many reasons given in this thread.


Unfortunately what you posted is mostly David Percy's ignorant opinion. This is how he treats "Douglas" Arnold throughout, and in his video. Percy presents a statement from Arnold, which is usually a reasonably accurate statement, and then Percy wraps it in his own commentary to make it sound like his conclusions can be properly attributed to Arnold.

That's quite dishonest, but sadly it's Percy's stock in trade.

Arnold correctly notes that Ektachrome ISO 160 was chosen for its high resolution. Another thing Arnold could have mentioned is that the E-3 process is very lenient in the darkroom. It can be "pushed" in various ways to correct for the photographer's errors without compromising contrast or color. The technicians who loaded the film magazines first took several frames of standard reference charts. When the film came back, they clipped off these reference frames and developed them in snippets to identify and correct for any effects suffered during their use in space.

Percy says that he would accept the use of color reversal film if the astronauts had exposed a standard color chart for use in color calibration.

That's literally what NASA did!

In addition, the astronauts in later missions took a gnomon that provided provided both a color reference chart to capture in situ lighting and a reference for local vertical.

As usual, Percy has done little to no actual research on Apollo and presents the result of his considerable ignorance as if they were some kind of flaw or failure on NASA's part.

My comment was not directed at yourself. But I note your response.

 

[JayUtah]

Did Percy ever give a reason for declining to debate with you?

Nice try.

You claim David Percy is a famous filmmaker. Name three films he has made.

 

[Andy_Ross]

"Iconic". Oh dear.

Yes iconic.
Look at the film used to capture most of the famous colour photographs from the 60s to the 90s

 

[JayUtah]

My comment was not directed at yourself.

That does not absolve you from addressing my post. This is a group discussion. You say you depend on sources, not on opinions. Can you explain why your source is ignorant of one of the most well-known principles of Apollo photography? Can you explain why your source's clearly uninformed opinion regarding proper film stock should be given any weight?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Nice try.

You claim David Percy is a famous filmmaker. Name three films he has made.

If his only film credits are videos, wouldn't that make him a videographer?

ETA: In most contexts, this distinction would probably just be pedantic, but let's recall that Vixen is calling him a filmmaker to intimate that he has special knowledge of the film medium.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

Evasion.

You claim the film stock used for color photography in Apollo was "bespoke" and not available to the public. Evidence of its availability and popularity with the public both before and after Apollo directly refutes your claim. You have no answer for this, nor will you admit your error.

 

[JayUtah]

"Iconic". Oh dear.

And that's all you can manage in the face of evidence that Kodak is the brand and Ektachrome is the product line? You're reduced to one-word or one-sentence dismissals of documentary evidence at this point. As I said, I question literally every claim to expertise you have made at this forum.

 

[JayUtah]

If his only film credits are videos, wouldn't that make him a videographer?

I know his film credits. He has shot on film, but not anything that anyone here would have easily seen. He claims to be a member of the Royal Photographic Society. He was a cameraman on three or four film shorts made in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and I recall he may also have directed one. Most of his work appears to be as a cameraman in local television and on the art (not photography) side of VFX.

He really wants to be known as a sort commentator on the mystical and unknown. He wants to be in front of the camera, not behind it. He made a big splash as the "discoverer" of connections between Cydonia (on Mars) and places on Earth. That's the sort of stuff he wants to talk about. As is obvious, he doesn't really know much about Apollo or actual space science or space history, so he categorically refuses any one-on-one interaction with actual experts.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

As I said, I question literally every claim to expertise you have made at this forum.

She's made a pretty good case for being so special that she's unable to communicate with the other 99.9%.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

They point the high-gain antenna at Earth and they point the camera at the thing they want Earth to see.

 

[JayUtah]

What is the point of posting ◊◊◊◊ like this?

Ten more pages of attention.

 

[JayUtah]

It's what's being shoved in my mouth.

That doesn't even make sense as an answer. You're badly misrepresenting the rebuttals being made against you. Therefore people are asking you to point to where those exact representations were made, or—knowing that there are none—just rightly accusing you of lying about what your critics are saying. No one is putting words in your mouth.

 

[JayUtah]

All the photographers I knew used Ilford.

I use Ilford as well. I'm familiar with several film manufacturers. However the problem is that because you don't know anything about film photography, you thought Ektachrome and Kodak were two different companies, two different brands, with two different groups of people working for them. That's why you were trying to talk about employees of Ektachrome having a special role in Apollo. The people who make Ektachrome film are employees of Kodak, because it's their product line.

The larger issue is that you have variously appointed yourself either the arbiter of the Apollo authenticity question or the proponent of the case against the "debunkers," and we're pointing out that you fail at both tasks because you neither know enough about the Apollo program and its relevant sciences nor know enough about your sources and their flaws to speak intelligently about either one.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Then why did you bring up "people [you] know who worked with radioactive substances [and] went through decontamination procedures after every shift"? What point were you trying to make by bringing them up?

 

[Mojo]

It's become a pretty pass when the best debunker arguments are:

1. that persons who come into contact with radioactivity will glow green in the dark​
2. that there exists a hill on the Moon that is 66K kilometres high​
3. Armstrong simply walked into Jessops and bought some Ektachrome 160 ISO for his trip.​

Citations for these "arguments", please. Otherwise people will think you are making them up.