Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Mojo]

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

No, you posted it, here. Don't you remember?

 

[Mojo]

One emanates from Foster Zygote who claims to be outraged by my laughing at the rescue guys squirting disinfectant at them. Another emanates from JayUtah desperate to make out I believe the Moon has a real hill 66K high. Plus some spiel about how great Ektachrome is because it is 'iconic'.

Links, please.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh please.

The proper response is, "Thank you for the information; I didn't know that."

Bluff and bluster don't work here. You're trying to bluster past the very obvious conclusion that when you say things like "achieving a hill" and "non-geopositioned" with respect to Apollo television or orbits, you don't have the faintest clue what they mean or what the argument is that you're ham-fistedly borrowing.

Utter rubbish.

No.

As everyone else has pointed out, you brought up your prior experience with decontamination procedures as an example of what you think should have been done to the returning spaceship. You repeated that error just today:

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...

Throwing tantrums because you're so very wrong all the time and get caught every time is not any sort of "complex idea" in debate. It's just you being wrong and childishly refusing to admit it.

 

[JayUtah]

Another emanates from JayUtah desperate to make out I believe the Moon has a real hill 66K high.

I said no such thing.

Plus some spiel about how great Ektachrome is because it is 'iconic'.

Asked and answered.

You claim Apollo film was "bespoke" and no one else could use it. Showing you evidence of its availability and popularity refutes your claim.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

Checklist: 1 Turn on TV camera. 2 Check high gain antenna is still pointing at Earth. 3 There is no 3.

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.

Explains it? Explains what exactly? Pointing an NTSC broadcast camera at a slow scan video monitor was a conventional method of doing a video standards conversion back in those days. None of that is puzzling or needs explaining. Nor does it use a satellite. Have you worked out what it is you imagine they needed a satellite for yet? Can you explain it yet?

 

[JesseCuster]

I understood the issue immediately. If you do not understand it you can find stuff at your library or online that explains it all.

No, I can't find the answer to my question online at my library, because the question is what do YOU mean by "geopositioned"?

I've searched online (as others here have) for the meaning of "geopositioned" or "geopositioining" and the best I can find is that geopositioning has to do with triangulating your position on earth using GPS satellites, WiFi networks, cell networks, etc. I can't find any meaning of the term which makes any sense in the context you're attempting to use it (and your usage has been confusing and inconsistent)

All you have to do is link me to a source that explains what you mean by the phrase "geopositioning" as you are using it. It'll take you far less effort to simply link to a source that explains the phrase as you're using it, or to simply type out what you mean by the phrase.

So Vixen, please explain for clarity, what do YOU mean by the phrase "geopositioned" as you are using it. (you are incapable of answering this question and will prove me right be ignoring the request, or by doing anything other than actually answering it)

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

I used FP4 as my standard Black and white film with HP5 for lower light work.
Like everyone I got it in bulk rolls and rolled it in to reusable cassettes.

I would like to know what Ilford colour film Vixen thinks her photographer friends use.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

How many of them chose Ilford colour film for their trips to the moon?

 

[SteveAitch]

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.

Well, my Pentax MX could be used with a 250 frame bulk film back. With the full motor drive (as opposed to the cheaper auto-winder) you could waste get through a lot of film quickly!

ETA: But a bulk film back for a 'blad would probably be a bit unwieldy.

 

[JesseCuster]

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!

Is that what this image is? I came across it when browsing the Apollo 11 images, it's at the end/start of the Apollo 11 magazine 40.

 

[JayUtah]

@Vixen wrote:

As was explained the Moon is so close to Earth, if its 'hill' were to be achieved theoretically it would be sucked into Earth's gravitational force.

Then I wrote:

It's called the Hill sphere not because it, or any part of it, is a "hill," but after its discoverer, astronomer George Hill. Your rendition of it was so garbled that it took pages to figure out what you were trying to say.

Whatever she meant by putting "hill" in cautionary quotes is irrelevant. What I thought she might have meant is irrelevant, which is why I didn't try to figure it out or question her on it. I just mimicked her use of quotes. The only meaning that Hill holds in Hill Sphere is the name of its discoverer, George Hill. I don't have to plumb the depths of her misconception here to know that whatever she might have meant is wrong.

But as usual, @Vixen can't handle the actual arguments so she just has to make up crap and cram it in everyone else's mouths.

 

[JayUtah]

Is that what this image is? I came across it when browsing the Apollo 11 images, it's at the end/start of the Apollo 11 magazine 40.

Yes, that's a calibration frame.

 

[JayUtah]

Pointing an NTSC broadcast camera at a slow scan video monitor was a conventional method of doing a video standards conversion back in those days.

Correct. Slow-phosphor television screens were manufactured for this purpose until delay-line technology became more robust.

None of that is puzzling or needs explaining. Nor does it use a satellite. Have you worked out what it is you imagine they needed a satellite for yet? Can you explain it yet?

She's just sticking to the story that we should consult our local library if we're confused.

 

[JesseCuster]

Even excusing Vixen's odd use of "hill" to mean "Hill sphere", what does it even mean for the moon to theoretically achieve its Hill sphere?

Just exactly how does a body "theoretically achieve its Hill sphere"? I'm convinced that a lot of this stuff that Vixen says isn't even wrong, I don't think there's even a coherent idea behind these kind of posts, especially when she tries to be technical and talks about Hill spheres and geopositioning, etc. which is why we got non-responses when she's asked for clarification.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

Circular nonsense argument. You thought it suspicious Ektachrome 160 wasn't sold to the public if it was so good. But it was sold and was very popular. Now you're decrying NASA for choosing it just because it was popular. Which is some nonsense you just invented in your head. And you appear to be implying it couldn't be any good really because your photographer pals all used Ilford. But Ilford were famous for their black and white negative films and not their colour films. I never knew anyone who preferred to use Ilford colour film.

 

[JayUtah]

I never knew anyone who preferred to use Ilford colour film.

Ilford color film is not actually made by Ilford. No one uses Ilford color film who knows better.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Circular nonsense argument. You thought it suspicious Ektachrome 160 wasn't sold to the public if it was so good. But it was sold and was very popular. Now you're decrying NASA for choosing it just because it was popular. Which is some nonsense you just invented in your head. And you appear to be implying it couldn't be any good really because your photographer pals all used Ilford. But Ilford were famous for their black and white negative films and not their colour films. I never knew anyone who preferred to use Ilford colour film.

Black and white was cheaper; they could Ilford to buy color.

I'll show myself out.

 

[threadworm]

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.​

Those aren't any debunker arguments.

 

[Vixen]

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

The non sequitur logical fallacy.

 

[Vixen]

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?

If you don't understand the reasons for health & safety checks it's not for me to explain it further.

But this article might help:

The radiation environment

The first thing to get right is that 'radiation level' is not a single number. Beyond Earth orbit, astronauts face three overlapping hazards: trapped particles in the Van Allen belts, solar particle events from the Sun, and galactic cosmic rays from outside the solar system. The belts are intense but brief—the spacecraft crosses them quickly. Solar particle events are intermittent and operationally urgent; they can raise dose rates sharply over hours. Galactic cosmic rays are the chronic background: a low-dose-rate field of very high-energy particles, mostly protons but also heavy ions, present all the time and notoriously difficult to shield against. ANSTO