• 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

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.
I don't have time to waste playing silly word games. Instead of focusing on random words, try taking in the idea instead, and then you won't get stuck at the first fence.
 
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.
Haha. It is patently obvious I was referring to the bespoke Moon edition of Ektachrome. Or do you suspect what Percy suspects, that it's non-existent as it wasn't actually needed as it never happened?
 
Haha. It is patently obvious I was referring to the bespoke Moon edition of Ektachrome. Or do you suspect what Percy suspects, that it's non-existent as it wasn't actually needed as it never happened?
As usual you do not address the points you reply to. Why do you imply Ilford film would have been a better choice? Because it was popular with your pals?
 
@Vixen wrote:


Then I wrote:


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.
It was in quotation marks because it was a shorthand colloquialism.
 
As usual you do not address the points you reply to. Why do you imply Ilford film would have been a better choice? Because it was popular with your pals?
Don't twist my words. I did not say it was a better choice. I was responding to JayUtah gushing like a starstruck schoolboy as to how "iconic" Ektachrome was, being incredibly popular with the public. I simply pointed out that the snob photographers I knew all preferred Ilford.
 
Last edited:
As usual you do not address the points you reply to. Why do you imply Ilford film would have been a better choice? Because it was popular with your pals?
I was countering JayUtah's apparent belief that 'popular' equates to 'best'. Being market leader often has no correlation at all with level of quality. I was correcting a common misconception.
 
Don't twist my words. I did not say it was a better choice. I was responding to JayUtah gushing like a starstruck schoolboy as to how "iconic" Ektachrome was, being incredibly popular with the public. I simply pointed out that the snob photographers I knew all preferred Ilford.
So you don't know of any better choice than the film they selected. And you already acknowledged it would take many seconds exposure to photograph stars with it. You could just have said that and not wasted all this time.
 
I was countering JayUtah's apparent belief that 'popular' equates to 'best'. Being market leader often has no correlation at all with level of quality. I was correcting a common misconception.
No, you were just demonstrating your ignorance. Ilford produce monochrome film stock, not colour. And the colour film sold under their name is inferior, so not suitable for the Apollo missions.
 
You can look it up on wiki. You seemed to have had no problem understanding the concept before, so I assume you are being frivolous.
At the very least, if you're not capable of expressing the concept in your own words, a link to the relevant page and position within it of this explanation, please.
 

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