Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

Oh yes, the Donald Drumpf method for public speaking.

It's what I've referred to as trying to make smart people noises.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Sorry, that appears to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy;

Pepe, do you know what a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is?

 

[Axxman300]

If you paid attention, the claim is it would take special and onerous logistics to achieve a stationary image without a [=geo] selenostationary satellite, which could theoretically be done by localised means.

You mean like spending millions of dollars on giant antenna arrays around the globe, such as Pine Gap, Australia to relay signals from orbiting space craft, and the moon back to Houston? Why didn't we think of that?...oh wait, we did.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

Listen Vixen! You are amazing and brilliant, but you are losing the fight. You have to talk to these people on their own terms.

They "say" you can't put a satellite in a selinsncro something?

Fine, they should have used, say, six moonsats ,one for every quadrant, they would make at most half a Hill.

Then they would have sent the signal from the "lander" to whichever moonsat was in sight. Then the signal would be transferred to the required geopositioned satellite over each earth receiver. Then , of course, the signal would be sent to the ground station. Use the same path for return messages.

Much SIMPLER!

Image stabilization may still be required

 

[Axxman300]

Sorry, that appears to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy; re your claim, there are no stars because either NASA didn't want them or 'It is not possible to film a starry sky from the Moon surface using Ektachrome ASA160'. There are no stars because who needs'em anyway..?

No. It was simply NASA prioritizing what needed to be photographed while on the surface of the moon. In this case, the priority was to document the activities and the surface of the moon. Stars can be photographed from earth, and wasting film to do so would be stupid, and NASA doesn't do stupid.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Even very stupid people who nevertheless mean well will still try to explain something as best they can. Instead, people who don't mean well will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid having to give any explanation and deploy a myriad of unconvincing excuses. I agree that evidence of deficiency shouldn't be taken as evidence of deception. But evidence of deception is simply what it is.

I'm leaning toward a mixture of dishonesty and incompetence. On the one hand, I suspect a genuine belief in her superior intellectual abilities. It's what I've come to refer to as someone who is just barely smart enough to recognize their own unrivaled genius. (I've used that description for people like Ayn Rand and Ben Shapiro.) On the other hand, there's an obvious psychological need to demonstrate her genius through the opposition of those who are jealous of her superiority - to believe that people dispute her claims because she's intellectually superior to them. I think she's probably aware of her exposed pretentiousness even as she believes she's genuinely the smartest person in the room.

From my observations of conspiracy theorists of all stripes, this seems to be a fundamentally defining feature. I suspect it's a result of a lifetime of people failing to recognize their obviously exceptional talents, and finding ways to make that the failure of said people rather than their own.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Selenostationary* satellite images for live TV broadcast from the Moon's surface without needing special logistics because of course, it would theoretically match the Moon's orbit.

*cf geostationary satellites

Now explain why such a satellite would be needed. Explain why a directional antenna on the moon can't point to the earth, and a directional antenna on the earth can't point at the moon, and the two send and receive transmissions between them.

 

[Foster Zygote]

View attachment 74569

schematic (not to scale) of Hill spheres (as 2D radii) and Roche limits of each body of the Sun-Earth-Moon system. The actual Hill radius for the Moon is on the order of 60,000 km (i.e., extending less than one-sixth the distance of the 378,000 km between the Moon and the Earth).[9]

Orbit of the Moon - Wikipedia https://share.google/2ztDaKzm0GaYwzkDK

And?

You're still acting as though it is self evident that a satellite needed to be in a fixed position above the moon in order to make radio communications possible. This is just you showing how ignorant you are of the subject of radio communications.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Apollo didn't use a satellite

More importantly, Apollo didn't need a satellite.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No. It was simply NASA prioritizing what needed to be photographed while on the surface of the moon. In this case, the priority was to document the activities and the surface of the moon. Stars can be photographed from earth, and wasting film to do so would be stupid, and NASA doesn't do stupid.

Apart from the mission that had a camera specifically for photographing the stars.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

People shouldn't have to decipher your sloppy use of idiomatic terminology peculiar to you, especially from a self-declared author, scientist, etc. You should be far more careful with your choice of words.

Now, can you explain what you mean by "geopositioned" or "geopositioning", because that most definitely is not clear from the context. No-one knows what you mean (most of all, you).

A good answer here:

"A more careful calculation, including the effects of the Sun is slightly more optimistic and provides a Hill radius of r=58,050km. In either case though, hopefully you can see that the radius for a selenostationary orbit is much farther than the Hill radius, meaning that no stable orbit can be achieved as it would be too much perturbed by the Earth and/or the Sun.

One final, semi-related point. It turns out almost no orbits around the Moon are stable, even if they're inside the Hill radius. This is primarily to do with mass concentrations (or mascons) in the Moon's crust and mantle which make the gravitational field non-uniform and act to degrade orbits. There are only a handful of "stable" orbits and these are only achieved by orbiting in such a way as to miss passing over these mascons."

Astronomy Stack Exchange

It may be a good answer to something. But it has no connection whatsoever to the post by JesseCuster that you quoted. Your "brain" works in very strange ways.

When you take into account the working of her brain, as has been demonstrated over and over within this very thread, it should be obvious @Vixen is saying her many references to "geopositioned" and "geopositioning" were, in her addled brain, referring to the Hill radius.

As she went on to note, all of her references to "geopositioned", "geopositioning", "Hill sphere", and "Hill" were actually unnecessary, because she knew all along that any "stable" orbit must pass over the mascons. As a triple-niner unable to communicate with the other 99.9% of us idiots, she didn't see any need to point out that Apollo 11 couldn't possibly have reached the moon, because everyone knows it's impossible to photograph mascons from outside the hill using bespoke film manufactured by the Ektachrome bods.

How does that explain what you mean by "geopositioned" or "geopositioning"?

No, that doesn't explain in any way what you mean by "non-geopositioned."


Are you trying to say that "achieved its 'hill'" means to orbit at an altitude exceeding the radius of the Hill Sphere?

A good answer perhaps, but not an answer to the question you were asked.

It doesn't explain what you meant by "geopositioned" nor what you meant by "achieve its hill".

The honest answers appear to be that you don't know. It was just some technobabble you thought sounded clever.

You folks don't appear to understand how triple-niners talk and "think".

 

[Foster Zygote]

Here's an example of how black and white photography is perfectly capable of producing a starry night photo.

View attachment 74572 stock photo f.o.c.

iStock

iStock. Tutustu viralliseen iStock-verkkosivustoon – löydät sivustolta miljoonia rojaltivapaita tiedostopankin tiedostoja, joita et saa muualta. Löydä täydellinen tiedostopankin tiedosto projektiisi – nopeasti. Hae nyt.

www.istockphoto.com

Please list the film speed, aperture and exposure time. Also please note the complete lack of any sunlit objects within the frame.

No one has argued that stars can't be photographed. Several of us have even talked about having done it. The fact that you are trying to pretend that showing an image of stars somehow proves you right tells us that you fully understand the flaming crater that is your actual argument.

 

[Foster Zygote]

If you paid attention, the claim is it would take special and onerous logistics to achieve a stationary image without a [=geo] selenostationary satellite, which could theoretically be done by localised means.

The claim is utter ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. There is no "stationary image". This has been demonstrated with the full TV transmission, showing that your source is a liar. It also shows that you'll believe a lie as long as it tells you you're smart for believing it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The image was not stationary. It changed aspect.

This reminds me of the "backdrop" claims regarding the Apollo 15 images - how they're supposedly identical in every photo. But when you actually look at them, shifts in perspective can clearly be seen between each of the geology station stops.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Sorry, that appears to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy; re your claim, there are no stars because either NASA didn't want them or 'It is not possible to film a starry sky from the Moon surface using Ektachrome ASA160'. There are no stars because who needs'em anyway..?

Again, your straw man arguments tell us just how aware you are of your failure to address what was really said.

 

[JesseCuster]

Here's an example of how black and white photography is perfectly capable of producing a starry night photo.

View attachment 74572 stock photo f.o.c.

iStock

iStock. Tutustu viralliseen iStock-verkkosivustoon – löydät sivustolta miljoonia rojaltivapaita tiedostopankin tiedostoja, joita et saa muualta. Löydä täydellinen tiedostopankin tiedosto projektiisi – nopeasti. Hae nyt.

www.istockphoto.com

Snow or stars on night sky background. Flat vector background stock illustration​

iStock

iStock. Explore the official iStock website for millions of exclusive, royalty-free, stock files. Find the perfect stock for your project, fast. Search now.

www.istockphoto.com

Really Vixen, really? This is your example of black and white starry night photography? It's not a photo. It's a vector image of a pattern of little grey and white circles on a black background. It's entirely computer generated, there's nothing about this thats a photograph.

THREE TIMES you've done this in this thread (at least). Gone searching for a photo to prove something, and returning with some AI slop or some vector clipart.

I'm not sure what to ask. Are you trolling us, or are you really oblivious to the fact that you can't tell a real photograph from something that's (in some cases) very obviously not a photograph?

Wow. Keep scraping that barrel Vixen.

 

[wollery]

Vixen, please explain to me what would be the advantage of taking a photograph of stars using a hand-held camera on the surface of the Moon, over taking an image of the stars from the 5.1 metre Hale telescope at the Palomar Observatory, or the 2 and 2.7 metre telescopes at the McDonald Observatory, or the 3 metre Shane telescope at the Lick Observatory, the Hooker telescope at the Mt. Wilson Observatory, the 2.5 metre Isaac Newton at the Royal Greenwich Observatory.....

The telescopes listed above were all available at the time of the Apollo 11, and all could take long integration deep sky images.

There were also countless smaller telescopes capable of taking long integration images - Kitt Peak, Alfred Jensch, Carl Zeiss Jena, Ondřejov 2-m, Radcliffe (South Africa), David Dunlap, Mount Stromlo, Kottamia (Egypt), Perkins, Kaj-Strand, Kuiper, Oak Ridge, Bosque Alegre (Argentina), McGraw-Hill.... seriously, I'm just getting bored typing these now.

So, please, explain the advantage of a hand-held Hasselblad camera using ISO 160 film on the Moon. What would it show that couldn't be seen from any of the telescopes listed above?

Why would NASA want such images?

Please, explain it like I'm an 8 year old.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Post in thread 'Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk'

Aug 13, 2026

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

How many photographers do you know shooting colour?
What Ilford film do they use to shoot colour?

Hint, Ilford do not make colour film

• Andy_Ross

• 

Post in thread 'Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk'

Aug 14, 2026

Er, because some were professional (cf Keith Morris, Ansel Adams [_sp?] and others members of 'arty' camera clubs.

Which of those Ilford films would have shown stars during Lunar daylight?

• zooterkin

• 

Neither of those posts says anything remotely close to what you claimed was said.

This is why people's primary interest at this point is whether you're aware of your own lies, or you are genuinely incapable of reading for even simple comprehension.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Vixen, please explain to me what would be the advantage of taking a photograph of stars using a hand-held camera on the surface of the Moon, over taking an image of the stars from the 5.1 metre Hale telescope at the Palomar Observatory, or the 2 and 2.7 metre telescopes at the McDonald Observatory, or the 3 metre Shane telescope at the Lick Observatory, the Hooker telescope at the Mt. Wilson Observatory, the 2.5 metre Isaac Newton at the Royal Greenwich Observatory.....

The telescopes listed above were all available at the time of the Apollo 11, and all could take long integration deep sky images.

There were also countless smaller telescopes capable of taking long integration images - Kitt Peak, Alfred Jensch, Carl Zeiss Jena, Ondřejov 2-m, Radcliffe (South Africa), David Dunlap, Mount Stromlo, Kottamia (Egypt), Perkins, Kaj-Strand, Kuiper, Oak Ridge, Bosque Alegre (Argentina), McGraw-Hill.... seriously, I'm just getting bored typing these now.

So, please, explain the advantage of a hand-held Hasselblad camera using ISO 160 film on the Moon. What would it show that couldn't be seen from any of the telescopes listed above?

Why would NASA want such images?

Please, explain it like I'm an 8 year old.

The funniest thing, I think, is Vixen's implication that if you can't see pretty stars in the background of the Apollo surface photos, "then what's the point of even going?". Like that one feature, assumed by many people ignorant of basic photography to be present in such photos, was so important that NASA should have made it their number INE priority for the missions.

 

[Trebuchet]

Ok, 17 pages behind and won't post this until I've read some more. But if you want to look good in a glossy magazine, you couldn't have done better than Kodachrome. Paul Simon's "nice bright colors" and all that. But it was slow. ASA 25 (for the best pictures) or 64 (slightly less so.) Optimized for the conditions, you want something faster, like Ektachrome, ASA 160.
Wow, still 10 pages behind. I'll post and hope to get somewhat caught up tomorrow.

Wow! I just got here on the live thread. Thanks for all the likes! And I'm 15 pages behind again!
Early this year, I spent 30 days -- five days a week for six weeks -- being bombarded with radiation. Closely focused on my nose, where there was a cancer. It wasn't fun. But the nose is looking better. And guess what, I didn't require any decontamination!
Did you know "moon" rhymes with "loon"? Just asking questions.