Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[JesseCuster]

So I decided to do Vixen's work for her and find some examples of black and white astrophotography, on Ilford BW film no less.

Here's an example. https://www.lonelyspeck.com/photographing-the-milky-way-on-film/?v=25400724d737


Exposure time: 20 seconds
Aperture: f/1.7
Film: Ilford Delta 3200 (I Googled this, apparently it's not actually rated at ISO/ASA 3200, but it has a lot of latitude so can be pushed a lot more than other films)

Shutter speed of 20 seconds, very wide aperture, and fast film that can be pushed a lot in development. (edit: film that was released in 1998)

edited to include Jay's note: The moon is completely blown out, totally overexposed. That's worth noting.

Huh. I wonder if Vixen can learn anything from this.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

And, even if it were somehow important to look at and photograph stars from space, NASA already had the Orbital Astronomical Observatories in the works at the same time as the Apollo missions.

 

[JayUtah]

Shutter speed of 20 seconds, very wide aperture, and fast film that can be pushed a lot in development.

Note how the Moon image is entirely blown out. Sunlit lunar surface is fully saturated.

 

[EHocking]

Those are formal units, not "colloquialisms." We colloquially measure electrical current in "amps," but we all know that's short for "amperes," and we write out the full term when appropriate.

If you are telling me that "achieving its 'hill'" is your colloquial term for something, then I'm asking you to tell me—in formal terms—what you meant by it. Because your usage conflicts with the formal naming of the Hill Sphere, it's not apparent what you mean.

Please do so without all the song and dance.

i.e.,

 

[JayUtah]

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. This gibberish doesn't address the post it quotes, nor does it correctly identify a post hoc fallacy. It's difficult to parse through the babble and extract what you think came post what. But you seem to be confused by the prospect of an explanation offered to explain something that has been challenged after the fact. That's no sort of post hoc fallacy. At best it seems to be your same old frantic straw men.

There are no stars incidental in Apollo lunar surface photographs because no film (including the film used for Apollo) can simultaneously capture stars and sunlit objects. This is a basic fact of photography.

No one is proposing that "NASA didn't want them [stars]." Stars simply aren't properly expected in the photography that hoax claimants point to and say they expect stars. Their expectations are straightforwardly wrong according to well known facts. When NASA purposely wanted to photograph stars from the lunar surface, they sent a camera appropriate to the job. A handheld Hasselblad loaded with ordinary working film is not the correct tool.

No one is proposing that it is not possible to photograph stars from the lunar surface using ISO 160 Ektachrome film. Instead the claim is that the exposure settings used to take the photographs that hoax claimants point to and expect to see stars are not compatible with photographing stars with that film. They're appropriate to photographing sunlit objects. It takes tens of seconds of shutter speed to expose stars, even without an intervening atmosphere. Saying that they should have set the cameras appropriately for stars anyway and clicked away is changing horses. The claim is that stars should be seen in photos that were taken with settings you agree would not expose stars.

The proposition that NASA didn't include stars because they couldn't get them right and thought no one would miss them is strictly one made by hoax claimants. And it's stupid on its face. If that's what you mean by "who needs 'em anyway?" then it's self-refuting.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

i.e.,

I was 2 when this song came out. My mom tells me that I loved to dance and sing to it (even though the only two words I knew were "dizzy" and "spinning") whenever it was on. I don't remember.

 

[bknight]

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.

8 weeks against my cancerous prostrate and I didn't have to be decontaminated either.

 

[Thermal]

Just like ″ for minutes, this appears to be a "colloquialism" that exists only in @Vixen's head.

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but I think Vixen got the minutes thing from modern car fuel conservation readouts. My wife has a Subaru that has that nifty turn off feature when you stop at a red light (which puts guys with my driving history into "oh ◊◊◊◊ it stalled" mode). The speedometer screen changes to a readout of how long you have spent at red lights (existental.angst builds) and how many gallons of gas you've saved. The display features a running clock of the seconds and minutes passing in... you guessed it... " and ' .

Wanted to mention this because unlike our opposite number, we will actually consider facts, no matter how obscure, and acknowledge them for what they are worth.

 

[threadworm]

It was claimed that use of superior b&w film was not feasible.

B&W film was used during Apollo, and captured stars in lunar orbit and in cislunar space. You've been told this

 

[catsmate]

They were well remunerated for it, were they not? Earned a place in the history books. Why would they give a toss if some Brits, such as Allen, Weaver or Percy question whether Apollo11 happened as claimed. After all, Nixon is not famed for integrity and we can see how expedient and imperative to absolutely beat the Soviets to Moon rock was - and nothing quite drives a man to insanity but the prospect of gold precious highly-sought-after minerals - and the competition with the USSR was as intense at the time as taking a last minute penalty before the final whistle.

Puerile conspiratorial rambling.

So, yeah, saying, "Oooh we mustn't discuss this because these guys are 'heroes'", doesn't strike me as an argument that carries much weight.

---

Strawman.

 

[catsmate]

View attachment 74569
o
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

What is this supposed to show, other than you lack of basic understanding of astrophysics?

ETA: also, and this annoys me, there is no one "Roche Limit' for a body, it depends on the secondary's composition.

 

[catsmate]

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

Oh dear Jeebus you don't have a clue.

 

[catsmate]

He's got it! By Jove he's got it!!!

And yet you claimed it did.

 

[catsmate]

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

Strawman.

 

[Mojo]

No. This gibberish doesn't address the post it quotes, nor does it correctly identify a post hoc fallacy. It's difficult to parse through the babble and extract what you think came post what.

I think we can add Latin to the list.

 

[catsmate]

It was claimed that use of superior b&w film was not feasible.

A lie, on multiple counts.

 

[catsmate]

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..?

This is another lie. It also demonstrates your incomprehension of basic Latin terms and you Johnsonian attempt at self-aggrandisement by their use.

 

[JesseCuster]

I want to hear more about the moon minerals that the US and Soviet Unions were trying to access, and how faking the moon landings in the Nevada desert or whatever, helped the US to access these precious moon minerals? Given there has been for almost 60 years since, exactly zero lunar mining, processing, shipping, etc. happening, and nothing of note is going to happen for some time…. What exactly was the point of faking the moon landing to make the world think the US had first put a man on the moon?

Vixen, you silly goose, what new madness is this you’ve injected into the thread?

 

[Mojo]

I want to hear more about the moon minerals that the US and Soviet Unions were trying to access, and how faking the moon landings in the Nevada desert or whatever, helped the US to access these precious moon minerals? Given there has been for almost 60 years since, exactly zero lunar mining, processing, shipping, etc. happening, and nothing of note is going to happen for some time…. What exactly was the point of faking the moon landing to make the world think the US had first put a man on the moon?

Maybe they were planning to sell the lunar mining rights, caveat emptor?

 

[Mojo]

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

View attachment 74576

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.

I notice also that, once again, rather than linking to the image itself she's linked to a page where it might be found. Is it another case where she's simply posted the image at the top of her Google results?