Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[catsmate]

Not only that, but when they see the range of values, they're going to cherry-pick the extremes and say something like: "temperatures in the kitchen get as high as 180 degrees Celsius! Anyone walking into the kitchen would have been killed in minutes! The cake is a lie!"

Mmmmm, cake.

 

[bknight]

The problem is that too many people think of those at Chernobyl and consider that to be the baseline for all radiation exposure. This gives rise to what I named years ago as the Radiation Boogey Man. Without a correct understanding of how properly to handle the numbers associated with radiation and its mitigating factors, it's easy to just say any amount of radiation is something to be scared about.

Well I'm not one of those who think that Chernobyl nor Fukushima to be baseline. I was merely equating what those poor guys went through just doing the task assigned them.

It's almost always either conventional wisdom or some third-party summary.


Since you mentioned it, the Surveyor missions provided NASA with measurements of radiation coming off the lunar surface.

It is too bad that Tim Finch didn't/doesn't include that fact in his radiation ideas.

Even the claimants who can actually look up numbers then go on to fail to properly reckon the dosage. They really want there to be a simple answer obtained straightforwardly.

I sat with a TV producer once discussing how to present the radiation environment of the Van Allen belts in terms that a lay person could grasp. It's just not very easy. You have to be either accurate or concise. He kept asking things like, "What's the average amount of radiation?" You can't answer that for a phenomenon that varies by orders of magnitude across space, time, and several conceptual domains like particle flux and energy. Yes, it's possible to compute an average. But that average is meaningless as an indicator of experienced effect. If the freezer in your kitchen is at -10 ºC and your oven is at 180 ºC, is it meaningful to say the average temperature in your kitchen is 85 ºC?

Measuring an absorbed dose is comparatively straightforward. This is why the Apollo test regime included measuring the absorbed dose inside the command module on an unmanned trip into the part of the Van Allen belts where the astronauts were planning later to go.

It is still good to have you around.

 

[Vixen]

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

Or, simpler still...just use the TET-RA satellite in LEO.

 

[bknight]

Or, simpler still...just use the TET-RA satellite in LEO.

Or simpler yet just point your Antenna at the Earth and let the DSN do the job it was built to do.

 

[Vixen]

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 `advantage` surely would be that people could compare the constellations as seen on the Apollo11 pics, with those taken by the aforementioned telescopes. This, of course, would only be a problem if they weren`t there, where they said they were. So it becomes expedient to simply leave the stars out and blame the film.

 

[Mojo]

The `advantage` surely would be that people could compare the constellations as seen on the Apollo11 pics, with those taken by the aforementioned telescopes.

Why would they want to do that? What would photos taken with a hand-held Hasselblad show that the "aforementioned telescopes" wouldn't?

 

[Steve]

The `advantage` surely would be that people could compare the constellations as seen on the Apollo11 pics, with those taken by the aforementioned telescopes. This, of course, would only be a problem if they weren`t there, where they said they were. So it becomes expedient to simply leave the stars out and blame the film.

They were there, dearie. They were there. The only people that require photos of stars for evidence are complete imbeciles.

 

[Steve]

Why would they want to do that?

To convince the brain-dead of...... something?

 

[JayUtah]

Or, simpler still...just use the TET-RA satellite in LEO.

Asked and answered. Maybe one day you’ll actually get the name of the satellite right. But that’s part of the rage-baiting, isn’t it?

 

[Mojo]

So it becomes expedient to simply leave the stars out and blame the film.

You have already admitted that the length of exposure needed to image stars is far too long to also produce correctly exposed photos of the sunlit lunar surface that the cameras were intended to photograph. The stars weren't left out, they were, inevitably, underexposed.

 

[JayUtah]

The `advantage` surely would be that people could compare the constellations as seen on the Apollo11 pics, with those taken by the aforementioned telescopes. This, of course, would only be a problem if they weren`t there, where they said they were. So it becomes expedient to simply leave the stars out and blame the film.

Asked and answered 400 pages ago.

 

[Thermal]

The `advantage` surely would be that people could compare the constellations as seen on the Apollo11 pics, with those taken by the aforementioned telescopes. This, of course, would only be a problem if they weren`t there, where they said they were. So it becomes expedient to simply leave the stars out and blame the film.

And if they did? Do you think the NASA 'hoaxers' couldn't pull off a flawless starry sky, using shots from earth photography? Do you think the amateurs are that much better than the actual space guys, who would be relying on NASA-provided data to figure out what the sky should look like?

This weird doublethink with how NASA were brilliant hoaxers, bit wouldn't be able to fake literally the easiest part to fake, is goofier than usual.

How would NASA explain stars showing up in pics on a sunlit dayscape that had insufficient exposure time to pick them up?

 

[wollery]

Or, simpler still...just use the TET-RA satellite in LEO.

How exactly is that simpler?

It would be like me calling my sister in the USA, getting her to call my brother in Nottingham on another phone, and asking my sister to hold the two phones together so that I could talk to my brother. Instead of just phoning him directly.

In fact, it's a bloody stupid idea, and completely unnecessary.

 

[wollery]

The `advantage` surely would be that people could compare the constellations as seen on the Apollo11 pics, with those taken by the aforementioned telescopes. This, of course, would only be a problem if they weren`t there, where they said they were. So it becomes expedient to simply leave the stars out and blame the film.

Who has blamed the film?

Please quote someone saying the film was incapable of capturing images of stars when used correctly?

 

[Mojo]

In fact, it's a bloody stupid idea

What else were you expecting?

 

[Andy_Ross]

And if they did? Do you think the NASA 'hoaxers' couldn't pull off a flawless starry sky, using shots from earth photography? Do you think the amateurs are that much better than the actual space guys, who would be relying on NASA-provided data to figure out what the sky should look like?

This weird doublethink with how NASA were brilliant hoaxers, bit wouldn't be able to fake literally the easiest part to fake, is goofier than usual.

How would NASA explain stars showing up in pics on a sunlit dayscape that had insufficient exposure time to pick them up?

NASA are simultaneously geniuses who have pulled off a hoax that has fooled the worlds entire aerospace industries, engineers and scientists, but at the same time hopelessly incompetent.

 

[JayUtah]

So it becomes expedient to simply leave the stars out and blame the film.

...to simply refer to the well-known and easily demonstrated properties of the film.

The only people that require photos of stars for evidence are complete imbeciles.

Marcus Allen was no imbecile. Every photographer knows it takes several seconds for stars to show up on film. Allen is counting on ignorant people like @Vixen to just believe whatever lies will sell his magazine.

 

[Vixen]

Who has blamed the film?

Please quote someone saying the film was incapable of capturing images of stars when used correctly?

Well, the debunkers concentrate on things such as shutter speed and film quality as being unable to cope with the brightness of the ground, and the glare from the sun. The deniers, such as Allen, points out that the galactic cosmic radiation would have damaged the gelatin layer (being of organic material), transparency film gives off solvents and the silver halide grains would likewise be affected and would cause the type of classic fogging we see in film that has been exposed to this type of radiation.

As you know, Ilford had [has?] a superfast 1200 version, so one can`t even claim ASA 600 was the fastest.

 

[Vixen]

How exactly is that simpler?

It would be like me calling my sister in the USA, getting her to call my brother in Nottingham on another phone, and asking my sister to hold the two phones together so that I could talk to my brother. Instead of just phoning him directly.

In fact, it's a bloody stupid idea, and completely unnecessary.

If the satellite images were coming from TET-RA, which was a series of satellites used in space training in the Nevada desert; well, how much easier is it to transmit `live tv` broadcasts from there?

 

[Mojo]

Well, the debunkers concentrate on things such as shutter speed and film quality as being unable to cope with the brightness of the ground, and the glare from the sun.

Lie. Nobody has suggested this.

The film was perfectly capable of coping with the brightness of the ground and the glare from the sun, as can be seen from the photographs taken on the lunar surface. It was also capable of taking photographs of the stars. But there is no film that is capable of doing both in the same photo.

As you know, Ilford had [has?] a superfast 1200 version, so one can`t even claim ASA 600 was the fastest.

A faster film wouldn't have made any difference. It would just have meant that the photos of the sunlit lunar surface would have required shorter exposures and/or smaller apertures. It still wouldn't enable images of stars to be seen in the same photos.