Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

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.

The space race was political.

 

[Vixen]

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.

A faster film wouldn't have made any difference. It would just have meant that the photos of the silt 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.

Only in your ad hoc opinion.

 

[Mojo]

If the satellite images...

What "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?

Than from a ground-based receiver?

 

[JayUtah]

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

No. Irrelevant.

The deniers, such as Allen, points out that the galactic cosmic radiation would have damaged the gelatin layer...

Asked and answered. Allen doesn't know the slightest thing about radiation.

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

Irrelevant. The film used was ISO 160. Everyone knows it takes several seconds for stars to be exposed on that film.

 

[Mojo]

Only in your ad hoc opinion.

And in yours, as you admitted months ago.

 

[JayUtah]

If the satellite images were coming from TET-RA...

TETR-A deorbited before the Apollo lunar surface missions.

...which was a series of satellites used in space training in the Nevada desert...

No. Nothing about the TETR program had anything to do with the Nevada desert.

....well, how much easier is it to transmit `live tv` broadcasts from there?

There is too much cluelessness here to unpack.

 

[JayUtah]

The space race was political.

The evidence is physical.

 

[JayUtah]

Only in your ad hoc opinion.

You agreed that it takes tens of seconds to expose stars on ISO 160 film. Full stop.

There is no known film that can simultaneously properly expose stars and sunlit objects. This is not some guy's opinion. It's a physical fact.

 

[wollery]

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?

Not at all easier, quite a bit harder as a matter of fact. You've added an extra relay station (the satellite) with a smaller dish (i.e. signal collection area), that's harder to get a signal from because it's constantly moving across the sky.

Like I said, a bloody stupid idea.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

There is no photographic film or product named "Ilford Superfast 1200." You might be thinking of Ilford Delta 3200 Professional, a high-speed 120 black-and-white film.

It wasn't introduced until 1998

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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

Now, how does one make radio signals coming from a satellite in LEO appear to be coming from the moon? Do you understand why that would be impossible?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

Given the relative distances involved (assuming the conceit is that we're using the LEO satellite to relay signals coming from the moon), it'd be like calling your sister's next-door neighbor in the USA, then getting them to call your sister, etc.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

To do what?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

I hope for your sake this is deliberate clowning rather than genuine stupidity.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The deniers, such as Allen, points out that the galactic cosmic radiation would have damaged the gelatin layer (being of organic material),

Do the deniers realize that GCRs don't just selectively hit the moon, and that their flux is about the same throughout the Solar system? This line of thought would suggest that any and all film photography from space (including from LEO -or heck, even from high-altitute balloons) must also be fake.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

To do what?

The former Texas resident in me wonders this, without the "to".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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?

While I'm pretty sure you genuinely didn't understand what the Apollohoax grifters told you NASA needed a satellite for, I am also fully convinced you are now playing deliberately more ignorant than you are just to wind everyone up.

 

[JayUtah]

The problem with receiving signals from the TETR satellites as a hoaxy stand-in for the actual spaceships is that LEO satellites are very much moving targets. The antennas on the ground are directional. They have to be pointed finely at the source of the signal in order to receive any of it. TETR tracking and handoffs used the 9-meter dishes that can slew fast enough to track. But the TV signals etc. were received on the large dishes that move too slowly to be able to track LEO spacecraft. You can’t fool the ground operators with an LEO satellite. They know where their dish is pointed.

The TETR-as-decoy argument also has the problem that the uplink station would need to be in the same ground track vicinity as the receiver. Line of sight restrictions apply.

As everyone can see, using an LEO satellite as a relay for a spaceship actually on or orbiting the Moon is monumentally stupid. The lunar transceiver would have line of sight to the satellite for only 45 of every 90 minutes, as opposed to line of sight to the ground stations for 8-10 hours out of every 24. It’s more like wanting to ring up your brother in Stroud by ringing up your sister who’s on an international flight to Australia and asking her to ring up your brother.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Only in your ad hoc opinion.

You should read this thread some time. It's an eye-opener. You will be amazed what you learn.

 

[JayUtah]

While I'm pretty sure you genuinely didn't understand what the Apollohoax grifters told you NASA needed a satellite for, I am also fully convinced you are now playing deliberately more ignorant than you are just to wind everyone up.

Agreed. She’s just throwing out random unconnected phrases at this point.