Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Reformed Offlian]

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 .

It wasn't introduced until 1998

On the other hand, Superfast Matchbox cars were around in the late 60s, so the astronauts could have used them to pretend to drive the moon rover around, while making "vroom" noises.

 

[Steve]

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


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.

Well I did say "require for evidence". Allen didn't require it for evidence. He merely used it for his scam.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

One of the things I noted while watching some replay of Apollo 11's early stages on apolloinrealtime.org was how briefly each the MSFN stations had radio contact with Columbia. Every few minutes you'd go from AOS at one station to LOS, then some underlap, then AOS at the next station. Vanguard, Canary, Tananarive, Carnarvon, etc. all only had radio contact for about 5-8 minutes each. And the progression went from west to east, meaning there's no way one could think the signals were coming from the moon.

 

[JayUtah]

One of the things I noted while watching some replay of Apollo 11's early stages on apolloinrealtime.org was how briefly each the MSFN stations had radio contact with Columbia.

Hence the motivation for TDRS.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

It's all deliberate clowning, special clowns that live under bridges.

 

[Trebuchet]

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 .

It wasn't introduced until 1998

And still can't expose brightly lit objects and dim stars in the same shot. No film has such a dynamic range.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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

She must be the one who wrote that contract for Willy Wonka.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Kodak 2485 High-Speed Black-and-White was used selectively on Apollo missions including Apollo 8 and Apollo 11.
It's an extremely light-sensitive emulsion rated up to ASA 16,000.
It was reserved for specialized low-light astronomical observations, dark interior spacecraft shots and deep-space tracking

 

[Ranb]

Do you think Tim Finch et. al. reads these posts?

This Tim Finch? https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.30

 

[Reformed Offlian]

This Tim Finch? https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.30

Oh, yeah, the "I'm an expert because I worked on a nuclear submarine" guy.

 

[threadworm]

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?

They weren't coming from any of the TETR satellites, let alone one that didn't even make it to Apollo 8.

 

[JayUtah]

Kodak 2485 High-Speed Black-and-White was used selectively on Apollo missions including Apollo 8 and Apollo 11.
It's an extremely light-sensitive emulsion rated up to ASA 16,000.
It was reserved for specialized low-light astronomical observations, dark interior spacecraft shots and deep-space tracking

And just like any other film, it can be used to photograph stars given the right camera settings. But sensitivity is not dynamic range. There is still no film with the dynamic range to properly expose both stars and sunlit objects in the same frame.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And just like any other film, it can be used to photograph stars given the right camera settings. But sensitivity is not dynamic range. There is still no film with the dynamic range to properly expose both stars and sunlit objects in the same frame.

Indeed, just posted for Vixen's benefit, very fast film was available even though the Ilford she quickly googled wasn't. Neither of them would be able to take high resolution colour pictures of anything.

 

[junkshop]

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?

You have not the faintest idea what you're talking about. You have gone from being wrong, through being fractally wrong, and continued out beyond not even wrong into a new realm of utter gibberish.

It would be impressive, if only it wasn't so pathetic.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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 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.

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.

No one who has been reading this thread actually believes @Vixen knows enough about photography to understand any of those facts.

Which is perfectly understandable. Why would we expect someone to understand f-stops and shutter speeds when they can't do six grade arithmetic?

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

She has told us she's as objective as she can possibly be. I believe her.

And is not in the habit of lying. I believe her.

As she has often reminded us, "there is a massive communication gap" between triple-niners such as herself and those of us who actually know what we're talking about. Of that, there can be no doubt.

Nor can anyone accuse her of wasting her time arguing facts.

 

[Trebuchet]

This Tim Finch? https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.30

Oh, good. The only Tim Finch I remembered was a serial killer character in Unforgotten.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You have not the faintest idea what you're talking about. You have gone from being wrong, through being fractally wrong, and continued out beyond not even wrong into a new realm of utter gibberish.

It would be impressive, if only it wasn't so pathetic.

The Nevada desert bit is a nice touch. Brings in the whole Area 51 vibe.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The question that always comes to my mind when hoaxers say things like: "the moon is highly radioactive" or: "moon dust is highly radioactive" is this: how do you know? What's the source for your data? If the Apollo moon landings were faked, which ones were real? Was Luna 16 real, for example? The Surveyor landings? Chang'e? Whence exactly are you getting your information about the lunar regolith or the lunar radiation environment, if the Apollo missions were fake? Be specific.

Mind you, I already know the answer. If Vixen actually had any data supporting her claims about how radioactive the moon is, she would be able to answer my questions about how many microsieverts per hour an astronaut gets from the moon. She can't, because she hasn't.

Well of course it's radioactive. I glows in the dark, silly.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Still a dumb argument. If astronomers can check to see if the stars are in the right places, then NASA could have put them in the right places.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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?

You're forgetting that for conspiracy theorists, the nefarious conspirators are as brilliant or as stupid as the currently discussed aspect of their theory needs them to be.