Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

The thread is about Apollo 11.

Do you wish to claim that all Apollo missions except 11 were real?

 

[JayUtah]

It's quoting NASA experts who said the training shots were so good no-one could tell the difference.

Citation, please.

 

[JayUtah]

Because it's official.

Irrelevant. It makes testable claims of fact, and the claims have been tested and proven with evidence. The fact that the triple-niner can't understand those facts makes no difference. It's not a matter of simply believing the authority figures.

 

[Vixen]

They were both taken on the moon.

Why are you avoiding answering the questions I asked?

Because everything has a context.

It doesn't cancel out the claim by Weaver, Allen et al that NASA's claim of 1969 that it is impossible for astronauts on a sunlighted Moon surface (even if the Sun is only 10° risen) to see any stars in the sky, is out and out untrue.

 

[JayUtah]

So how come both astronauts, Aldrin and Armstrong having been thoroughly trained in photography and in using the mechanically-adapted Hasselblads and as worn fitted against their chests, there is only one - very poor - picture taken of Armstrong by Aldrin?

Because taking pictures of the astronauts was not in the photo plan. You keep trying to paste your expectations and requirements on others. That's not evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

Because everything has a context.

The context here is your claim that the training photos could have been substituted for the real thing. You are unable to deal with the evidence in that context.

It doesn't cancel out the claim by Weaver, Allen et al that NASA's claim of 1969 that it is impossible for astronauts on a sunlighted Moon surface (even if the Sun is only 10° risen) to see any stars in the sky, is out and out untrue.

Asked and answered. The points Weaver and Allen raise reveal them to be fakers and liars because they are obviously, factually wrong.

 

[catsmate]

Rationalisation.

No.

 

[catsmate]

Not that hoary old chestnut .

No actual answer then?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Because everything has a context.

It doesn't cancel out the claim by Weaver, Allen et al that NASA's claim of 1969 that it is impossible for astronauts on a sunlighted Moon surface (even if the Sun is only 10° risen) to see any stars in the sky, is out and out untrue.

The actual claim was that the astronauts' photos should have incidentally shown stars in the sky. That is false. Do you disagree?

 

[steenkh]

Rationalisation.

No, but I note that you have nothing counter it.

"400,000 people can't have kept it secret" is such a pitiable argument. Please stop it.

That 400,000 people can keep a secret is such a pitiable argument.

 

[Foster Zygote]

So how come both astronauts, Aldrin and Armstrong having been thoroughly trained in photography and in using the mechanically-adapted Hasselblads and as worn fitted against their chests, there is only one - very poor - picture taken of Armstrong by Aldrin?

Because only Armstrong used a still camera on the moon. So the only still camera image of himself is the reflection in Aldrin's visor.

There are, however other photos taken of Armstrong by the 16 mm DAC (remember that one you thought was a "Hasselblad"?) Set to record images every second from the LM window.

Did Armstrong just choose to disassociate himself from the whole thing (see press conference), perhaps because of bitter disappointment of it being called off the last minute and having to go through a pantomime or because of personal integrity..?

She'll pretending to be a psychologist to fill in that empty space where your evidence is supposed to go.

 

[catsmate]

Here's the facts, <>

No you're spewing ignorance again.

 

[threadworm]

Because everything has a context.

I've given you the context for the Apollo 11 image. You've avoided answering the questions related to it because you can't. You made claims you can't back up. Admit it.

It doesn't cancel out the claim by Weaver, Allen et al that NASA's claim of 1969 that it is impossible for astronauts on a sunlighted Moon surface (even if the Sun is only 10° risen) to see any stars in the sky, is out and out untrue.

Where did NASA claim that? Specifically. Apollo 11 astronauts saw stars through the optics on the surface.

 

[catsmate]

NASA was the civilian arm but in essence the development of rocket technology was arm in arm with the development of nuclear weapons and real paranoid fear of the Soviet Union.

No.

How realistic was it to send guys to the Moon within seven years of Kennedy's pledge, from scratch, pre-digital and internet age, communicating by walkie-talkie, TV sets non-cable or WiFi, based on radio wave antennae and receivers - valves! Yet here we are 2026 and the Chinese won't even be ready for yet another four years.

You're showing you abject ignorance of science and engineering again.

 

[Smock]

Your stock phrases are very boring.

If your material were more original, I might have put in more effort. Until then, the stock phrases will suffice.

 

[Axxman300]

So how come both astronauts, Aldrin and Armstrong having been thoroughly trained in photography and in using the mechanically-adapted Hasselblads and as worn fitted against their chests, there is only one - very poor - picture taken of Armstrong by Aldrin?

Because Aldrin didn't have a camera:



But Aldrin did film Armstrong from the LM:


In this image from Apollo 12 you can see the chest-mounted camera:

Did Armstrong just choose to disassociate himself from the whole thing (see press conference), perhaps because of bitter disappointment of it being called off the last minute and having to go through a pantomime or because of personal integrity..?

No. Your need to believe people like Armstrong are failures and liars says alot about you.

 

[JayUtah]

There was only one surface Hasselblad for Apollo 11. Because Armstrong was more skilled and experienced in photography, he was given most of the photographic tasks. Expectations otherwise rise no higher than, "Because I say it should have been something else." Not evidence. Just bias.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because everything has a context.

It doesn't cancel out the claim by Weaver, Allen et al that NASA's claim of 1969 that it is impossible for astronauts on a sunlighted Moon surface (even if the Sun is only 10° risen) to see any stars in the sky, is out and out untrue.

Where did they claim that? Given the right procedures, it's a fact that stars would be visible to either cameras or eyes, even from the day side of the moon. But it is also a fact that cameras set to image in sunlight, and human eyes adapted to bright sunlight, aren't going to see stars.

 

[Pixel42]

There was only one surface Hasselblad for Apollo 11. Because Armstrong was more skilled and experienced in photography, he was given most of the photographic tasks. Expectations otherwise rise no higher than, "Because I say it should have been something else." Not evidence. Just bias.

It's basically just the argument from personal incredulity. That's all she's got.

 

[Vixen]

Citation, please.

The question is could the simulations have been realistic enough to convince the general public and the mission controllers? The best evidence we have is from the people who were involved at the time. For example, the words of the Apollo 11 Flight Director Gene Kranz (also Flight Director for every odd-numbered Apollo mission): "The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real mission”" (from "THE APOLLO MOON HOAX: THE REAL EVIDENCE : A REFERENCE GUIDE TO THE FACTS" by "Marcus Allen, Trevor Weaver").