Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[threadworm]

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").

Simulations are not training photos.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

I believe there is one photo of Armstrong that Aldrin took while he was holding the Hasselblad, as Neil was futzing with something in one of the LM's equipment bays and needed the camera out of the way.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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").

Doesn't say anything about photos.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

I shows, I think, how someone can make assumptions based on unrelated personal experiences. Vixen has compared the Apollo photographic documentation to "holiday snaps", as though they only had the cameras there for fun and memories.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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").

He was talking about the training simulators, not photography. Again we see how ignorant your sources were.

 

[catsmate]

It's a shame NASA has scrubbed the original tv tapes by broadcasting over them isn't it?

This is nonsense.

 

[threadworm]

He was talking about the training simulators, not photography. Again we see how ignorant your sources were.

People who cite Krantz's quote seem to think they did a real time replay of the entire mission, rather than data driven snapshots of a range of scenarios.

 

[Smock]

I shows, I think, how someone can make assumptions based on unrelated personal experiences. Vixen has compared the Apollo photographic documentation to "holiday snaps", as though they only had the cameras there for fun and memories.

Just another appeal to ridicule fallacy. Talk about stock phrases . . .

 

[Reformed Offlian]

This is nonsense.

I'm especially intrigued by this notion that one erases tapes by "broadcasting over them"

 

[catsmate]

Correction: the Sun is equidistant to the Moon and Earth. Therefore, the earth being 3.66 times the size of the Moon should appear apx this much larger than the Sun as viewed from the surface of the Moon pics.

No. This is further stupidity.

 

[junkshop]

It's a shame NASA has scrubbed the original tv tapes by broadcasting over them isn't it?

OK, so we can add broadcasting and video tape to the ever-lengthening list of things that Vixen confidently and wrongly will hold forth on.

 

[Pixel42]

The question is could the simulations have been realistic enough to convince the general public and the mission controllers?

There are a hell of a lot of other questions to ask before you need to ask that one, the answers to which all have to be "yes" for you to justify proceeding to the next. If any one of them is provably "no", you can stop. And most of them are provably "no".

 

[Foster Zygote]

I believe there is one photo of Armstrong that Aldrin took while he was holding the Hasselblad, as Neil was futzing with something in one of the LM's equipment bays and needed the camera out of the way.

Yes, Aldrin did have the camera for a while. He took a series of pan photos to document the landing site, and some other images of nearby craters.

This photo is actually Aldrin photographing his own boot.

AS-11-40-5880

And here are three of Armstrong at the MESA.

AS-11-40-5886


AS-11-40-5894


AS-11-40-5895

 

[catsmate]

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

Evidence?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Yes, Aldrin did have the camera for a while. He took a series of pan photos to document the landing site, and some other images of nearby craters.

This photo is actually Aldrin photographing his own boot.
View attachment 73783
AS-11-40-5880

And here are three of Armstrong at the MESA.
View attachment 73784
AS-11-40-5886

View attachment 73785
AS-11-40-5894

View attachment 73786
AS-11-40-5895

I can't imagine why they didn't encourage Buzz to take more pictures. Only thing missing is his fingers over the lens.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I can't imagine why they didn't encourage Buzz to take more pictures. Only thing missing is his fingers over the lens.

Well, in his defense, in the case of the last two he appears to have been documenting the condition of the LM.

 

[threadworm]

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").

Allen & Weaver don't give a source for that quote, but if it's supposed to be from his book it's a misquote and cherry picked.

Context is important.

 

[JayUtah]

The question is could the simulations have been realistic enough to convince the general public and the mission controllers?

No.

A simulation makes things seem realistic to the participant, but not to a third-party observer. You're claiming that third-party observations (e.g., photos taken during training and simulation) could be passed off as actual mission photographs.

\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”"

Indeed the control nexus in the room next door to the MOCR could simply switch between the MSFN and the downstairs computer complex. The data were being fed into the Mission Control equipment in the same format as would be expected in a mission. So for those few guys looking at the console it would seem very real. However the hundreds of other people who were controlling and creating the simulations absolutely knew it was a simulation.

by "Marcus Allen, Trevor Weaver").

Not reliable sources.

 

[JayUtah]

Allen & Weaver don't give a source for that quote, but if it's supposed to be from his book it's a misquote and cherry picked.

Context is important.

Weaver and Allen are not reliable sources. Examples of their dishonesty have been provided in copious amounts. Someone with an eidetic memory would remember that. Someone with a triple-niner level intelligence would be capable of judging the reliability of a source based on evidence.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Allen & Weaver don't give a source for that quote, but if it's supposed to be from his book it's a misquote and cherry picked.

Context is important.

More evidence of Allen and Weaver's dishonesty.