Why the actual fuck is there no discussion about the Apollo hoax on its 50th anniversary on the conspiracy page? Are you all NASA shills or what the fuck? (Conspiracy)

submitted ago by blackguard19

And if not, why are you not out on normie Voat in full force spreading the message of fakery to poor souls who view the moon landings as a source of national or ethnic pride?

I’d like to know everyone’s favorite argument for the moon landing hoaxes.

If I had to pick one, other than the unassailable and eternally damning observation that none of the photos contain stars, mine comes from the move What Happened on the Moon, in which they contrast the sounds from a bobsled team on a practice run with the chatter during the touchdown of Apollo 11. In the bobsled video, you can hear the nervous adrenaline in the men’s quavering voices as well as the vibrations of the sled racing across the ice. Meanwhile, the Apollo astronauts, though using an engine that had literally never been tested, landing a craft that had literally never been landed successfully (and in fact crashed every time on earth), performing the most complex and challenging aeronautic feat in human history, a quarter million miles from home with no chance of rescue, with a myriad of catastrophes that could occur at any moment leading to sudden or horrific death, with (as one of the Apollo astronauts estimated) only a 50% chance of landing successfully, dwindling fuel supply, sound like two casual buffoons parking their car at Wal Mart. And of course you can’t hear the engine firing or any other sound. In fact I always encourage everyone to actually watch the original mission footage from any Apollo mission (few actually have), and notice how despite being in a constant state of peril with no chance of rescue, where the slightest mishap is fatal, they sound like a couple buddies on a fishing trip.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

roznak ago

Why You Can't See Stars on the Moon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ksUQfEzMoM

blackguard19 ago

Let me guess...... camera exposure settings? Oh, never heard that lame ass excuse before!!!

Too bad according to NASA stars should easily be visible from the moon.

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html

And I guess despite ten manned moon missions they never once set the exposure settings to capture what would have been the most awe-inspiring stsrscape ever beheld by man.

Doesn’t matter anyway, because the cameras should not have worked anyway, and there have been so many differing accounts of astronauts and cosmonauts about whether they could see stars or just blackness that it’s obvious none of them have even been to space anyway. Never A Straight Answer, of course.

https://www.aulis.com/high_moon.htm

You just going to link to more shill crap or are you capable of formulating your own thoughts?

qwop ago

Too bad according to NASA stars should easily be visible from the moon. https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html

This is not what that post is about. It is about the fact that we cannot see stars during daylight, and especially not stars around the sun, because the atmosphere scatters so much light from the sun, that it's not possible to photograph space nor stars during the day.

It means IF we would be in space, and IF we would want to photograph stars (with proper exposure), we would be ABLE to do it, even with the sun in our viewfinder, because the sun's light is not scattered to obscure our view.

This is the important point: you still need proper exposure for the stars, but if there was no atmosphere, you could IN THEORY photograph stars during daylight, while looking at the sun.

What the post does not explain, is that the sun's rays would probably still scatter in the lens, making that exact APOD picture very difficult to reproduce. But this was left out, as it would not be a "fun" post any more, and become too technical.

But no, it does not say "if you photograph with ISO 80 at 1/250 in space, this is what you get".

B3bomber ago

These people don't care even if there is physical proof. When it's cheap enough to drop their asses on The Moon in some soft of container that has several hours of air, I hope lots of people get a 1 way ticket.

After they're dead, decompress and link "containers" to start building a moon base. Personally though, I'd rather we just go strait to Mars since it's a simpler environment to design for (permanent habitation).

qwop ago

The page you referenced gives the exact same explanation of why there are no stars in the images. But I guess you just choose to ignore that, because it doesn't fit with the narrative, eh?

In the Apollo 11 photographs there are no stars at all, but merely black space, which may be explained by limitations of the selected camera exposure settings.

If you want to really debunk the "missing stars", why don't you provide me with some actual calculations on the matter. We know the cameras were locked at 1/250s shutter speed, and we know they used ISO 80 film for most of the shots. Which btw. is an extremely fast film. Nobody in their right mind would try to photograph stars with ISO 80.

But never mind that little detail. Since we know the ISO sensitivity and the shutter speed, as well as the approximate aperture of the camera. We should have all we need, to be able to calculate if stars are visible or not with 1/250 on ISO 80.

Now I give you a small challenge in the meantime: try and photograph anything less than sunlight with ISO 80 @ 1/250, and you can see for yourself what happens. But of course that's just too easy, so you continue to kvetch about the missing stars, while not actually doing any calculations or even bothering to try it out yourself.

blackguard19 ago

What is this pilpul? The question is not whether exposure settings can and would conceal stars — which would be visible to the naked eye according to NASA, which is obviously why I linked to the APOD site. The point is that if the missions were fake, it makes perfect sense that stars would be omitted in all photographs. But if it were real, it makes 0 sense that not a single camera would have been optimized to see the stars, a single time during ten missions.

“Maybe if I babble some irrelevant word salad about ISO sensitivity and shutter speed, people will ignore the obvious glaring anomaly that has been pointed out about why no effort was made to include stars in a single Apollo lunar photograph.”

roznak ago

Correct exposure of the astronauts (=underexposed stars) or correct exposure of the stars (= overexposed astronauts): Choose one.

blackguard19 ago

Yeah let’s send men to the moon ten times and take over 5,700 photographs while doing so...... but fuck the stars. Who needs em. Don’t dare take a single picture of them.

blackguard19 ago

None of those include the lunar surface, retard. The whole point is that they couldn’t include stars with the EVA pictures because any amateur astronomer could have pointed out the inconsistencies and mistakes of perspective and parallax. We’re obviously not talking about contextless bullshit smatterings with no points of reference that could have been produced at any time between now and 1969 with Microsoft Paint or the like.

roznak ago

Correct exposure of the astronauts (=underexposed stars) or correct exposure of the stars (= overexposed astronauts): Choose one.

HONK HONK

carlip ago

Yes I'm sure that would make you retards believe it all.

blackguard19 ago

Uhhhh, it’s more likely that there would be no stars if the missions were fake than if they were real. That’s how inductive reasoning works. When every single bit of evidence also falls into the “more likely if fake” column, one can begin drawing a conclusion.