Watching the detectives...

[MartinC]

All they're managing to do is demonstrate how little they are prepared to put in to learning something new, and rely instead on their favourite fall back "I don't understand...". They are, at least, letting their audience know about scientific papers, whose authors do not work for NASA, that demonstrate that Apollo happened.

In fact it is more than that. Here is a direct quote from the ADs in their comments section:

"Scott always makes sarcastic remarks when there is far too much information being displayed because as far as we are concerned, too much information is beyond absurdity which liars being interrogated will do to try to get out of trouble, but always get caught in the end. That was what Scott's sarcasm was being directed towards which I agree with him on this. Posting far too much information is not always the right way to go, even within the scientific community."

So one can conclude from this that with any lengthy technical or scientific paper the ADs will start with the view that is is wrong/hiding something and that anyone relying upon it must prove otherwise and must meet whatever arbitary standards they set. Alternatively, the ADs will draw their own arbitary "conclusions" and present them as fact.

[JayUtah]

To be sure, film has grain—as in individual crystals of photochemically reactive substances. As such there is a minimum resolution to film that can be expressed as a density. Back when I did film photography, we would scan film at 4000 dots per inch, and this was fine enough so that individual film grains were usually represented as multiple pixels in the final image. Somewhere I have a hard disk that has Roll 40 scans from the camera originals (not dupe masters) at 4000 DPI, but I don't remember where I put it.

The point is that if you really wanted to, you could express film's granularity and dimensions in terms similar to those you'd use to describe a CCD sensor of comparable pixel density and size. While film grain is evenly distributed, it is not uniformly distributed. Nevertheless it is theoretically possible to express film granularity in such terms as average grains per square millimeter, which would be similar enough to uniform CCD pixels per square millimeter.

That's not how film granularity is typically measured, though. You use a root mean square method on actual densitometry measurements. This accommodates the nonuniform distribution and gives the result as a statistic, not a discrete number. So while in theory you can apply "megapixels" to film, you shouldn't. Film is only technically a discrete medium, and therefore usually isn't treated or measured as one in photography or photographic analysis.

[TimberWolfAu]

McKeegan continues his response to the Detectives, and I swear you can hear the quote marks whenever he refers to their "analysis".

Classic items of note, the Detectives refer to the same photo as different directions, more than once, one of their example "photos", being used to show Apollo was fake, appears to be an AI generated picture.

[onebigmonkey]

An odd post over at the Apoolo Moon Hoax page detailing a list of mission delays to Apollo launches, no doubt prompted by Artemis II being put back a month, I;ve attached the original post, and broken it down below.

were there any delays in the Apollo missions?
Apollo 8: no problems, no delays

So far so good!

Apollo 9: launch delayed several months due to LM problems

Nope. The launch was delayed by three days after the crew contracted colds. As there wasn't a 'launch window' as such, it didn't cause too many issues. According to this page

https://www.nasa.gov/history/55-years-ago-four-months-until-the-moon-landing/

it was the reason why pre-launch quarantine was introduced.

Apollo 10: no problems no delays

Almost, but not quite. The launch was re-scheduled from May 1st to May 17th in order to get conditions on the moon that would better match those for the planned Apollo 11 launch window.

Apollo 11: launch delayed for 2 hours and 40 minutes, there was a faulty fuel tank valve sensor and they electrically inhibited (bypassed) that single “valve closed” discrete data package so the launch commit logic would ignore it

Not true. It launched at the exact time it was supposed to, however bear the above in mind when we get to Apollo 17.

Apollo 12: during countdown, the craft was struck twice by lightning within a few seconds from each other, the telemetry data went bad, an actual camera which had been set to auto roll managed to capture the first of the lighting strikes... the lighting strikes had caused an under voltage in electrical buses, within seconds after the lightning strike, they were told to switch the SCE (Signal Conditioning Equipment) from the normal mode (main spacecraft power) to the auxiliary mode (alternative internal power path)... which allowed for the systems to reset and within 10 minutes they were told that all systems were go again

Again, almost but not quite. Yes, they were struck by lightning and the famous 'SCE to AUX' instruction resolved the situation, but it was not during countdown - it was during the actual launch. The lightning strikes were captured by TV cameras.

Apollo 13: Launch delayed for one month due to crew health and spacecraft issue, during the delay engineers replaced or refurbished sensors, valves within the Fuel cell components, Oxygen tank instrumentation, ECS sensors and relays

The launch was indeed put back by a month, but this was more related to a desire to spread launches out - partly from budget cuts, partly from a desire by the lunar receiving laboratory to get more samples from previous missions processed before getting a new batch. There was a hitch with a valve closure in one of the rocket stages, resolved before launch with no countdown interruption, and a premature engine shut down during the ascent to orbit, but this didn't cause any further problems.

Apollo 14: no problems, no delays

Well, there's the obvious delay brought on by Apollo 13's more famous problems, and if we're talking problems there was the issue with docking. Launch itself was put back by 40 minutes thanks to the weather - a protocol brought in after Apollo 12's strike. This edition of JSC's 'Roundup' https://catalog.archives.gov/id/201696936 reports changes in launch time and procedures as a result of Apollo 13. This edition https://catalog.archives.gov/id/201696958 also reported problems, but no change to the previously revised date.

Apollo 15: launch delayed for 26 hours while they had to replace a faulty oxidizer flow sensor

Again, not true. The launch occurred exactly as planned.

Apollo 16: One-month delay due to command-module vibration concerns, solved by upgrading the pogo suppressors in the S-IC first-stage LOX feed system

There was a 1 month delay, but not (it seems) related to any of these issues. Suit modifications, docking ring checks (after Skylab testing revealed a problem) and lunar module power checks were all contributors to the delay. The entire rocket was rolled back to the VAB to replace a tank damaged by over-pressurisation.

Apollo 17: launch delayed for 24 hours, a faulty memory bit was corrected by a system reboot and reloading of the data

Not true. The delay was 2 hours and 40 minutes and a result of a sensor failing to recognise a manual pressurisation of tank, which was done after automatic processes failed. The sensor was by-passed.

If anything the post harms the standard "nothing ever went wrong with Apollo" narrative, but it's the basic errors that grate. I was able to cobble the above together with just basic background knowledge and a quick fact check on the internet. No doubt my understanding will have shortfalls, but the difference is that I didn't just swallow an AI output whole, and I was prepared to check my facts.

[Jason Thompson]

Apollo 9: launch delayed several months due to LM problems

Nope. The launch was delayed by three days after the crew contracted colds.

This sounds like someone (or an AI) being unclear about the changes in mission planning due to LM delays. Apollo 9 was indeed delayed only a few days once it had been officially designated as such, but the mission itself was supposed to be Apollo 8. So you could argue that the mission of Apollo 9 was delayed by several months because of LM problems, even though once they said 'this is Apollo 9 and it will launch on this date' there was only a delay of a few days caused by crew sickness.

Apollo 14: no problems, no delays

Well, there's the obvious delay brought on by Apollo 13's more famous problems, and if we're talking problems there was the issue with docking.

Yeah, not sure how anyone could describe Apollo 14 as not being delayed or having problems.

If anything the post harms the standard "nothing ever went wrong with Apollo" narrative, but it's the basic errors that grate. I was able to cobble the above together with just basic background knowledge and a quick fact check on the internet. No doubt my understanding will have shortfalls, but the difference is that I didn't just swallow an AI output whole, and I was prepared to check my facts.

Yes, this grates with me too. It takes all of 2 minutes to google up reliable sources on the Apollo missions. Equally grating for me are the posts that illustrate with AI images when a short search brings up pretty much every single actual image taken!