Photos from Apollo 11 film footage

[profmunkin]

What property does space have that prevents electrons in the burning exhaust from producing photons of light?

[Trebor]

What property does space have that prevents electrons in the burning exhaust from producing photons of light?

The exhaust is not burning.

[Bob B.]

What property does space have that prevents electrons in the burning exhaust from producing photons of light?

The exhaust isn't burning.  The combustion took place in the combustion chamber.  The exhaust is just the gaseous products of combustion.

[profmunkin]

Burning exhaust - silly mistake

Burning fuel...hot exhaust

What is seen in this photo of the Orbiter, if it is authentic?

[sts60]

profmunkin, kindly answer the question asked you several times now, including by myself in post 436:

Exactly what reasonable evidence would convince you that Apollo was real?  "Reasonable" does not include providing you a personal trip to the Moon.

I already did you this courtesy by giving my response, and I await your answer - still.  If you continue to ignore this direct question, I will ask the moderator to compel you to answer.

I also reiterate my question to you in post 402:

You might consider that generations of scientists and engineers have validated Apollo's reality through actually using the techniques, technology, and scientific results from that program.   So, any hoax you propose would have to count on not only fooling the scientists and engineers of the time, but also of generations yet to come - and would have to anticipate discoveries and technical advances of the future.  What kind of hoax do you think could do that, given that it's now been almost half a century since the first manned lunar landing?

Again, this is a direct question, and I expect a direct answer.  I will not allow you to evade these by Gish-galloping off to new claims.

[JayUtah]

What property does space have that prevents electrons in the burning exhaust from producing photons of light?

Get your physics right first, then ask the question again.

[sts60]

Here is Neil Armstrong on the Moon:


Actually, what is a little suspicious is that the fourth Apollo 11 crewmember didn't appear in any of the images taken on the Moon.  And now he can't be asked about it, as he passed away a couple of years ago.

[JayUtah]

What is seen in this photo of the Orbiter, if it is authentic?

The first illustration is an artist's conception.

The second photo is of the OMS ignition transient.  The DPS was in steady-state operation during the time captured in your LM descent video.

Why have you failed to address the discussion in the standard literature?

[profmunkin]

Mr sts60
Why is it important to you that I must be converted to believe that the lunar landing was real?
What if I am honest with you and say that I am convinced that we did not have the technology to go there safely then or in the next 10 years. That I believe it to be faked by some very intelligent people that took a lot of care to make sure most if not all of the technical aspects were arguably correct, so it is next to impossible or impossible to prove mistakes.

What technology did the Russians or USA use to soft land a probe on the moon without a guidance system before 1969?

[JayUtah]

Why is it important to you that I must be converted to believe that the lunar landing was real?

It is not important to convert you.  It is important to know whether you can be converted -- that is, whether you have a reasonable standard of proof.  He's asking you to state what your standard of proof is and why you think that should be the standard of proof for everyone.

Your arguments in which all facts inexorably lead to a hoax conclusion, and your repeated inability to tell what would change your mind are what we need to know:  nothing will change your mind; it is firmly made up.  That means nothing anyone can tell you with respect to the facts, of which I guarantee we are more conversant, will have the slightest effect on your belief.

What if I am honest with you and say that I am convinced that we did not have the technology to go there safely then or in the next 10 years.

Then you will be asked specific questions dealing with the technology and why you think it was insufficient.  And you will be quizzed on your knowledge of that technology by those of us who design and build it for a living.

That I believe it to be faked by some very intelligent people that took a lot of care to make sure most if not all of the technical aspects were arguably correct, so it is next to impossible or impossible to prove mistakes.

Then you will be asked how you, of all people, managed to see through the deception.  You will be asked for conclusive proof of fakery, not just for examples of things you personally don't understand.

What technology did the Russians or USA use to soft land a probe on the moon without a guidance system before 1969?

What makes you think pre-1969 unmanned soft-landings were made without the benefit of a guidance system?

[Tedward]

I was just wondering how this question  about how you could get to the moon pre 1969 "without guidance". If it got there, it was guided?

[sts60]

Mr sts60
Why is it important to you that I must be converted to believe that the lunar landing was real?

I don't care whether you believe it or not.  It doesn't matter to anyone but yourself.

However, if there is no reasonable standard of evidence that would convince you the landings - plural - were real, I may not put much effort into trying to educate you, as that would mean you ultimately can't be educated. 

Also, several people - myself included - have provided you their answers to the converse question, so simple courtesy indicates you should answer the question repeated in post 436.

What if I am honest with you and say that I am convinced that we did not have the technology to go there safely then or in the next 10 years.

Then I would ask you exactly what technology was lacking, and expect you to back up your claim with evidence.  I would also ask you exactly what qualifies you to judge the adequacy of the technology or the safety of the mission design.   I have been in the space business for two decades, and I will assess your answers accordingly.

That I believe it to be faked by some very intelligent people that took a lot of care to make sure most if not all of the technical aspects were arguably correct,...

I already asked you about this in question 402.  I await your explanation of what makes this possible.

...so it is next to impossible or impossible to prove mistakes.

Clearly you have no idea how spaceflight or space science work.  Apollo technology and science are still in use and can be (and have been) verified through use by subsequent projects.

What technology did the Russians or USA use to soft land a probe on the moon without a guidance system before 1969?

What in the world makes you think such spacecraft did not have guidance systems?

[AtomicDog]

Actually, how could a spacecraft fly without a guidance system?

[gillianren]

I suppose if you only consider an automatic guidance system to fit the requirements and having a human pilot doesn't.  But even then, didn't they all have so much automatic guidance that a certain German didn't think human pilots were necessary or even required windows?

[Glom]

What technology did the Russians or USA use to soft land a probe on the moon without a guidance system before 1969?

Your reasons to believe in a hoax seem to boil down to you responding with incredulity to not understanding how it was done.

Have you ever considered the fault is with your understanding rather than with history? It would be a simpler explanation.

You have already demonstrated and conceded multiple counts of misunderstanding. How many more must be uncovered before you accept that the remaining problems you have with Apollo are down to misunderstandings of your yet brought up?