Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[zooterkin]

I am afraid it is a real phenomenon. The Apollo 11 spacecraft was of mere thin aluminium and the space suit fabric designed to supposedly prevent the astronauts from either boiling or freezing as well as protecting them from the very real Galactic Cosmic Radiation [GCR]. The debunkers will tell you the spacecraft passed through these high GCR Van Allen belts 'very rapidly' and NASA spokespersons - PR - will suggest that why, Van Allen himself, whom the doughnut-shaped belts of especially intense GCR is named after, was on the NASA team*. They will never confirm it but they'll 'suggest' the spacecraft went via the 'safe route' via one of the poles. This of course is mere 'iffing and butting' but not actually verified fact. Whilst orbiting planets is a relative doddle, landing and mucking about with cameras is pure nonsense and then taking off again, based on a closely followed script (there was no software) plus NASA claims to have lost 700 boxes of telemetry and the original film, I do wonder at the general public's gullibility. Given the sheer amount of fuel needed, why, it's a freaking miracle Apollo 11 journeyed 300,000 more miles than the recent Artemis II and NASA never thought shortage of fuel could ever be a problem there.

*This is the laughable standard of 'debunking'.

Vixen, are you claiming that all the Apollo missions, from Apollo 8 onwards, were faked, not just the Moon landings?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Cixen

If it's a hoax why would NASA have invented the Van Allen Belts and made them impassable?

Do you know what the radiation shielding on Apollo was made from and why?

 

[Mojo]

I am afraid it is a real phenomenon. The Apollo 11 spacecraft was of mere thin aluminium and the space suit fabric designed to supposedly prevent the astronauts from either boiling or freezing as well as protecting them from the very real Galactic Cosmic Radiation [GCR]. The debunkers will tell you the spacecraft passed through these high GCR Van Allen belts 'very rapidly' and NASA spokespersons - PR - will suggest that why, Van Allen himself, whom the doughnut-shaped belts of especially intense GCR is named after, was on the NASA team*. They will never confirm it but they'll 'suggest' the spacecraft went via the 'safe route' via one of the poles. This of course is mere 'iffing and butting' but not actually verified fact. Whilst orbiting planets is a relative doddle, landing and mucking about with cameras is pure nonsense and then taking off again, based on a closely followed script (there was no software) plus NASA claims to have lost 700 boxes of telemetry and the original film, I do wonder at the general public's gullibility. Given the sheer amount of fuel needed, why, it's a freaking miracle Apollo 11 journeyed 300,000 more miles than the recent Artemis II and NASA never thought shortage of fuel could ever be a problem there.

*This is the laughable standard of 'debunking'.

Six days, and this is the best you can come up with?

 

[Mojo]

I am afraid it is a real phenomenon. The Apollo 11 spacecraft was of mere thin aluminium and the space suit fabric designed to supposedly prevent the astronauts from either boiling or freezing as well as protecting them from the very real Galactic Cosmic Radiation [GCR]. The debunkers will tell you the spacecraft passed through these high GCR Van Allen belts 'very rapidly' and NASA spokespersons - PR - will suggest that why, Van Allen himself, whom the doughnut-shaped belts of especially intense GCR is named after, was on the NASA team*. They will never confirm it but they'll 'suggest' the spacecraft went via the 'safe route' via one of the poles. This of course is mere 'iffing and butting' but not actually verified fact. Whilst orbiting planets is a relative doddle, landing and mucking about with cameras is pure nonsense and then taking off again, based on a closely followed script (there was no software) plus NASA claims to have lost 700 boxes of telemetry and the original film, I do wonder at the general public's gullibility. Given the sheer amount of fuel needed, why, it's a freaking miracle Apollo 11 journeyed 300,000 more miles than the recent Artemis II and NASA never thought shortage of fuel could ever be a problem there.

*This is the laughable standard of 'debunking'.

Firewalking - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I am afraid it is a real phenomenon. The Apollo 11 spacecraft was of mere thin aluminium and the space suit fabric designed to supposedly prevent the astronauts from either boiling or freezing as well as protecting them from the very real Galactic Cosmic Radiation [GCR]. The debunkers will tell you the spacecraft passed through these high GCR Van Allen belts 'very rapidly' and NASA spokespersons - PR - will suggest that why, Van Allen himself, whom the doughnut-shaped belts of especially intense GCR is named after, was on the NASA team*. They will never confirm it but they'll 'suggest' the spacecraft went via the 'safe route' via one of the poles. This of course is mere 'iffing and butting' but not actually verified fact. Whilst orbiting planets is a relative doddle, landing and mucking about with cameras is pure nonsense and then taking off again, based on a closely followed script (there was no software) plus NASA claims to have lost 700 boxes of telemetry and the original film, I do wonder at the general public's gullibility. Given the sheer amount of fuel needed, why, it's a freaking miracle Apollo 11 journeyed 300,000 more miles than the recent Artemis II and NASA never thought shortage of fuel could ever be a problem there.

*This is the laughable standard of 'debunking'.

Since, as you have written earlier, "it is undeniably factual it all happened", how do you think they actually did it?

 

[JesseCuster]

I am afraid it is a real phenomenon. The Apollo 11 spacecraft was of mere thin aluminium and the space suit fabric designed to supposedly prevent the astronauts from either boiling or freezing as well as protecting them from the very real Galactic Cosmic Radiation [GCR]. The debunkers will tell you the spacecraft passed through these high GCR Van Allen belts 'very rapidly' and NASA spokespersons - PR - will suggest that why, Van Allen himself, whom the doughnut-shaped belts of especially intense GCR is named after, was on the NASA team*. They will never confirm it but they'll 'suggest' the spacecraft went via the 'safe route' via one of the poles. This of course is mere 'iffing and butting' but not actually verified fact. Whilst orbiting planets is a relative doddle, landing and mucking about with cameras is pure nonsense and then taking off again, based on a closely followed script (there was no software) plus NASA claims to have lost 700 boxes of telemetry and the original film, I do wonder at the general public's gullibility. Given the sheer amount of fuel needed, why, it's a freaking miracle Apollo 11 journeyed 300,000 more miles than the recent Artemis II and NASA never thought shortage of fuel could ever be a problem there.

You don't believe any of that and just made it up. Tell us what your research has told you about the "sheer amount of fuel needed". What was the actual "sheer amount of fuel needed" and why does that make it a miracle that Apollo 11 travelled more distance in total than Artemis travelled during its recent mission? Do you think Artemis should have travelled more miles, or that Apollo 11 travelled too much miles?How much fuel was needed, how do you know this, how much fuel was actually carried, such that it required a miracle to travel etc? Every single thing in your post is so fluffy, vague and devoid of any attempt at reference or citation, that it's clear you're bluffing at the level of someone at secondary school level bluffing their way through an exam they haven't studied for in a subject they've never paid attention to. It's certainly not what I'd expect of a scientist who has studied physics for 5 years, is a numbers person, and has in intellect in the 99.9

Not that it matters, you're going to ignore or refuse these kind of requests to go into any level of detail that would require you to show any actual knowledge or understanding, just like you refuse and ignore requests to explain, after other posters have explained why they think you're wrong, why it is that stars would appear in the photographs taken on the moon.

Also, just 2 weeks ago you posted this:

of course, it is undeniably factual it all happened

I, of course, predicated that this ruse would not last long. You have gone full bore moon landing denier, and you are now recycling every bit of ancient, cliched, long repeated, long debunked nonsense - no stars in photos, the van Allen belts, etc. Have't you even the imagination to come up with something new yourself instead of these rotten corpses?

I wonder how aware you aware of just how clichéd it is for a conspiracy theorist to start a thread under the false pretence of not doubting the official version of something, they just have some innocent questions, before the mask slips, and they (usually relaltively quickly) go full bore conspiracy theorist, declaring the official or mainstream version clearly a load of hogwash meant to hoodwink the public, and GIsh Galloping the thread with this kind of nonsense, and getting more

 

[Andy_Ross]

Vixen, do you think the engines are running all the time the rocket is on its way to or from the moon or in orbit?
How much fuel do you think it needed?

 

[Darat]

Vixen, do you think the engines are running all the time the rocket is on its way to or from the moon or in orbit?
How much fuel do you think it needed?

You expect us to fall for that? We all know when you take your foot off the accelerator you start to slow down. Shesh you must think we are all dummies!!

 

[Matthew Best]

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You expect us to fall for that? We all know when you take your foot off the accelerator you start to slow down. Shesh you must think we are all dummies!!

That would depend, is it to the moon or coming back which is down hill?

 

[Darat]

That would depend, is it to the moon or coming back which is down hill?

You obviously come down from the moon - again do people not expect us to have read the classics of orbital mechanics such as the seminal paper "The Cow Jumped over the Moon"?

 

[EHocking]

Vixen, do you think the engines are running all the time the rocket is on its way to or from the moon or in orbit?
How much fuel do you think it needed?

You expect us to fall for that? We all know when you take your foot off the accelerator you start to slow down. Shesh you must think we are all dummies!!

Oh, oh, and the orbits are curved. And as Isaac Newton established over 300 years ago,
“A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless it is acted upon by a force”.

So yeah, gotta be running those engines or you’d just zoom off into space.

(as any fule kno)
(and apparently J.T.Kirk)

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You obviously come down from the moon - again do people not expect us to have read the classics of orbital mechanics such as the seminal paper "The Cow Jumped over the Moon"?

Mea culpa, I forgot the classic astrophysics work that begins "The Man in the Moon came down too soon and asked his way to Norwich" before branching into culinary science and thermodynamics.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I am afraid it is a real phenomenon. The Apollo 11 spacecraft was of mere thin aluminium and the space suit fabric designed to supposedly prevent the astronauts from either boiling or freezing as well as protecting them from the very real Galactic Cosmic Radiation [GCR]. The debunkers will tell you the spacecraft passed through these high GCR Van Allen belts 'very rapidly' and NASA spokespersons - PR - will suggest that why, Van Allen himself, whom the doughnut-shaped belts of especially intense GCR is named after, was on the NASA team*. They will never confirm it but they'll 'suggest' the spacecraft went via the 'safe route' via one of the poles. This of course is mere 'iffing and butting' but not actually verified fact. Whilst orbiting planets is a relative doddle, landing and mucking about with cameras is pure nonsense and then taking off again, based on a closely followed script (there was no software) plus NASA claims to have lost 700 boxes of telemetry and the original film, I do wonder at the general public's gullibility. Given the sheer amount of fuel needed, why, it's a freaking miracle Apollo 11 journeyed 300,000 more miles than the recent Artemis II and NASA never thought shortage of fuel could ever be a problem there.

*This is the laughable standard of 'debunking'.

So much wrong. Did you actually write this crap yourself or did you just copy and paste it from some moonhoax nutter?

Do you expect us to believe that you believe your silly claim that NASA "will never confirm it but they'll 'suggest' the spacecraft went via the 'safe route' via one of the poles"? I think you do not. I think you just copied the info off some nutter you Googled and thought "this will rile them up".

You know you're just regurgitating falsehoods and garbage that were debunked long ago, and pretending to believe the debunking was not thorough enough is hardly any more impressive. Why are you doing this?

 

[Thermal]

I am afraid it is a real phenomenon. The Apollo 11 spacecraft was of mere thin aluminium and the space suit fabric designed to supposedly prevent the astronauts from either boiling or freezing as well as protecting them from the very real Galactic Cosmic Radiation [GCR]. The debunkers will tell you the spacecraft passed through these high GCR Van Allen belts 'very rapidly' and NASA spokespersons - PR - will suggest that why, Van Allen himself, whom the doughnut-shaped belts of especially intense GCR is named after, was on the NASA team*. They will never confirm it but they'll 'suggest' the spacecraft went via the 'safe route' via one of the poles. This of course is mere 'iffing and butting' but not actually verified fact. Whilst orbiting planets is a relative doddle, landing and mucking about with cameras is pure nonsense and then taking off again, based on a closely followed script (there was no software) plus NASA claims to have lost 700 boxes of telemetry and the original film, I do wonder at the general public's gullibility. Given the sheer amount of fuel needed, why, it's a freaking miracle Apollo 11 journeyed 300,000 more miles than the recent Artemis II and NASA never thought shortage of fuel could ever be a problem there.

*This is the laughable standard of 'debunking'.

Vixen, you started this thread stating that "it is undeniably factual it all happened" (post #34). Now you are obliquely claiming that it couldn't have happened at all for multiple reasons, each sillier and more long-debunked than the last. This leaves the reader in a quandary: were you 1) lying earlier, 2) had a sudden tin-foil hat epiphany, or 3) just damned dim-watted?

Can you help a brother out here and point us towards which of the three best describes your position, so that your arguments can be properly addressed? It's confusing when you do things like show two obituaries that you claim are identical, when the reader can plainly see they are not at all identical.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I am afraid it is a real phenomenon. The Apollo 11 spacecraft was of mere thin aluminium and the space suit fabric designed to supposedly prevent the astronauts from either boiling or freezing as well as protecting them from the very real Galactic Cosmic Radiation [GCR]. The debunkers will tell you the spacecraft passed through these high GCR Van Allen belts 'very rapidly' and NASA spokespersons - PR - will suggest that why, Van Allen himself, whom the doughnut-shaped belts of especially intense GCR is named after, was on the NASA team*. They will never confirm it but they'll 'suggest' the spacecraft went via the 'safe route' via one of the poles. This of course is mere 'iffing and butting' but not actually verified fact. Whilst orbiting planets is a relative doddle, landing and mucking about with cameras is pure nonsense and then taking off again, based on a closely followed script (there was no software) plus NASA claims to have lost 700 boxes of telemetry and the original film, I do wonder at the general public's gullibility. Given the sheer amount of fuel needed, why, it's a freaking miracle Apollo 11 journeyed 300,000 more miles than the recent Artemis II and NASA never thought shortage of fuel could ever be a problem there.

*This is the laughable standard of 'debunking'.

Now you're just parroting decades worth of ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ invented and passed around by ignorant morons.

First of all, the Van Allen radiation belts have nothing to do with the GCR. You're just showing how ignorant you actually are of this subject you pretend to understand so well that you can correct the world's scientific community. The VARB consists of particle radiation from the sun. The kinetic energy of these particles is far lower than that of the GCR, but their flux (there's another word you can look up and pretend you had a thorough understanding of all along) is much higher. The GCR is particle radiation with extremely high kinetic energy, but very low flux, such that the GCR isn't a problem until the astronauts have had months of exposure.

Many types of particle radiation can be blocked or greatly attenuated by thin materials, even a sheet of paper. And NASA doesn't suggest anything about the path of the Apollo missions through the VARB. They're very clear about the path taken during and after the TLI maneuver to skirt along the outer regions of the belts where flux is lowest, passing through the higher flux inner belt in a matter of minutes, and the lower flux outer belt in a few hours. Van Allen himself has called the hoax claims nonsense. Outside of the VARB, solar particle flux is much lower, such that a week's exposure within the shielding available poses no serious risk.

Yes, there was software. What do you think the AGC was for, storing sandwiches?

Your photography complaints (well, the ones you're parroting, anyway) have been addressed.

As for fuel, why don't you show us you math regarding how much fuel they needed. We can ask Jay to show us his math, and compare it to yours.


What's really funny is people like you pretending that you're smarter that the world's entire engineering and physics communities.

 

[kookbreaker]

Why is it that when Moon landing deniers bring up the Van Allen Belts they complain about the vagueness of the debunkings while having only a modicum of knowledge about how radiation actually works?

Seriously, they imply the belts are some kind of Mad Scientist death ray or the Giant Walk-through microwave at the Museum of Unsafe Science.

 

[JayUtah]

I am afraid it is a real phenomenon.

It is, but it's not as if you know anything about it.

The Apollo 11 spacecraft was of mere thin aluminium...

Wrong.

...and the space suit fabric designed to supposedly prevent the astronauts from either boiling or freezing as well as protecting them from the very real Galactic Cosmic Radiation [GCR].

Wrong.

The debunkers will tell you the spacecraft passed through these high GCR Van Allen belts 'very rapidly'...

Wrong.

...and NASA spokespersons - PR - will suggest that why, Van Allen himself, whom the doughnut-shaped belts of especially intense GCR is named after, was on the NASA team*.

Correct, he was.

They will never confirm it but they'll 'suggest' the spacecraft went via the 'safe route' via one of the poles.

Wrong.

This of course is mere 'iffing and butting' but not actually verified fact.

Wrong.

Whilst orbiting planets is a relative doddle, landing and mucking about with cameras is pure nonsense and then taking off again, based on a closely followed script (there was no software)

Wrong.

plus NASA claims to have lost 700 boxes of telemetry and the original film...

Wrong.

Given the sheer amount of fuel needed, why, it's a freaking miracle Apollo 11 journeyed 300,000 more miles than the recent Artemis II and NASA never thought shortage of fuel could ever be a problem there.

Wrong.

*This is the laughable standard of 'debunking'.

You couldn't even find a sober conspiracy theorist to crib from?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... It's confusing when you do things like show two obituaries that you claim are identical, when the reader can plainly see they are not at all identical.

What I particularly liked about those two front pages is they were given as an example of how you can't trust what the Russians say, but the first thing I noticed (after the copied layout) was that they're not in Russian.

 

[JayUtah]

Now you're just parroting decades worth of ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ invented and passed around by ignorant morons.

If even. She's just vying for another five pages of attention. Not even the "regulars" in the conspiracy cohort would give that paragraph of ignorant drivel the slightest bit of attention. It's too dumb even for them.