Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Axxman300]

Okay, here's JPL's MoonFall page explaining their role in NASA's moon base initiative:

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/moonfall/

I post this as an example of the kind information buildup the public received in the 1960s as NASA progressed from Mercury, to Gemini. to Apollo, to SkyLab, to the Shuttle. No one can seriously debunk JPL on this, they'll take on a tour, show you the gear, and the science, and the test data. Same back in the day with Apollo.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In today's edition of Questions even a yes man can answer...

Seriously, Vixen, is it just all about being the center of attention, or are you genuinely so deluded that you think you can authoritatively look at what entire scientific fields have unanimously confirmed for over half a century and say "they're wrong"?

Yes.

Essentially, are you knowingly making foolish arguments to be the center of attention, or are you just earnestly making foolish arguments?

Yes.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I think we all know the answer to that.

However, now that Vixen has used the term, and has been told there's no such terminology, because she is pathologically incapable of admitting error, she will not acknowledge that "geopositional" , is pure Star Trek-esque technobabble on her part, and even quietly switching to using "geostationary" would implicitly acknowledge her error, so she has no choice but to double down and use the term "geopositional" from now on on every occasion she should be using the term "geostationary".

Kimo sabe?

There's a line in Lower Decks where Commander Jack Ransom is piloting a shuttle into a planet's atmosphere and he says the sensors are indicating "hydromounds", so he's going to take over manual control, and Mariner says, "he means clouds".

 

[EHocking]

Someone mentioned Frank Borman earlier in the thread and I had to Google it, I thought wasn't that the name of one of the astronauts in 2001. However, Frank Poole and Dave Bowman were the names of the astronauts. Frank... Borman/Bowman... hmmm? 2001 came out earlier in the same year of the Apollo 8 mission that Frank Borman was on. Hmmm...? Clearly Kubrick was trying to send a message about the whole Apollo program.

Fingers point at Kubrick as being the director of the “hoaxed” movies on the moon.

If that were the case, Armstrong would have got his line right : “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”

(on about take 27 or so, given Kubrick’s reputation)

 

[The Common Potato]

The Russians and Jodrell Bank and 'The Dish' confirmed the three dimensional route. (Yup, I am guessing, here.) You have no idea what debunking is, Vixen. Chucking stuff out there and shouting 'debunk this, sheep; prove me wrong' is not the way to go about things

 

[catsmate]

A more pressing difficulty is how you get a non-Geopositioned satellite (i.e., one whose orbit matches the speed of that of the relevant planet) to be in the right place at the right time.

You first.

Oh good grief this is particularly stupid drivel even by your low standards.

 

[catsmate]

I haven't said it was a 'hoax'. You know perfectly well the mechanics of a geopositioned satellite. The fact the Apollo missions did not utilise one should make you wonder at the miracle of the live transmission to earth.

This is, again, stupid.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... I couldn't see it was at all 'debunked', as claimed...

I hope you have seen it now. If anything got overlooked do please ask.

 

[Lithrael]

Well. In all the other threads, I could see someone being weirdly obstinate and pushing 'reset' a lot, but I could still see this as potentially being someone's (relatively) genuine behaviour.

But this is just stupid.

I feel like I've seen behind the curtain. No, I feel like someone's forcibly shoved me behind the curtain, when I was previously perfectly willing to suspend my disbelief.

 

[PSXer]

I'm still trying to figure out how a geosynchronous satellite would even help any. She knows that from the point of view of the Moon, a geosynchronous satellite would have ~24 hour cycles just like the rest of the Earth, right? I guess the line of sight would be a bit better because it's slightly farther away from the Earth.

Meanwhile, NASA's DSN now page is saying that at this very moment they're using a ground station to contact Voyager 2, which is over 50,000 times farther away than the Moon is. They must be lying.

 

[Vixen]

I hope you have seen it now. If anything got overlooked do please ask.

Please give it a moment's thought. If back in the day your holiday snaps were ruined just by going through airport security, think how much more annoying to have taken your Hasselblad to the Moon, attached to your chest so you can't turn the lens to focus on your subject; radiation raining down like crazy, light settings, contrast and glare not controllable by your thick airfilled gloves and the whole shebang isn't stored in a pressurised unit throughout the entire 300,000 mile trip: to discover - oh no! - your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Moon snaps are such rubbish that even the film has disintegrated and pitifully so.

You tell the world you left the camera on the Moon but then when you pop your clogs, the wife discovers your dusty old Hasselblad in the back of the wardrobe, together with the all-American trinkets you were supposed to have left on the Moon. We have all been there.

JayUtah will be along soon to confirm said camera had a 'special coating' and was wrapped in foil...

 

[Andy_Ross]

Please give it a moment's thought. If back in the day your holiday snaps were ruined just by going through airport security, think how much more annoying to have taken your Hasselblad to the Moon, attached to your chest so you can't turn the lens to focus on your subject; radiation raining down like crazy, light settings, contrast and glare not controllable by your thick airfilled gloves and the whole shebang isn't stored in a pressurised unit throughout the entire 300,000 mile trip: to discover - oh no! - your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Moon snaps are such rubbish that even the film has disintegrated and pitifully so.

You tell the world you left the camera on the Moon but then when you pop your clogs, the wife discovers your dusty old Hasselblad in the back of the wardrobe, together with the all-American trinkets you were supposed to have left on the Moon. We have all been there.

JayUtah will be along soon to confirm said camera had a 'special coating' and was wrapped in foil...

You have completely ignored all the previous posts and replies and reposted the same made up ◊◊◊◊ lies.

Edited by jimbob: 

rule 12 removed

 

[bknight]

I cannot see the point of name-calling unless we are back in the school playground. My pointing out Marcus Allen's opinion about the Apollo photography a reasonable one and that I couldn't see it was at all 'debunked', as claimed, certainly doesn't follow that therefore I must be an antivaxxer and flatearther. (Do look up my comments in the COVID thread.)

Simply calling someone a conspiracy theorist doesn't settle anything either. In China, a 'conspiracy theorist' claiming something horrible happened in Tiannamen Square will likely be taken out and shot at dawn. A CT-er in Russia scoffing at Putin's claim NATO was about to attack therefore he had no choice but to attack Ukraine will likely be despatched to a Siberian prison, stuffed with anti-psychotic drugs and made to stand in the freezing cold with water thrown over one until they snuff it from a pinch of poison in the cabbage soup.

As I am not American and don't 'salute the flag', please excuse me if my response to Trump's recent declaration people will be back gallivanting on the Moon saluting the US flag 'by 2028' - just because China made some noises - is a curled lip and a decent impersonation of a sarcastic Brummie: "Yes, mate!"

To add, it really doesn't make one a 'crazy democrat cat lady'.

While name calling isn't really an acceptable way of debating, neither is continued posting of comments that have been debunked long ago concerning any conspiracy theory. Saying that a conspiracy exists many many times does not make the conspiracy valid.
Another point and this is a biggie to me, quoting someone is rather like agreeing with that quote. I remember a Hoax Nut quoting "astrophysicist" Jarrah White some timeago. Personally I asked why he believed any of Jarrah's claims and further did he check the credentials of his "title".
His answer was that he didn't necessarily believe Jarrah, just quoting him. This to me smacks of supporting/believing the quote. Further he took on good faith that Jarrah was an astrophysicist, even though there is not an accredited university in Australia close to where Jarrah lives, although I believe there's a sort of community college around his hometown that may confer associate degrees.
Now as to Marcus Allen's beliefs, he has none except where he is paid to give some, one of the biggest grifter in Apollo hoax history. Research his comments concerning Apollo, you will find him flip flopping back and forth depending on who pays him to lecture. His opinions concerning photography is totally incorrect.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Please give it a moment's thought. If back in the day your holiday snaps were ruined just by going through airport security, think how much more annoying to have taken your Hasselblad to the Moon, attached to your chest so you can't turn the lens to focus on your subject; radiation raining down like crazy, light settings, contrast and glare not controllable by your thick airfilled gloves and the whole shebang isn't stored in a pressurised unit throughout the entire 300,000 mile trip: to discover - oh no! - your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Moon snaps are such rubbish that even the film has disintegrated and pitifully so.

You tell the world you left the camera on the Moon but then when you pop your clogs, the wife discovers your dusty old Hasselblad in the back of the wardrobe, together with the all-American trinkets you were supposed to have left on the Moon. We have all been there.

JayUtah will be along soon to confirm said camera had a 'special coating' and was wrapped in foil...

Nobody who has read this thread is going to take you seriously after this. (If they gave you the benefit of the doubt before.)

Are you merely attempting to goad people into accusing you of trolling?

 

[The Common Potato]

Face the facts!

 

[Mojo]

Another point and this is a biggie to me, quoting someone is rather like agreeing with that quote. I remember a Hoax Nut quoting "astrophysicist" Jarrah White some timeago. Personally I asked why he believed any of Jarrah's claims and further did he check the credentials of his "title".
His answer was that he didn't necessarily believe Jarrah, just quoting him. This to me smacks of supporting/believing the quote.

To me it smacks of JAQing off.

 

[JayUtah]

Please...

Huge pile of mindless, nonsensical babble.

 

[The Common Potato]

Sheep!

 

[The Common Potato]

I'd better shut up.

 

[steenkh]

You tell the world you left the camera on the Moon but then when you pop your clogs, the wife discovers your dusty old Hasselblad in the back of the wardrobe, together with the all-American trinkets you were supposed to have left on the Moon. We have all been there.

This camera wasn’t on the Moon, so what’s your point?