Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[EHocking]

Not if it was in a dusty Hasselblad it wouldn’t!
<SFX> leafs through latest Triple Nine Society newsletter </SFX>

 

[Vixen]

It appears the OP has left the building once again. But never fear, I'm sure they'll be back to repeat all the previous stuff.

You know how it is when you are loath to tell little children Father Christmas does not exist..? You quietly tiptoe out of the room.

I respect people's faith and honour their right to believe in whatever it is.

Anyhoo the big rotund orange one has signed an Executive Order that the US must be back on the Moon by 2028, presumably, so he can bask in the glory. We know this guy is not the sharpest card in the pack and he probably believes what his eyes saw in 1969. Okaaaaayyyy.

 

[zooterkin]

You know how it is when you are loath to tell little children Father Christmas does not exist..? You quietly tiptoe out of the room.

I respect people's faith and honour their right to believe in whatever it is.

You're free to believe what you like. But if you come to a skeptics' site and promote nonsense, don't expect them to fall in line.

 

[JesseCuster]

Anyhoo the big rotund orange one has signed an Executive Order that the US must be back on the Moon by 2028, presumably, so he can bask in the glory. We know this guy is not the sharpest card in the pack and he probably believes what his eyes saw in 1969. Okaaaaayyyy.

Pathetic.

Vixen, why did you lie about a “dusty old Hasselblad” have being found in Neil Armstrong’s possession? You repeated this lie after being corrected that the article you attempted to cite for this lie did not say anything about any Hasselblad, never mind containing the implied quote. Yet you stated it, cited an article that said no such thing about any Hasselblad, and repeated the lie after it was pointed out to you.

Why? Pathetic and dishonest.

Why did you state at the beginning of this thread that you believe that the moon landings indisputably happened as described, if you’re now just flailing about with this kind of foaming at the mouth conspiracy ranting?

 

[JesseCuster]

Also, please explain what you were getting at when you asked about taking so and so much ~120 photos at 1.5 seconds each in the space of 2.5 hours and asked if the maths worked. Please “do the math” for me and explain what you’re trying to argue. I don’t think you can.

Edit: this post is the one I’d like explained: With specifics remember, you’re a numbers person and this should be easy to explain.

There were 5,771 photos taken over a total of 4,834 minutes, over all six missions (excl. Rover photos) or one every 50 secs, according to Marcus Allen. The Hasselblad shutter speed is 1.5 sec, for the shutter to open and shut and auto-wind on to the next frame. Apollo 11 took 123 surface pics in 151 minutes does the maths work?

 

[Foster Zygote]

You know how it is when you are loath to tell little children Father Christmas does not exist..? You quietly tiptoe out of the room.

I respect people's faith and honour their right to believe in whatever it is.

Anyhoo the big rotund orange one has signed an Executive Order that the US must be back on the Moon by 2028, presumably, so he can bask in the glory. We know this guy is not the sharpest card in the pack and he probably believes what his eyes saw in 1969. Okaaaaayyyy.

Don't worry, I bet Joe Rogan could convince Trump that the moon landings were faked in under 30 seconds. Probably with a lot of stupid nonsense about the wrong camera, X-Rays and weight ratios.

 

[welshdean]

Has anyone seen this film?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Pathetic.

Vixen, why did you lie about a “dusty old Hasselblad” have being found in Neil Armstrong’s possession? You repeated this lie after being corrected that the article you attempted to cite for this lie did not say anything about any Hasselblad, never mind containing the implied quote. Yet you stated it, cited an article that said no such thing about any Hasselblad, and repeated the lie after it was pointed out to you.

Why? Pathetic and dishonest.

Why did you state at the beginning of this thread that you believe that the moon landings indisputably happened as described, if you’re now just flailing about with this kind of foaming at the mouth conspiracy ranting?

I'll field this one since Vixen will never admit the reason.

It's because she knows next to nothing about the Apollo Program, let alone the science and engineering involved. She learned that the photos being discussed were taken using a camera called a 'Hasselblad' and was eager to use that term to feign familiarity, nay expertise, regarding the subject at hand. But she assumed that each Apollo mission had a Hasselblad, knowing nothing about the multiple 500-ELs taken on each flight, nor about the multiple Maurer 16mm movie cameras. She read somewhere, in her frantic searches to support her a priori certainty, that numerous objects were left on the lunar surface prior to the LOR maneuver, including the cameras used during the EVAs. So when she saw an article about Apollo related artifacts belonging to Neil Armstrong that included a camera, she assumed that it must be the one said to have been left on the moon, knowing nothing about the Hasselblad and Maurer cameras issued to the crews to take home for practice, and referring to it as a "Hasselblad" to assert her deep knowledge of the subject, even though it wasn't even the same camera type. This was meant to be seen as strong evidence of her penetrating detective skills, unlike the author of the article and the Smithsonian conservators who were all far to dim to see that they were hold the Hasselblad that was left on the moon. [trumpets of doom]

 

[Foster Zygote]

Also, please explain what you were getting at when you asked about taking so and so much ~120 photos at 1.5 seconds each in the space of 2.5 hours and asked if the maths worked. Please “do the math” for me and explain what you’re trying to argue. I don’t think you can.

Edit: this post is the one I’d like explained: With specifics remember, you’re a numbers person and this should be easy to explain.

It's definitely Stundie worthy. Mainly for the reason that it even occurred to someone to ask whether three minutes worth of time would fit into the space of two and a half hours.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I'll field this one since Vixen will never admit the reason.

It's because she knows next to nothing about the Apollo Program, let alone the science and engineering involved. She learned that the photos being discussed were taken using a camera called a 'Hasselblad' and was eager to use that term to feign familiarity, nay expertise, regarding the subject at hand. But she assumed that each Apollo mission had a Hasselblad, knowing nothing about the multiple 500-ELs taken on each flight, nor about the multiple Maurer 16mm movie cameras. She read somewhere, in her frantic searches to support her a priori certainty, that numerous objects were left on the lunar surface prior to the LOR maneuver, including the cameras used during the EVAs. So when she saw an article about Apollo related artifacts belonging to Neil Armstrong that included a camera, she assumed that it must be the one said to have been left on the moon, knowing nothing about the Hasselblad and Maurer cameras issued to the crews to take home for practice, and referring to it as a "Hasselblad" to assert her deep knowledge of the subject, even though it wasn't even the same camera type. This was meant to be seen as strong evidence of her penetrating detective skills, unlike the author of the article and the Smithsonian conservators who were all far to dim to see that they were hold the Hasselblad that was left on the moon. [trumpets of doom]

Remarkable Holmes!

 

[wollery]

Vixen, every one of your arguments against the moon landings is based on ignorance or misunderstandings of basic science, mostly gleaned from moronic conspiracy theories and swallowed uncritically.

And when I say basic science I mean early high school level.

I teach this stuff to 13 and 14 year olds, and most of them have no problem understanding it.

 

[JayUtah]

Has anyone seen this film?

This one is much more appropriate for this situation.

 

[JayUtah]

You know how it is when you are loath to tell little children Father Christmas does not exist..? You quietly tiptoe out of the room.

No, Vixen, you're not the smartest person in the room.

 

[Pixel42]

You know how it is when you are loath to tell little children Father Christmas does not exist..? You quietly tiptoe out of the room.

In that scenario it's clear that you are the little child believing in Father Christmas, and JayUtah et al are the ones who would be justified in giving up and quietly tiptoeing out of the room. Their patience in trying to disabuse you of your childish notions never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Mojo]

Also, please explain what you were getting at when you asked about taking so and so much ~120 photos at 1.5 seconds each in the space of 2.5 hours and asked if the maths worked. Please “do the math” for me and explain what you’re trying to argue. I don’t think you can.

Edit: this post is the one I’d like explained: With specifics remember, you’re a numbers person and this should be easy to explain.

There were 5,771 photos taken over a total of 4,834 minutes, over all six missions (excl. Rover photos) or one every 50 secs, according to Marcus Allen. The Hasselblad shutter speed is 1.5 sec, for the shutter to open and shut and auto-wind on to the next frame. Apollo 11 took 123 surface pics in 151 minutes does the maths work?

Could there have been some confusion between ' and " ?

 

[Vixen]

You're free to believe what you like. But if you come to a skeptics' site and promote nonsense, don't expect them to fall in line.

Are those cracking knuckles I hear? Your argument be like said kids in a classroom who attack the older kid for casually hypothesising Father Christmas was likely an abstract concept based on ancient folklore, and quite unwittingly - for no disrespect of the other kids' faith was intended nor hurting of feelings - causing immense fury in the younger ones, who launch themselves at the latter, kicking his or her shins, calling him or her horrible names, and they outnumber the latter, see? so they are right!!! "Mum-meeee! That person said Father Christmas wasn't real!!!" The other kid: "NO! I simply said it was likely an abstract concept...oh never mind". <fx: backs out of the room slowly>

 

[Vixen]

I'll field this one since Vixen will never admit the reason.

It's because she knows next to nothing about the Apollo Program, let alone the science and engineering involved. She learned that the photos being discussed were taken using a camera called a 'Hasselblad' and was eager to use that term to feign familiarity, nay expertise, regarding the subject at hand. But she assumed that each Apollo mission had a Hasselblad, knowing nothing about the multiple 500-ELs taken on each flight, nor about the multiple Maurer 16mm movie cameras. She read somewhere, in her frantic searches to support her a priori certainty, that numerous objects were left on the lunar surface prior to the LOR maneuver, including the cameras used during the EVAs. So when she saw an article about Apollo related artifacts belonging to Neil Armstrong that included a camera, she assumed that it must be the one said to have been left on the moon, knowing nothing about the Hasselblad and Maurer cameras issued to the crews to take home for practice, and referring to it as a "Hasselblad" to assert her deep knowledge of the subject, even though it wasn't even the same camera type. This was meant to be seen as strong evidence of her penetrating detective skills, unlike the author of the article and the Smithsonian conservators who were all far to dim to see that they were hold the Hasselblad that was left on the moon. [trumpets of doom]

Foster Zygote, the problem with your method of debate is that you keep making sweeping generalisations and stereotypes based on pure assumption. For example, your obvious belief I must be a bimbo and have no idea how to use a sophisticated camera. Please stop pigeonholing.

 

[Vixen]

This one is much more appropriate for this situation.

View attachment 72189

This is the other thing: all people seem to have in their debating tool box are insults, name-calling and ad homs.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We can only go with the information you provide.

 

[JayUtah]

...have no idea how to use a sophisticated camera.

That's no assumption. You personally displayed no actual understanding of photographic exposure when challenged. You quite literally tried to identify as a Hasselblad a camera which was no such thing. These are not generalizations or stereotypes. These are things that you personally got provably wrong. People are pointing your errors out to you because they have evidence you are wrong, not because of some agenda.

This is the other thing: all people seem to have in their debating tool box are insults, name-calling and ad homs.

Stop playing the victim. If you are a victim of anything at this forum it is of your own bad behavior.