Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

Then you didn’t actually watch the video.

Soz, there was the photography, of course. You did well. It was Norris and Cook who seemed to think they were being 'reassuring' but they just came across as glib and very surface level.

 

[Vixen]

I must say again I'm enjoying the information and interesting moon trivia presented in this thread, but I'm also very annoyed that it's removed almost all the fun from reading Vixen's exchanges in other threads, by showing her willingness to so bold-facedly ignore clearly demonstrable facts and ideas.

Hell, the 'in order to deny that there can be enough variation in genes for natural selection to eventually make a human out of the earliest forms of life on earth, I must claim there is no new information in new books because there are no new letters' guy is more interesting to watch; he's invented whole new ways of painting yourself into a corner that I hadn't even imagined before.

Whereas in this thread, after an initial phase of linking to lying grifters' intentional misrepresentations, (which, fair, those guys' whole job is to gin up plausible looking doubts) Vixen has been simply been sticking her fingers in her ears.

I keep forgetting: there is a massive communication gap.

 

[Vixen]

No, I didn't. I responded to your reply to that poster, which was kind of wonderous.

You totally did not.

Social media has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about. We are talking about the ability to research factually, which Google and Wiki are rather outstanding in providing. Your alternative facts do not stand up to daylight.

The things that you are proposing are not 'controversial'; that's the whole point. They are science issues well established at a teenager's level of knowledge and understanding.

Curiosity is great. Questioning everything is fantastic. That's how we get a working knowledge of things. But saying things like 'you need an atmosphere for rooster tails' is not inquisitiveness. It's just daft, with no science at all behind or supporting it.

Exactly my point. You've jumped into a thread with actual professionals and you are telling them they are all wrong because you read some crank's conspiracy theory without checking to see if said crank had the foggiest idea what he was talking about.

It really doesn't help much to advance a contrary point of view just to act like you have considered it more in depth than people who have actually studied these matters in great depth, and have the math and receipts to back it up.

Weird how some people thinking 'telling someone off' wins a debate.

 

[Vixen]

Like this?
View attachment 72322
You can pretend you don't see things like this, or that photo of the Elephant's Foot at Chernobyl, so that you can pretend you weren't wrong. But the rest of us can not only see it, we can see you vigorously pretending you can't.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I keep forgetting: there is a massive communication gap.

You keep forgetting to respond to people asking if you understood their points.
Hence, there is a massive communication gap which allows you to pretend subjects have not been fully addressed.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Weird how some people thinking 'telling someone off' wins a debate.

Weird how some people think unresponsiveness to points they don't want to acknowledge is 'debate'.

 

[Thermal]

Weird how some people thinking 'telling someone off' wins a debate.

Facts and external reality are winning the debate. The 'telling off' is peripheral, because you are being wildly insulting, although I'd believe you if you said you didn't understand just how insulting.

 

[Lithrael]

I keep forgetting: there is a massive communication gap.

What does this even mean?

Incidentally, I added a few more thoughts in an edit to that post, and I am actually curious if you have any meaningful response.

 

[Vixen]

You keep forgetting to respond to people asking if you understood their points.
Hence, there is a massive communication gap which allows you to pretend subjects have not been fully addressed.

To me, insults are low level; too infra dig to even respond to them. Reminiscent of a playground where you are told, 'I'm the king of the castle and you're a dirty rascal!" Yes, I understand absolutely that is the point being made. It just doesn't interest me.

 

[The Common Potato]

Reality doesn't care about the outcome of 'debate'.

 

[JayUtah]

Soz, there was the photography, of course. You did well.

So is it fair to say that when you dismissed the debunking of the photography claims as "lame," that was a conclusion drawn in ignorance of what the debunking actually was?

 

[JayUtah]

I keep forgetting: there is a massive communication gap.

Yes. You don't know what you're talking about. I do.

If you don't want your lack of understanding to be part of the debate, do not claim or insinuate expertise and then predicate your arguments on that claim. If you think you are being insulted, report the posts for moderation. Do not try to accuse people as such for rhetorical effect.

 

[Vixen]

What does this even mean?

Incidentally, I added a few more thoughts in an edit to that post, and I am actually curious if you have any meaningful response.

I've just re-read your post and I cannot see anything other than an inability to understand why anyone could be interested in this subject matter because you are not. So, your pattern of thought goes, I am the one who is the reprobate because you cannot understand it.

 

[Lithrael]

To me, insults are low level; too infra dig to even respond to them.

Valiant attempts to demonstrate the nature of some of the misapprehensions you appear to be laboring under != insults.

 

[Vixen]

So is it fair to say that when you dismissed the debunking of the photography claims as "lame," that was a conclusion drawn in ignorance of what the debunking actually was?

The programme as a whole was lame, not your individual contribution. But then again it was a typical TV production.

 

[JayUtah]

...inability to understand why anyone could be interested in this subject matter because you are not.

No.

This argument has never worked for you. You are not actually interested in the subject beyond what attention talking conspiratorial nonsense about it will get you. This thread is populated by many people who have expressed genuine interest in space missions, and genuine aptitude in understanding the relevant facts. They are having a productive and stimulating conversation. You are crapping on the chess board.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. You don't know what you're talking about. I do.

If you don't want your lack of understanding to be part of the debate, do not claim or insinuate expertise and then predicate your arguments on that claim. If you think you are being insulted, report the posts for moderation. Do not try to accuse people as such for rhetorical effect.

It's never anything personal with me. It's a shame actually to not be able to debate on an intellectual level.

 

[Axxman300]

The sky is always literally pitch black on the moon.

You know the old joke, right?

The Apollo 11 astronauts discovered a restaurant on the moon, not far from the landing site. At debrief they were asked about the place, they said the food was great, but it had no atmosphere...

I mention this because earth's sky is blue because we HAVE an atmosphere...something I learned around the age of 4 while watching the Apollo coverage, and also Star Trek reruns where Mr. Spock deftly explained atmosphere, and how its composition of gases defines the color.

So for the slow person on this thread, on earth the night sky is black, but on the moon the sky is ALWAYS black due to no atmosphere. This is what they call an obvious fact, but someone can't figure this out.

 

[Vixen]

You know the old joke, right?

The Apollo 11 astronauts discovered a restaurant on the moon, not far from the landing site. At debrief they were asked about the place, they said the food was great, but it had no atmosphere...

I mention this because earth's sky is blue because we HAVE an atmosphere...something I learned around the age of 4 while watching the Apollo coverage, and also Star Trek reruns where Mr. Spock deftly explained atmosphere, and how its composition of gases defines the color.

So for the slow person on this thread, on earth the night sky is black, but on the moon the sky is ALWAYS black due to no atmosphere. This is what they call an obvious fact, but someone can't figure this out.

Erm, I think you'll find I was the one who pointed this out.

 

[Lithrael]

I've just re-read your post and I cannot see anything other than an inability to understand why anyone could be interested in this subject matter because you are not. So, your pattern of thought goes, I am the one who is the reprobate because you cannot understand it.

...What? Genuinely? That's what you got from that? Where did you get the idea that I'm not interested in the subject matter? Where did you get the idea that the problem I have with your argument is that you are interested?

The problem I have with your 'why no stars' angle is that you are very demonstrably holding the argument by the wrong end.