Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Carrot Flower King]

Never in the history of internet threads has so much time been devoted by so many to so little!

(Apologies to those who have contributed large amounts of very useful historical and technical explanations, but the starting premise...Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...)

 

[Vixen]

Point out the bullying and I'll concede. Otherwise, my post will be considered 'owned' by you.

I wasn't referring to you in particular. I was referring to the culture of using someone's perceived typo or other type of error as the perfect opportunity to victimise another. When at the end of the day was it really a heinous crime?

 

[Darat]

But you are still in daylight

Vixen simply cannot understand that on the moon the day sky is black.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Or more likely the sad tragedy of when mean sd meets three sd. You saw the grief I was subjected to over primes.

No, I saw the ridiculous lengths you went through to avoid admitting a simple mistake. You were fool, not a victim.

 

[Steve]

Not a surprise

Ability to comprehend is not strong in that one.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

* Debate: wiki definition: "A debate is a structured, formal discussion on a specific topic where opposing sides present rational arguments to persuade an audience or decide on an issue. Unlike an informal argument, a debate follows strict rules, such as time limits and taking turns to speak, without personal attacks.

According to that definition, this thread is not a debate. One of the opposing sides is not presenting rational arguments, and is not persuading anyone.

 

[threadworm]

In respect of the thread topic, we should be nearing a final conclusion (see my strapline, Quaere verum)

Consider the following video of the Apollo 11 splashdown and the recovery of the module by US Navy Frogmen. What do you notice?



So, the next proposition in the debate* is:

"Only the unwary would think this was real'.

Discuss.

* Debate: wiki definition: "A debate is a structured, formal discussion on a specific topic where opposing sides present rational arguments to persuade an audience or decide on an issue. Unlike an informal argument, a debate follows strict rules, such as time limits and taking turns to speak, without personal attacks.

How about you just tell us what someone else has told you to notice, save a bit of time.

 

[zooterkin]

Fair point, so I have changed it to 'the unwary'.

How about answering the question in the post you quoted, rather than the aside?

What did you notice?

 

[welshdean]

I didn't say it was meaningless. They just want the 'bottom line'. That is why to qualify as a chartered accountant you need to be able to write a detailed report in layman's language. People who are perfectly numerate fail the final exam because they concentrate too heavily on the numbers
instead of honing communication skills. The skill the final examiners look for is by asking themselves, 'Would I pay for this report?'

Now I know you're taking the piss.

 

[welshdean]

I wasn't referring to you in particular. I was referring to the culture of using someone's perceived typo or other type of error as the perfect opportunity to victimise another. When at the end of the day was it really a heinous crime?

Then why quote me?
It's not 'a' typo, it's a litany of errors, some might say 'a comedy'.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is.

It is what? Pitch black? No.

Imagine you are the astronaut, standing in the shadow of the lander. Can you see the sunlit moonscape around you, stretching off into the distance? Yes, of course. Why can you see it? Because the sunlight striking that landscape is scattering and some of it is coming back towards you, illuminating you. In your not-actually-pitch-black shadow.

What part eludes you?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As per the video in the OP, Trevor Weaver, IIRC, points out that they simply did not have the technology.

Can you be specific? Which technology exactly did they not have?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Consider the following video of the Apollo 11 splashdown and the recovery of the module by US Navy Frogmen. What do you notice?

Let's pretend I watched your video and didn't notice whatever it was you intended me to pick up on. What would I have missed?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... at the end of the day was it really a heinous crime?

Not at all. It was just a mistake you made. But you absolutely can't let it go.

 

[steenkh]

Vixen simply cannot understand that on the moon the day sky is black.

I think she understands this bit. But she has this strange idea that the astronauts while walking on the Moon should be more interested in taking pictures of stars than of the moonscape. Apparently, they should have done it in case they would have to counter some future claims by clueless conspiracy nuts - who would have declared the whole thing fake anyway,

 

[Steve]

May

I think she understands this bit. But she has this strange idea that the astronauts while walking on the Moon should be more interested in taking pictures of stars than of the moonscape. Apparently, they should have done it in case they would have to counter some future claims by clueless conspiracy nuts - who would have declared the whole thing fake anyway,

Maybe NASA had the wrong idea about what the goals of those missions should have been. Too bad they didn't have Vixen on the team to point them in the right direction. Maybe next time.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

In respect of the thread topic, we should be nearing a final conclusion (see my strapline, Quaere verum)

Consider the following video of the Apollo 11 splashdown and the recovery of the module by US Navy Frogmen. What do you notice?

I notice that you didn't make an actual point, let alone an argument. What was I supposed to notice?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen simply cannot understand that on the moon the day sky is black.

As I pointed out to Mojo several pages ago.

 

[Vixen]

No, I saw the ridiculous lengths you went through to avoid admitting a simple mistake. You were fool, not a victim.

I was right and I know I am right.

 

[Vixen]

Then why quote me?
It's not 'a' typo, it's a litany of errors, some might say 'a comedy'.

Because you claimed you would treat someone brutally who, in your view, made a mistake at a job interview with you.