Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

A crewed space craft is not needed to leave stuff there.

Do you think it would have been easier to build an unmanned craft which flew the missions rather than a human-piloted one?

Who do you propose built it?

 

[JayUtah]

I didn't say they were lying...

You didn't say anything except to parrot Marcus Allen, who is saying they're lying.

...this falls into retrospective 'evidence', rather like the reflectors.

Yes. And ...?

That spot has always been there.

How do you know that?

Giving it a name is not actually proof, more a 'supporting statement'.

Yes, it's evidence in support of the authenticity of Apollo. We add it to the huge pile of already existing evidence of the authenticity of Apollo. Its value in that regard is not the least tarnished by your desire to ignore it or explain it away according to some farfetched conjecture. Objective analysis does not include addressing evidence with, "So what? I don't have to believe it."

 

[JayUtah]

Do you think it would have been easier to build an unmanned craft which flew the missions rather than a human-piloted one?

It's not a matter of what's easiest, although one can certainly have an opinion on that. It's a matter of what there's evidence for. We have enough evidence for authentic Apollo spacecraft to fill a warehouse. And in fact, it does. There is zero evidence for any alternative mission or equipment. It's pure conjecture. When we entertain such idle speculation and allow the question to be things like, "Which would have been easier?" or "Which would have been better?" we buy into the rhetoric that the only way Apollo could be authentic is if it were the only explanation. Hoax claimants want to frame the discussion to require us to show that all their alternatives must be impossible, not just merely unlikely given the evidence.

The right way to ask the question is to ask which explanation is best supported by evidence. Therefore the only question that matters is where the evidence actually is. The actual evidence is entirely on the side of Apollo authenticity. Hoax claimants are frantically trying to explain it away without having to form any coherent alternative that would itself require evidence. That blatantly shifts the burden of proof.

There's only one way an informed, objective analysis can rationally conclude here.

 

[junkshop]

Bravo, @Vixen, bravo.

You have mostly played the part well, that I cannot deny. One wonders how much @JayUtah is paying you to seed the ground for his educamational postings.

A small criticism, if I may be so bold: I fear you may have taken the act a touch to far recently. The character is coming across more as a tragi-comic parody, than a believable example of popular ignorance.

 

[EHocking]

Literary licence [sic]. Stars may not twinkle but then nor does the sun shine, set, rise or sink; the wind does not blow, whisper, howl or cry; the brook doesn't babble and nor do the waves spume.

Perhaps literary license on earth, but physical improbability on the moon.

 

[EHocking]

Just because the lunar day lasts apx 29 Earth days, doesn't mean its early morning sunrise isn't similar in terms of light thrown as the sun comes up over the horizon.

20 to 30 hours after sunrise and 15^oabove the horizon on the moon is not the same as on earth.
You have heard of atmosphere I presume?

 

[EHocking]

Soz, errata,

You’re doing this deliberately, now.
Your Latin is no better than your English grammar.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I thought about how to put this into terms you can understand, but since you seem to be having trouble with basic numbers I'm not sure this will work.

She's been having trouble with basic English. She has explained that away as the curse of belonging to the 0.1% who cannot communicate with the other 99.9%.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

They have all been tricked by landing-site-shaped rocks?

They are formations of that rare mineral, LEMite.

 

[JayUtah]

She's been having trouble with basic English. She has explained that away as the curse of belonging to the 0.1% who cannot communicate with the other 99.9%.

You’re not wrong.

 

[Joe Random]

You’re doing this deliberately, now.
Your Latin is no better than your English grammar.

Semper Fidelis, Tyrannosauruses.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Semper Fidelis, Tyrannosauruses.

Please, Mr. Random. Don't make me open my magical murder bag. No more stinkin' thinkin', you silly billy.

 

[threadworm]

I didn't say they were lying; this falls into retrospective 'evidence', rather like the reflectors. That spot has always been there. Giving it a name is not actually proof, more a 'supporting statement'.

Which spot? The 'spot' shaped exactly like a lunar module descent stage in exactly the spot it landed, surrounded by the rocks and craters photographed on the ground? A spot surrounded by the trails left by astronauts exactly matching the pattern of their activities and photographed and/or filmed at the time?

Show me a pre-mission photo with that proves your point. Any orbital image taken before 1969 showing the same features in the surface photos will be fine.

Evidence that doesn't meet some arbitrary standard you have decided upon doesn't stop being evidence. You don't get to dictate what counts and what doesn't. You need to prove it to be incorrect. By you I mean you. All you seem capable of so far is parroting your way through the moon hoax bingo card. The pronouncements of ill-informed grifting non-entities may have been enough to convince you, but they aren't enough here.

 

[threadworm]

Perhaps literary license on earth, but physical improbability on the moon.

To be fair, licence is the noun's spelling in the UK, license is the verb.

 

[SuperMurrio]

Soz, errata, that should have read Artemis II, not III, and 15 guys, not 150. Here's a full stream version of the Artemis Recovery for those who want to compare and contrast.

NB: Please note, this is a proposition for debating purposes.

Surely you mean, 'this is a proposition for keeping the attention on me for 10 more pages'.

 

[SuperMurrio]

<snip>

I haven't said NASA 'faked it'; I am objectively weighing up the issues in debate, which means applying objectivity and listening to what the other parties say. I haven't reached a conclusion except filtering out the obvious fluff.

'because otherwise this thread would go dormant and there would be no more attention on me'.

 

[Mojo]

I haven't said NASA 'faked it'; I am objectively weighing up the issues in debate, which means applying objectivity and listening to what the other parties say. I haven't reached a conclusion except filtering out the obvious fluff.

Fail.

 

[steenkh]

I haven't reached a conclusion except filtering out the obvious fluff.

Pull the other one!

ETA: You have in fact reached a conclusion, and you are groping around for evidence to support it.

 

[Darat]

All very ODD

Oppositional Defiant Disorder

 

[Vixen]

Crap like this is how we know you’re neither serious nor objective. You went effortlessly from, “The people who took the orbital pictures are lying,” to, “The objects are real, but were placed there by some other means.” You have absolutely no evidence for either one of those hypotheses.

Objective analysis does not mean trying out any random alternative hypothesis you can think of. If you want to argue that someone is lying, you need evidence of the lie that goes beyond a simple desire to disbelieve. If you want to argue the landers got there some other way, you need evidence of that method, not just the abstract possibility of it.

Imagining that all these idle knee-jerk suggestions amount to a solid rebuttal is tantamount to claiming that the only way you can believe the mainstream claim is if it’s the only thing possible, instead of merely the one best supported by evidence. Objective analysis doesn’t mean constantly shifting the burden of proof away from the hoax claim. That’s a double standard and clearly biased.

Please read carefully. I said the guff about reflectors and supposed images of 'proof' of track remnants doesn't count as primary evidence but more as 'statements in support'. Rather like getting your grandad to back up your claim to teacher the 'dog ate the homework' and here's the proof: a photo of some mangled bits of paper in Halli's jaws.