• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

Vixen said:
I shouldn't worry too much, grunion, Steve has always made it clear he hates my guts. As in many cases, there doesn't even have to be a reason for it, so what can one do <shrug> ?
Click to expand...
Ah yes, Vixen the victim :rolleyes:. Steve does not hate Vixen's guts, or any other part of her. Steve would not waste energy on such an emotion. Steve has some compassion for people who find the real world so incomprehensible. Including being such an apparently poor judge of other people's emotions. But Steve's compassion has limits.
 
Vixen said:
Of course, being sceptical doesn't equate to being right. However, by the same token, being hugely knowledgeable doesn't necessarily mean your strong beliefs are right, either.
Click to expand...
I’m professionally qualified in this. I’m licensed in this. I know I’m right and I can prove it. In fact, I have.

Let's see how it goes in 2028 when the Artemis crews have a shot.
Click to expand...
No. We do not need to wait in order to test your claims.

I can only ever be sincere and honest, it would be against my value system not to be. It is a shame that the art of debate has been lost.
Click to expand...
You are a committed conspiracy theorist. In addition you have no idea what you’re talking about. As such you have voluntarily and knowingly aligned with proven liars and fakers. Don’t lecture me about your values or your debate skills.
 
Vixen said:
... However, by the same token, being hugely knowledgeable doesn't necessarily mean your strong beliefs are right, either.
Click to expand...

Ugh. I see what you did there. Your game of disinterring tired old Apollohoax nonsense is not being countered with "strong beliefs". It is being countered with factual knowledge. "The art of debate" has not been lost. The debate has been lost, long ago, by the grifters who never had a coherent case in the first place.
 
Steve said:
I have no idea what Forumvision is so I have never opened that thread. If, as you say, she has posted reasonable opinions there it really does open the question as to why she is so off-the-rails in other threads.
Click to expand...
I am less inclined—not more— to grant quarter to someone who shows they can be reasonable but chooses not to be.
 
I've revisited the article I read re NASA. Correction: it is the International Space Stations being divested into the commercial sector 'by 2031', i.e., no longer a government body. (See BBC Science Focus, Colin Stuart for a similar article.)
 
Steve said:
Ah yes, Vixen the victim :rolleyes:. Steve does not hate Vixen's guts, or any other part of her. Steve would not waste energy on such an emotion. Steve has some compassion for people who find the real world so incomprehensible. Including being such an apparently poor judge of other people's emotions. But Steve's compassion has limits.
Click to expand...
I luv you too.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Ugh. I see what you did there. Your game of disinterring tired old Apollohoax nonsense is not being countered with "strong beliefs". It is being countered with factual knowledge. "The art of debate" has not been lost. The debate has been lost, long ago, by the grifters who never had a coherent case in the first place.
Click to expand...

As I've had cause to say several times recently: there isn't a debate; there is evidence or there isn't.

Fin.
 
Vixen said:
I've revisited the article I read re NASA. Correction: it is the International Space Stations being divested into the commercial sector 'by 2031', i.e., no longer a government body. (See BBC Science Focus, Colin Stuart for a similar article.)
Click to expand...
Why do you think this fixes anything? You misread something, fine. But you posted something that was absolutely absurd on its face because you misread your source. Did any part of you at any time think, "Wait, that can't be right?"

Why does someone this careless pretend to be able to sit in judgment over seasoned professionals who are both willing and able to demonstrate that they know what they're talking about?
 
JayUtah said:
Why do you think this fixes anything? You misread something, fine. But you posted something that was absolutely absurd on its face because you misread your source. Did any part of you at any time think, "Wait, that can't be right?"

Why does someone this careless pretend to be able to sit in judgment over seasoned professionals who are both willing and able to demonstrate that they know what they're talking about?
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
Look, I honestly think you are incredibly good at explaining things and I know that for people like yourself, Foster Zygote, Axxman, threadworm, et al, Apollo is very dear to your hearts. I have tried very hard, but since watching the OP video, I can't shake off feelings of scepticism. Of course, being sceptical doesn't equate to being right. However, by the same token, being hugely knowledgeable doesn't necessarily mean your strong beliefs are right, either.
Click to expand...
You should try that with your doctor, next time you're given some health advice. Tell them that you're skeptical based on YouTube videos you've watched by people with no medical training who are often selling some homeopathic "alternative medicine" of their own.

Do you really not understand the difference between knowledge and beliefs in this case? People like Jay and Wollery have knowledge based on years of training and experience. They don't just believe it, they've used their knowledge firsthand throughout their careers, to actually make stuff, or figure out how stuff works. Whereas the conspiracy theorists you're citing only believe things that have been demonstrably proved to be 100% wrong.

You're like a lone holdout on a trial jury choosing to ignore the evidence provided by multiple experts in scientific fields in favor of some contradictory mutterings from your friend's brother's cousin who, let's say, works at a parking garage part time, simply because you have a suspicious gut feeling about the defendant that you insist on referring to as "skepticism".

You're trying to conflate the knowledge of millions of experts worldwide with the uninformed beliefs of idiots who demonstrably don't know what they're talking about by referring to them both as "beliefs", like it's just a case of differing opinions.
Vixen said:
Let's see how it goes in 2028 when the Artemis crews have a shot.
Click to expand...
Kick the can. What about all the objectively false claims you've presented in this thread? It's not like you "broke even" in this exchange, however you try to pretend as much.
Vixen said:
I can only ever be sincere and honest, it would be against my value system not to be. It is a shame that the art of debate has been lost.
Click to expand...
Then why did you lie about having easily photographed stars with a film camera in a way that proved the lack of stars in the Apollo photos to be problematic? We know that was a lie, because it's not technologically possible. You may as well have claimed to have lapped the Nordschleife in under 8 minutes in a bone stock '94 Toyota Corolla. You still haven't indicated what camera settings you used, or even offered a ballpark estimate of appropriate settings, and later tacitly admitted that imaging stars would require long exposures (for one thing). You even attempted to show us a recent phone camera image of Jupiter as "evidence" of your achievement.

It seems like you're trying to bow out of this thread, like the Black Knight with, "all right, we'll call it a draw". But don't act like you've never been dishonest with us.
 
steenkh said:
I have asked this before: Why do you think it is also not a big scam?
Click to expand...
You asked a straight question so I'll give you my blunt answer. IMV It'd be grossly irresponsible, reckless and immoral to send healthy young adults to 'walk on the Moon' by 2028, because it is clear they are nowhere near ready. It smacks of the Orange one's obvious attempt at a ridiculous self-glorifying publicity stunt just to do it before he leaves office and to get there before the Chinese.

I am willing to open a book it won't be properly tested within the next 30 months.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Ugh. I see what you did there. Your game of disinterring tired old Apollohoax nonsense is not being countered with "strong beliefs". It is being countered with factual knowledge.
Click to expand...
Testable knowledge. I'm not the one saying, "Take my word for it." I'm the one showing you how you can demonstrate to and for yourself how things actually work. Nothing prevents anyone else from duplicating my photography, for example. Want to know what it takes to photograph stars? Take a camera and try it for yourself. Want to know about determinate statics? Hang different weights from the end of a stick and feel for yourself the moments whose values I calculated.

The few times when conspiracy theorists try to demonstrate their understanding, it's easy to show where they screw up. The use too much air pressure, or the wrong kind of x-rays, or miscalculate angles. This is why they don't do demonstrations very often. It forces them to commit to testable factors, which means they can't rely on bamboozling people with vague assertions.

Instead of facts and evidence in favor of a hoax, all we get is protests along the lines, "Marcus Allen makes some good points and you guys are meanies for treating him that way." That's pure emotional manipulation being addressed with demonstrable facts to the contrary. On the program I correctly did that dispassionately. But here, in a different forum, I can certainly comment more passionately. Here's who these people are:

Marcus Allen: "I make my living publishing sensational half-truths."
Bill Kaysing: "I was never serious about this."
Bart Sibrel: "I make my living harassing astronauts."
David Percy: "I won't talk to you unless you buy all my merch."

These are the people who are asking you, "Trust me, bruh." If you want the argument to be about that instead of scientific fact, the hoax pushers don't fare any better on those grounds either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom