Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

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.

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.

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.

I honestly can't remember the camera settings used X years ago. Each photo would demand its own individual merits, depending what you want to achieve. But I'd say between 10 - 25 seconds for a decent night sky shot with my old SLR. Black and white 200.

 

[junkshop]

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.)

What was the article you read? Who wrote it? Who published it? Why are you referring us to a 'similar' article, and not the one you read?

ETA: searching BBC Science Focus for 'Colin Stuart' returns 149 results. Could you be a little more specific?

 

[Vixen]

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.

I haven't looked into Bill Kaysing's claim but if he had just come back from Vietnam (55K US military personnel dead) to have to tolerate the 'good news' announcement of huge sums invested in space race politics, whilst the veterans were suffering badly, I wouldn't just assume he was a whacko looney.

 

[Vixen]

What was the article you read? Who wrote it? Who published it? Why are you referring us to a 'similar' article, and not the one you read?

ETA: searching BBC Science Focus for 'Colin Stuart' returns 149 results. Could you be a little more specific?

Can't find it in the search but it was a NASA style serious article.

 

[Mojo]

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".

Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you?

 

[threadworm]

I haven't looked into Bill Kaysing's claim but if he had just come back from Vietnam (55K US military personnel dead) to have to tolerate the 'good news' announcement of huge sums invested in space race politics, whilst the veterans were suffering badly, I wouldn't just assume he was a whacko looney.

He did not.

 

[Mojo]

Has she exposed Sunak's new Tata job in charge of supplying "batteries" to NASA?

It's OK, she's made sure that they're using diesel-powered Land Rovers on the Artemis missions.

 

[The Common Potato]

we are all just pretending to be somebody here

Really?

 

[Mojo]

I honestly can't remember the camera settings used X years ago. Each photo would demand its own individual merits, depending what you want to achieve. But I'd say between 10 - 25 seconds for a decent night sky shot with my old SLR. Black and white 200.

Have you tried taking photos of sunlit subjects with those settings?

 

[Mojo]

Can't find it in the search but it was a NASA style serious article.

What was the article you read? Who wrote it, what was its title, where was it published?

 

[junkshop]

Can't find it in the search but it was a NASA style serious article.

Which one, the one you misread, or the 'similar' one?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I haven't looked into Bill Kaysing's claim but if he had just come back from Vietnam (55K US military personnel dead) to have to tolerate the 'good news' announcement of huge sums invested in space race politics, whilst the veterans were suffering badly, I wouldn't just assume he was a whacko looney.

Was he a Viet Nam vet? Should be easy enough to check. Mebbe he was a fortunate son or had those self-resolving bone spurs so prevalent among wealthy New Yorkers? Or he spent his time getting pissed in the Texas Air national Guard...Y'know...

And also has no relevance to NASA budgets at the time.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I honestly can't remember the camera settings used X years ago. Each photo would demand its own individual merits, depending what you want to achieve. But I'd say between 10 - 25 seconds for a decent night sky shot with my old SLR. Black and white 200.

So why did you support the claims that we should see stars in photos taken with 160 film, with, at best, f-5.6 at 1/125 sec.? If you'd say 10-25 seconds (meaning you presumably also understand the necessity for a tripod and cable release), why didn't you immediately call out that claim as technically false? Why did you lie in support of that claim?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Was he a Viet Nam vet?

No.

 

[Mojo]

So why did you support the claims that we should see stars in photos taken with 160 film, with, at best, f-5.6 at 1/125 sec.? If you'd say 10-25 seconds (meaning you presumably also understand the necessity for a tripod and cable release), why didn't you immediately call out that claim as technically false? Why did you lie in support of that claim?

SOP.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

No.

So, the usual irrelevant flannel...

 

[Mojo]

I haven't looked into Bill Kaysing's claim but if he had just come back from Vietnam...

What made you think he had just come back from Vietnam?

 

[Steve]

What made you think he had just come back from Vietnam?

Vixen said "if"! Just her way of weaseling out of making a firm statement and pretending not to lie.

 

[Axxman300]

What made you think he had just come back from Vietnam?

The Apollo missions were an elaborate cover to hide the fact that the Vietnam Wars was fake, and was all filmed by Sam Peckinpah at Eglin AFB in Florida. The media refuses to cover this. NASA points out that in all photos of the Vietnam War, no stars are visible, and thus a hoax.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you?

Signed the Pledge at Runnymede and made all the boozers close at half past ten!