• 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

O
Despicably trying to play the sexist card, I see. Shame on you.

And you still don't get it: the whole point is that while the surface (and objects on the surface) is very bright during the Moon day, the sky remains pitch black.
Oh dear. Again, I was first to mention this. Good grief O'Reilly. Your presumption that because you didn't know, I can't have done either, highlights your incorrect assumptions about others. May I suggest you don't rely on preconceived ideas?
 
As the topic title suggests, it is a weighing up of the claims of the deniers versus the debunkers. It is possible to take a neutral stance although the general view here seems to be it is taboo to look at the claims of the sceptical side. I looked up Kaysing's book on Amazon but unfortunately it's £20 and not available on Kindle. As I already have several books in my 'to read' pile it might not be soon.

When knowledgeable scientists laughingly refute and shut down the claims of morons that homeopathy is effective at a medicinally-therapeutic level, would you likewise categorise that debate as "It is possible to take a neutral stance although the general view here seems to be it is taboo to look at the claims of the sceptical side"?
 
O

Oh dear. Again, I was first to mention this. Good grief O'Reilly. Your presumption that because you didn't know, I can't have done either, highlights your incorrect assumptions about others. May I suggest you don't rely on preconceived ideas?
Do you understand that while the sky is black on the Moon, the stars are not significantly brighter there than they are on Earth?
 
When knowledgeable scientists laughingly refute and shut down the claims of morons that homeopathy is effective at a medicinally-therapeutic level, would you likewise categorise that debate as "It is possible to take a neutral stance although the general view here seems to be it is taboo to look at the claims of the sceptical side"?
This is why you are not good at debating. You have already decided people who advocate homeopathy are 'morons'.
 
As the topic title suggests, it is a weighing up of the claims of the deniers versus the debunkers. It is possible to take a neutral stance although the general view here seems to be it is taboo to look at the claims of the sceptical side. I looked up Kaysing's book on Amazon but unfortunately it's £20 and not available on Kindle. As I already have several books in my 'to read' pile it might not be soon.
That's not what you're doing. Your 'weighing up' is pretty much 'Trevor says...' or 'Marcus says..' with no attempt to expand on their pronouncements, or explain why their arguements hold more merit than the long and detailed counters made to them here.

Kaysing's "book" is pretty easy to find, you're either bothered about an informed debate or you aren't.
 
AI overview suggests stars look 'crisper and brighter' from the Moon albeit marginally.
I'll take that as a "no", but I'll assume you understand and accept what the AI told you.

Do you understand that the sun is not any dimmer on the Moon than it is on Earth?

Try to answer it yourself rather than asking an AI.
 
Last edited:
I'll take that as a "no", but I'll assume you understand and accept what the AI told you.

Do you understand that the sun is not any dimmer on the Moon than it is on Earth?

Try to answer it yourself rather than asking an AI.
The Earth is protected to a large degree from the sun because of its atmosphere. The full sun on the Moon reaches 120°C, iirc. In addition, its shadows are pitch black.

But we have been through all this already.
 
Last edited:

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