Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

Many a true word...

Vixen, are you just going to pretend you didn't post an AI image showing the moon as seen from the moon, and claim it was evidence that stars should be visible in the Apollo images?

 

[Darat]

Okay so I am out.

I see you lied, again.

 

[Helen]

Er, see thread title: this isn't about what I think or whether I am right or wrong: we are looking at the Apollo Moon 'Hoaxers' ~vs. the 'debunkers'. It amazes me that people do not understand how a debate works.


So what do you think I should confess to being 'wrong' about? That Marcus Allen and Trevor Weaver have not made these claims..?

Or am I supposed to denounce them because of some kind of sentimentality..?

Ah yes, just asking questions, aren't you?

Also, why did you assume i was talking about you?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I am advocating for Marcus Allen et al, so they are not my argument. JayUtah advocates for NASA. Do you see how that works?

Yeah, Marcus Allen doesn't know what the ◊◊◊◊ he's talking about, whereas Jay does.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Exactly! They should have gone at night, but NASA were too obsessed at beating the Soviets that they couldn't wait until night.

That's the trip to the Sun you are getting confused with.
They did that one at night when it wasn't so hot.
Unfortunately it was too dark to take pictures.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

No, that's not how the brain works.

A very few people, on the order of 0.1%, appear to have no personal experience with how a brain works.

For example:

Since you asked me a direct question pertaining to the topic of the thread, here is an image of the sun rising on a Moon surface dawn which was amongst the first to come up on BING.

What do you notice in the sky?

View attachment 73083

Caption:

Lunar dawn awakens with the sun rising over the rugged Moon surface revealing detailed craters and a starry indigo sky. A breathtaking view captures the moment when the sun rises over the Moon's rugged surface, illuminating craters and rocky terrain with a warm, golden glow against a deep indigo sky. ​

Lunar Dawn Awakens with the Sun Rising Over the Rugged Moon Surface Revealing Detailed Craters and a Starry Indigo Sky Stock Image - Image of silence, landscape: 363286507

Lunar dawn awakens with the sun rising over the rugged Moon surface revealing detailed craters and a starry indigo sky. Photo about silence, landscape, exploration, rocky - 363286507

www.dreamstime.com

(AI Generated Image)

NB You will see grey shaded areas because it is digitally enhanced to do so.

(a) alcohol is a Category One carcinogen and as such I do not 'drink'. (b) If you do not understand the topic please can you desist from lobbing insults.

A very few people, on the order of 0.1%, having no personal experience with understanding a topic, can do no better than to lob the first AI slop found by a Bing search.

Teenage emojis.

The adult emojis are reserved for grown-up arguments.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Vixen, are you just going to pretend you didn't post an AI image showing the moon as seen from the moon, and claim it was evidence that stars should be visible in the Apollo images?

Of course.

 

[JayUtah]

I am advocating for Marcus Allen et al, so they are not my argument.

They are your argument. You claim they have not been adequately refuted. You’re being asked whether Allen’s claims are reasonable according to facts you have conceded. There is an obvious answer that you are avoiding.

JayUtah advocates for NASA. Do you see how that works?

I’m advocating for easily known facts that you are incapable of admitting.

 

[Foster Zygote]

A very few people, on the order of 0.1%, appear to have no personal experience with how a brain works.

Maybe the "triple nine" was at the opposite end of the scale from that which was assumed?

 

[Helen]

That's the trip to the Sun you are getting confused with.
They did that one at night when it wasn't so hot.
Unfortunately it was too dark to take pictures.

I see. It was pitch black, was it?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Maybe the "triple nine" was at the opposite end of the scale from that which was assumed?

All available evidence points in the direction I have been assuming.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Allen's point is rather, that stars do not show in the photos because he believes they were not taken on the Moon, for several reasons.

Were any of those reasons not stupid and wrong?

 

[threadworm]

This is the circular argument isn't it? 'There are no stars in the photos because the photos and the camera show it was not possible', when Kaysing set a bigger question: that NASA had a deliberate policy of avoiding critical mention of the stars, as in the press conference wherein we saw the three astronauts were extremely guarded about the issue, with Armstrong saying, 'I don't recall' and then having a scripted response to Moore's question, which he had obviously been given in advance, since he repeated Moore's precise terms verbatim. Armstrong refers to a specific and particular circumstance when it is not reasonable to see the stars, not Kaysing's broader point, which, paradoxically answers itself insofar the astronauts will NOT be drawn on this, so <ahem> rather answers Kaysing's own question!

NASA has no such policy.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

View attachment 73094

I always reckoned that Abe was more of a Telecaster man: 3 pick ups and a "tremolo" arm? Naaah, not for Abe...

 

[Andy_Ross]

I see. It was pitch black, was it?

Yes, here's a picture.

Maybe they should have set the exposure to ten seconds or so.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Please stop with the Grade School lectures on the 'human eye' and please, no more lighting-for-dummies examples of 'what happens in a stadium floodlight'. It is very irritating and that is why the 'debunking' does the opposite of what it claims to do. It takes a belief for granted, say, for ease of understanding, 'the Royal Family are naturally better than the rest of us', your 'patiently' arguing that they are because they are <fx brummie accent> 'considerably richer than yo-owww' and have jewellery and wear crowns'; your starting point 'belief' here is they went to the Moon and those were the pictures they took, DUH' because you've taken it for granted President Nixon would never have lied to the public for political expediency. I am not saying he did. I am simply pointing out the error in your logic.

I used to think people who couldn't see what was obvious to me were somehow deliberately lying or being obtuse but I have come to realise they are not; they really cannot grasp it, people really are unable to think. They see any query as a threat and react with rancour and incredulity.

It's fine; you are baffled as to what point Kaysing or Allen were making, but please don't blame me for that. And I won't get impatient with you as I know you can't - won't - are unable to - get past the given 'belief'.

Unresponsive.

She does this sober, you know.

 

[steenkh]

For one, the astronauts were there at Moon dawn not 'daylight'.

Hold it right there! "Moon dawn" is no different from "Moon daylight". There is no atmosphere, and no dispersion of the light, so the sunlight is just as strong at dawn (once the sun disc is above the horizon) as during mid day. However, the shadows are longer.

The whole idea that NASA or the astronauts should have wasted time taking pictures of the stars in order to placate possible lunar hoaxers with no understanding whatsoever of physics is down right silly.

 

[threadworm]

Well, the Hasselblad pics are the ones in dispute and we do not have any others - other than satellite digitally enhanced ones.

We do have others. I posted one. It detailed the aperture and exposure time to reveal stars. Given you posted an AI image of the sun rising behind the moon taken by something in lunar orbit, what issue do you have with satellite views? Which of these lunar oribtal images show stars, and which don't? Why?

 

[threadworm]

I always reckoned that Abe was more of a Telecaster man: 3 pick ups and a "tremolo" arm? Naaah, not for Abe...

No way he'd have played it with his teeth.

 

[turingtest]

Please stop with the Grade School lectures on the 'human eye' and please, no more lighting-for-dummies examples of 'what happens in a stadium floodlight'. It is very irritating and that is why the 'debunking' does the opposite of what it claims to do. It takes a belief for granted, say, for ease of understanding, 'the Royal Family are naturally better than the rest of us', your 'patiently' arguing that they are because they are <fx brummie accent> 'considerably richer than yo-owww' and have jewellery and wear crowns';your starting point 'belief' here is they went to the Moon and those were the pictures they took, DUH' because you've taken it for granted President Nixon would never have lied to the public for political expediency. I am not saying he did. I am simply pointing out the error in your logic.

I used to think people who couldn't see what was obvious to me were somehow deliberately lying or being obtuse but I have come to realise they are not; they really cannot grasp it, people really are unable to think. They see any query as a threat and react with rancour and incredulity.

It's fine; you are baffled as to what point Kaysing or Allen were making, but please don't blame me for that. And I won't get impatient with you as I know you can't - won't - are unable to - get past the given 'belief'.

Who here has argued from a "starting point belief" that "they went to the Moon and those were the pictures they took...because you've taken it for granted President Nixon would never have lied to the public for political expediency"? If you cannot quote anyone here making such a ridiculous and childish argument, then the only error in logic being committed is yours in "pointing out" a strawman that only you have set up to knock down.