• 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:
Please stop with the Grade School lectures...
Click to expand...
As I wrote previously, you are not sufficiently informed to discuss this topic. You are especially not informed enough to draw reliable conclusions about its authenticity. You simply don't know what you're talking about. This unfortunate circumstance requires your betters to attempt to educate you in matters you clearly don't know so that you can see the errors your conclusions are based on. You don't want to do that; it's too "irritating" for you to receive new information.

It would be better if you properly and correctly informed yourself, but you don't seem amenable to that either. You refuse to educate yourself and you refuse to allow others to educate you. That leaves us with no alternative but to cope with your persistent willful ignorance on topics in which you think you have superior judgment. That's what's irritating. You want us to celebrate your mediocrity.

Vixen said:
...that is why the 'debunking' does the opposite of what it claims to do.
Click to expand...
Debunking, as opposed to mere education, presumes a certain amount of willful ignorance or willful dishonesty on the part of the claimant whose claims are being debunked. It presumes that the claimant will not be arguing in good faith. The goal of debunking is not to inform the claimant or change the claimant's mind. The goal of debunking is to show to a reasonable third party the failure of the claimant's facts and argument.

You're not arguing in good faith. You're not sufficiently informed. You are the target of the debunking, not its beneficiary. As such, your opinion of its effectiveness is worthless.

Vixen said:
It takes a belief for granted...
Click to expand...
Exactly the opposite. There are mountains of testable facts either consistent with or directly supporting the claim that the Apollo missions authentically did what they claimed to do. It is that mountain of evidence that you and your sources are frantically trying to explain away according to frankly silly and wrong assertions. They're not doing this because they have a superior understanding or evidence for their claims. They're doing it to make money off of gullible people like you.

Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, you're committing the logical error of ignoratio elenchi. Nobody is claiming Pres. Nixon would not or did not lie for political purposes. We know he did, in fact, because we have testable evidence suggesting he did. Nobody believes the astronauts went to the Moon because Nixon said so. We believe the astronauts went to the Moon because of the mountain of evidence that shows they did. It is not just an abstract or a priori belief. It is the conclusion most consistent with the available evidence.

Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, you're not the smartest person in the room.

Vixen said:
It's fine; you are baffled as to what point Kaysing or Allen were making, but please don't blame me for that.
Click to expand...
Nobody is "baffled" over the point. The point is simply wrong according to easily discovered facts that you don't dispute. But you refuse to give the painfully obvious answer regarding your source because of your pathological aversion to admitting error. We will continue to blame you for that because that's an error that belongs uniquely to you.
 
Last edited:
steenkh said:
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.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that a suitable camera was supplied when the time came in the Apollo program to photograph stars. The Hasselblad cameras and lenses are not suitable instruments with which to do that.

However, the question is Marcus Allen's expectation. @Vixen claims the hoax advocates have not been adequately debunked. Allen claims that stars should incidentally be visible in Apollo 11 photos. But Vixen herself confirmed what had been previously demonstrated already in the thread: that it takes tens of seconds to expose stars on ISO 160 film. And she admitted that this shutter speed is incompatible with properly exposed photographs such as Allen shows us from Apollo 11.

All that's left for her to do is admit that Allen's expectation is therefore not reasonable according to facts she does not dispute. She won't do that. She only wants to get another ten pages of attention by playing dumb and other characteristic evasions.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is only one contributor to this thread that this begins to describe. But it does describe you perfectly.
 
Helen said:
Ah yes, just asking questions, aren't you?

Also, why did you assume i was talking about you?
Click to expand...


I often find myself reminded of this quote

“My son displays a general garment and you claim it’s cut to your fit?” Jessica asked. “What a fascinating revelation.”​

― Frank Herbert, Dune

Fun coincidence trivia, Arrakis does have two moons!
 
turingtest said:
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.
Click to expand...
I could swear I'd specifically mentioned that no one here has argued that the Apollo Program was real because the government said so. But she's not going to let reality stop her from giving that straw man a good thrashing and claiming victory.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Speaking of errors in logic and non sequiturs:

Even if one assumes that the moon landings were faked, Allen's notion that one should expect to see stars in pictures taken with daylight settings would still be wrong. And the reasons why have everything to do with the basics of how eyes and cameras work, and nothing to do with beliefs about Nixon's honesty.

You need a better reason for suggesting that the moon landings were faked. Nor is that the only thing you should consider upgrading.
 
Foster Zygote said:
The point is that it's fake, as can clearly be determined from the fact that Fender didn't introduce the rosewood fretboard or the five-ply pick guard until 1867.
Click to expand...

You never know. Marty McFly and the DeLorean(s) were around in 1885, he may have dropped off an 1867 strat in 1865 right around the time he dropped off the 1959 Gibson ES-345 back in 1955.
 
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