Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[catsmate]

threadworm the topic is about whether the debunkers have adequately 'debunked' the claims,

They have.

 

[Vixen]

There is only one contributor to this thread that this begins to describe. But it does describe you perfectly.

Please may I tentatively suggest we all refrain from saying '"You're Stupid", as this guy here says, 'It is far too rude. Here are better alternatives":

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[catsmate]

This is the circular argument isn't it?

No. It's a really simple question.

 

[catsmate]

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.

But this is rubbish.

 

[catsmate]

T'other day you said it would take a shutter speed of 1,000's of seconds. Since they knew in advance their ETA on the Moon one would hope that the NASA experts would have had the right equipment prepared. Not one that obscures the photos' provenance.

You're lying again.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Does he have any evidence for that beyond the lack of stars?

Is it reasonable to expect stars to show up in the photographs if they were taken on the Moon?

 

[turingtest]

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.

There's a definite family resemblance to arguments from some 9/11 CTists that people who didn't accept their theories were just mindlessly parroting some government narrative- they can avoid the specific and technical details of the events when they can imagine that only they are savvy enough to avoid being brainwashed by some monolithic evil entity.

 

[Foster Zygote]

T'other day you said it would take a shutter speed of 1,000's of seconds.

He most certainly did not. He said it would take shutter speeds thousands of times longer than used on the Hasselblad 500s. Since the longest shutter time used was 1/125 sec., 2000 times that would be 16 seconds, which would be a bare minimum to expose some of the brightest stars with ISO 160. 3000, times that would be 24 seconds, which would be better. But there's a huge difference between that and thousands of seconds. Seems like a numbers person would grasp that.

By the way, what's with the apostrophe in "1,000's"? It's plural, not possessive. Or is that just an artifact o' your Dickensian affectation?

 

[JayUtah]

Please may I tentatively suggest we all refrain from saying '"You're Stupid"

Wow.

No one called you "stupid." Even worse, you're trying to police your own language when someone simply reverses to apply instead to you. How colossally arrogant on your part.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Please may I tentatively suggest we all refrain from saying '"You're Stupid"

Can we say pretending to be stupid, sometimes too convincingly?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Please stop with the Grade School lectures...

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.

Speaking for myself only, I am happy to celebrate the sub-mediocrity of her lectures.

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.

No, you're not the smartest person in the room.

Indeed, all available evidence supports the opposite conclusion.

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.

There is only one contributor to this thread that this begins to describe. But it does describe you perfectly.

When someone proudly claims to be among the 0.1% who cannot grasp what is obvious to the other 99.9%, we should believe them.

Please may I tentatively suggest we all refrain from saying '"You're Stupid", as this guy here says, 'It is far too rude. Here are better alternatives":

Those alternatives would be better explanations only if there were more evidence for those alternatives than for the obvious conclusion.

Edited to add this spoiler:

His five alternatives, and why there is no more evidence for them than for the obvious conclusion:

1. "I should not wish to fatigue your mind with particulars." Assumes concern for your mind.
2. "I should not trouble you with matters of complexity." Assumes concern for what might trouble you.
3. "It is plain that you speak from the heart rather than the head." Assumes the heart is even more stupid than the head.
4. "You have the enviable gift of simplicity." Assumes simplicity and stupidity are enviable.
5. "I admire your confidence in the absence of knowledge." Assumes absence of knowledge, or confidence in one's absence of knowledge, is enviable.

 

[threadworm]

T'other day you said it would take a shutter speed of 1,000's of seconds. Since they knew in advance their ETA on the Moon one would hope that the NASA experts would have had the right equipment prepared. Not one that obscures the photos' provenance.

They did have the right equipment prepared to take photos of the lunar surface. When they wanted to take photos of stars, they took different equipment.

 

[Olmstead]

They also didn't take photographs with the express aim to "prove" that they went to the moon. They simply took photographs on the moon.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I thought the photos of the moon taken when approaching the moon, then when landing on the moon, then when on the moon were quite a good clue about where they were. The photos of the earth from very far away were also quite a strong indication of where they weren't.

 

[Trebuchet]

Hasta la vista, baby.

Hmmm, I'm seven pages behind. How long will this last? Even a full page? We shall see!

 

[Mojo]

By the way, what's with the apostrophe in "1,000's"?

It's prime notation for ether minute seconds, or seconds squared. That's what Middlesex County Council used to teach them to do back in the 60s.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The whole notion of taking photos of the stars from the moon is just silly. Its like objecting that someone from Chicago who vacationed in Rome didn't get pictures of the night sky "to show what the stars look like from there". There's literally nothing they could have done photographically regarding the stars that would have had any scientific value worth justifying the extra time and effort required. Any astronomical instruments that could have even come close to what was achievable with earth based instruments would have been prohibitively large and heavy for the missions.

There is one exception. The aforementioned Far Ultraviolet Camera Spectrograph used by Apollo 16 to photograph astronomical subjects (including the earth) in a part of the spectrum blocked by the earth's atmosphere, thus providing valuable scientific data that could not have been obtained from earth.

 

[Andy_Ross]

They also looked at stars while in transit for navigation purposes.

 

[Steve]

Wow.

No one called you "stupid." Even worse, you're trying to police your own language when someone simply reverses to apply instead to you. How colossally arrogant on your part.

They didn't? Well let me be the first.

 

[steenkh]

It's fine; you are baffled as to what point Kaysing or Allen were making

I am somewhat baffled that anybody can come up with arguments as easy to refute as these, and even more that somebody like you buys it unquestioning.