Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[zooterkin]

Animals have been sent there so I dare say scientists will have looked into the matter.

It's your claim. Back it up or withdraw it. And answer the question about the photos.

 

[Axxman300]

It's very silly because you are assuming vision on the Moon is the same as that on Earth, when of course, our eyes have evolved to suit our unique Earthlyconditions (compare and contrast the eye of a bumble bee to that of a crepuscular animal such as a cat or a fox). When I go for a walk in sub-zero winter my vision soon distorts thanks to the effect of frost. The temperatures on the Moon are extreme, as is the brightnness of the Sun. Simply saying, oh they had special visors isn't really a debunk, more of a rationalisation.

Hence the space suits with the polarized face mask visor. You are really bad at this.

 

[Mojo]

The context is, the 'Hoaxers' side claims that the photos were taken other than on the Moon and I can't see anything by the 'Debunkers' side that disproves this claim.

do you have any evidence that they weren't taken on the Moon?

 

[Mojo]

Animals have been sent there so I dare say scientists will have looked into the matter.

You made the claim. What evidence do you have to support it?

And what animals have been sent to the Moon?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... if we for arguments sake take the claim seriously (that the pictures were a quick PR fix ATT to beat the Soviets) then the lack of stars, indications of secondary lighting, etc., supports their claim more than the debunkers'.

This is a lie, and you know it.

The absence of stars in their photos is fully in accordance with what should be expected.

There are no indications of secondary lighting.

Please stop lying.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's very silly because you are assuming vision on the Moon is the same as that on Earth, when of course, our eyes have evolved to suit our unique Earthlyconditions (compare and contrast the eye of a bumble bee to that of a crepuscular animal such as a cat or a fox). When I go for a walk in sub-zero winter my vision soon distorts thanks to the effect of frost. The temperatures on the Moon are extreme, as is the brightnness of the Sun. Simply saying, oh they had special visors isn't really a debunk, more of a rationalisation.

So your new claim is humans could not have gone to the moon because neither NASA nor all those test pilots they recruited as astronauts had ever heard of sunglasses.

<Blackadder II clip: "So, some sort of hat would be in order.">

 

[Vixen]

Unlike Vixen, I've read Kaysing's "book" (which in reality is nothing more than a rambling illustrated pamphlet), and also have copies of Allen & Weaver's various publications on the topic, all of which are variations on a theme and merely assemble the various hoax claims in a slicker format.

They all follow the same format:

Bare assertions - claims that some element of the process happened or didn't happened, based on nothing but their own say so, much like Vixen's claims that that Armstrong's press conference response was scripted in advance. Falling in to that category is their own assumption of motive or interpretation of behaviour that is heavily slanted by their own prejudices and a priori reasoning.

"If I ran the zoo" - this has been repeatedly demonstrated by VIxen throughout this thread. Because things weren't done in a way that the hoax proponent has decided it should have been done, then it wasn't done at all. Likewise evidence that doesn't meet some arbitrary standard on which they have decided can be dismissed by them. Evidence from lunar probes? Well they claim to be 100 pixel resolution, I want 150 or I will refuse to accept it. It doesn't like I think it should, it wasn't transmitted on the day I think it should, it wasn't publicised the way I think it should, and so on and so on.

Information deficit - quite often the hoax proponent will claim something as fact because they just aren't aware that they thing they claim doesn't exist does actually exist. In on e of Weaver's books he claims no special cameras were taken to the moon to photograph stars when they should have done. The fact is they did, a UV spectrum telescope that took many photographs impossible from Earth. Stars were photographed in lunar orbit and cislunar space using specific film and techniques. They either just aren't aware of that and are arguing from a position of ignorance, or they know full well that this is the case and just gloss over it to sell copy. One proponent (who claimed to work for China's space agency, but did no such thing) insisted that China had no photographs of the Apollo landing site showing evidence of them. They do. I found them.

Dishonesty - time and time again we see claims being made that have been refuted over and over that the proponent knows about, but pretends that they haven't. Allen took the coward's way out when confronted by people who know what they're talking about and recanted his claims at the British Interplanetary Society, only to go back to them when in front of his paying audience. My favourite example of this is his "just asking questions" shtick over this Gemini photo

https://i0.wp.com/www.drewexmachina.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/s65-61886.jpg

where he claims that the large 'stick' attached to the capsule should have been burnt off in re-entry and that "no-one can explain it". The fact is that it was explained to him multiple times, he just conveniently ignores it when presenting his carnival act to paying gullible marks (ironically, I can't remember precisely what it is, but it certainly isn't a mystery that no-one can explain) You only have to look at the countless videos by the "Apollo Detectives" on youtube to see lies and distortion presented as facts that are easily explained with a small amount of effort and a brain that open to understanding..

It's not that these claims haven't been debunked, it's that gullible and stupid people desperate to be part of a special club that gives them an explanation as to why their lives have amounted to nothing (instead of looking at their own failiings) refuse to accept that they have been. They don't want them to be debunked.

Of course, there will always be 'nutters'. But Trevor Weaver doesn't strike me as one. Simply calling someone names doesn't make them so. I am simply a member of the audience, as it were, evaluating the claims versus the debunks. To claim Kaysing, Allen and Weaver are idiots doesn't debunk anything, as they are obviously not. That is not to say they are right of course. Hence the debunking needs to be plausible and not just a volley of name-calling and sentimentality based on childhood memories of happy Moon Landings.

Nothing wrong with sentimentality - I am sentimental over lots of things. But fierce loyalty to a cause is not necessarily an exact correlation with reality.

Truth remains the truth regardless of argument.

 

[Vixen]

So your new claim is humans could not have gone to the moon because neither NASA nor all those test pilots they recruited as astronauts had ever heard of sunglasses.

<Blackadder II clip: "So, some sort of hat would be in order.">

At no point have I said humans could not have gone to the moon.

In any case the idea that polaroid raybans from Boots is just the thing for a trip to the Moon is patently absurd, no debate even needed.

 

[Darat]

Of course, there will always be 'nutters'. But Trevor Weaver doesn't strike me as one. Simply calling someone names doesn't make them so. I am simply a member of the audience, as it were, evaluating the claims versus the debunks. To claim Kaysing, Allen and Weaver are idiots doesn't debunk anything, as they are obviously not. That is not to say they are right of course. Hence the debunking needs to be plausible and not just a volley of name-calling and sentimentality based on childhood memories of happy Moon Landings.

Nothing wrong with sentimentality - I am sentimental over lots of things. But fierce loyalty to a cause is not necessarily an exact correlation with reality.

Truth remains the truth regardless of argument.

These posts are like an LLM, they mimic fluent language without there being any actual understanding of what they are mimicking.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

At no point have I said humans could not have gone to the moon.

At no point have you said that stars should not be visible in the Hasselblad photos. But you know it's true. And we know you know. And you said you were going to address it. And you didn't. And we all know it. And it's sort of funny but also kinda sad.

So, if you won't answer that one, tell us which animals were sent to the moon.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

So, if you won't answer that one, tell us which animals were sent to the moon.

Oh wait, sorry my mistake. They're indigenous.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... the debunking needs to be plausible

You've been given a very full explanation for why the lack of stars in the photos is not suspicious.

Is any part of it implausible to you? No, of course not. Case closed. Right?

If you think otherwise it would be a joy to read your explanation for why not.

 

[Darat]

View attachment 73141


Oh wait, sorry my mistake. They're indigenous.

There is more understanding in one whistled comment of one Clanger than there is in all of Vixen's posts in this thread.

ETA: I blame autocorrect's lack of cultural knowledge

 

[zooterkin]

Of course, there will always be 'nutters'.

Careful, you're at risk of losing your 100% record, though the rest of the post makes up for it.

 

[Axxman300]

The context is, the 'Hoaxers' side claims that the photos were taken other than on the Moon and I can't see anything by the 'Debunkers' side that disproves this claim. So, if we for arguments sake take the claim seriously (that the pictures were a quick PR fix ATT to beat the Soviets) then the lack of stars, indications of secondary lighting, etc., supports their claim more than the debunkers'.

You have to give us a break. We can't lower our IQs that far. We live in the real world where cameras are a thing, stars are a thing, space travel is a thing.

Because suppose you did 'cheat' and release studio pictures, then of course, you'd leave out the stars which could expose the location and time as being incorrect and likewise you would drill the astronauts involved in the operation on what to say at press interviews bearing in mind you know that in the future any mistake will certainly be revealed in the future, so when asked about stars they can't 'blag it' as NASA is aware any blagging would soon be revealed as such.

You seem to not understand how insane this statement is.

That is the logic. Yet the debunkers can't seem to debunk this (whilst it might be 'obvious bunk' to JayUtah and Foster Zygote, it doesn't follow it therefore must be 'bunk' if they have bought into it as Nixon wanted ATT).

They didn't buy into anything. They simply passed 8th grade science class. Not only have they debunked this BS multiple times, their technical explanations are easily recreated by anyone with a quality 35mm camera, and a little practice. We know this is true because celestial photography is 186 years old (which is why Apollo astronauts didn't do stupid things like photograph stars). Photographing the night sky is a common hobby, and anyone who does it knows these claims of no stars in Apollo pictures is twaddle.

IOW they have a belief it happened because the press said it happened yet the only way they can 'debunk it' is to rattle on about 'the human eye' and rationalise (=philosophy not science) that the lack of stars is to do with normal technical issues that go with photography

A belief backed up by science across the board.

However, these technical issues surely must have been known of in advance and with money no object, easily overcome, or at least attempted to overcome.

Thing is, we spent that money GOING TO THE MOON SIX TIMES.

 

[Mojo]

There is more understanding in one whistled comment of one Klanger than there is in all of Vixen's posts in this thread.

Do you mean, as in "sod it, the bloody thing's stuck again"?

‘They were a bit abrasive’: how kids’ TV Clangers secretly swore

The son of Oliver Postgate, creator of the 1970s show, reveals what was in the scripts for the delightful and puzzling swannee-whistle creatures

www.theguardian.com

 

[SteveAitch]

It's your claim. Back it up or withdraw it. And answer the question about the photos.

Well, according to the (admittedly) incomplete list on Wikipedia, the 'animals' include silkworms, fruit flies and tardigrades. Oh, and humans.

There's a start, V, want to add to it?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

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.

'S just as well those of us round here who were also UK educated in the '60s and '70s lived in heathen northern places, like Durham and so were taught proper like.

 

[JayUtah]

The context is, the 'Hoaxers' side claims that the photos were taken other than on the Moon and I can't see anything by the 'Debunkers' side that disproves this claim.

Did you watch the video with your eyes closed? I liked the part earlier in the thread where you revealed you hadn't actually watched the video.

That is the logic.

"We can't get the stars right, so we'll just leave them out and no one will miss them."

Yet the debunkers can't seem to debunk this (whilst it might be 'obvious bunk' to JayUtah and Foster Zygote, it doesn't follow it therefore must be 'bunk' if they have bought into it as Nixon wanted ATT).

No, we haven't all been brainwashed by Nixon. BTW Nixon hated the Apollo program. He saw it as a major success brought by his rivals Kennedy and Johnson.

IOW they have a belief it happened because the press said it happened...

No, we conclude that it happened because that's where all the evidence points. The hoax claimants' attempts to show that the evidence really isn't evidence rely on straight-up lies about how things work. I debunked the lies with actual demonstrations.

yet the only way they can 'debunk it' is to rattle on about 'the human eye' and rationalise (=philosophy not science) that the lack of stars is to do with normal technical issues that go with photography.

The lack of stars is to do with the well-known principles of photography. Those principles were demonstrated to you. You conceded that those principles were correct. It's not "philosophy," it's physics and chemistry—knowledge you seem to find "irritating."

However, these technical issues surely must have been known of in advance and with money no object, easily overcome, or at least attempted to overcome.

And they were, just not in the ways you ignorantly expect.

But as usual that's not the issue. Marcus Allen says we should incidentally see stars in the Apollo 11 photographs. That's a patently nonsensical expectation going back to Kaysing's ignorant, rambling pamphlet, and the reasons why were demonstrated to you and you agreed that those reasons were correct. But when asked simply to acknowledge the physical facts of Allen's error, you can't do it. Then you have the temerity to say the debunkers haven't carried their burden of proof.

Pathetic.

 

[threadworm]

The context is, the 'Hoaxers' side claims that the photos were taken other than on the Moon and I can't see anything by the 'Debunkers' side that disproves this claim. So, if we for arguments sake take the claim seriously (that the pictures were a quick PR fix ATT to beat the Soviets) then the lack of stars, indications of secondary lighting, etc., supports their claim more than the debunkers'. Because suppose you did 'cheat' and release studio pictures, then of course, you'd leave out the stars which could expose the location and time as being incorrect and likewise you would drill the astronauts involved in the operation on what to say at press interviews bearing in mind you know that in the future any mistake will certainly be revealed in the future, so when asked about stars they can't 'blag it' as NASA is aware any blagging would soon be revealed as such. That is the logic. Yet the debunkers can't seem to debunk this (whilst it might be 'obvious bunk' to JayUtah and Foster Zygote, it doesn't follow it therefore must be 'bunk' if they have bought into it as Nixon wanted ATT). IOW they have a belief it happened because the press said it happened yet the only way they can 'debunk it' is to rattle on about 'the human eye' and rationalise (=philosophy not science) that the lack of stars is to do with normal technical issues that go with photography. However, these technical issues surely must have been known of in advance and with money no object, easily overcome, or at least attempted to overcome.

The debunk is that the photos taken on the lunar surface show details not known prove to the mission but confirmed since.

There is no deception in there being no stars in the surface images. There shouldn't be any given the cameras and film used. There would be no discernible difference in the position of stars on Earth compared with the moon. Planets, on the other hand, like a bright Venus, would be there and in a position unique to the lunar view. A meteorologically and astronomically accurate Earth also acts as confirmation.

The technical aspects of stellar photography on a bright lunar surface with a bright sun and Earth in the sky are precisely why it wasn't done with the Hasselbalds.