• 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:
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.
Click to expand...
Not everyone who pushes ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ is an idiot. Some are well aware that it's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, but they're in the business of selling ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. They've learned that you can sell ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sandwiches as long as you spear them with toothpicks with little paper signs reading 'FOR SMART PEOPLE ONLY'.

Kaysing, Allen and Weaver are/were either idiots or liars, because all the claims that they've presented are complete and utter ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Anyone clinging to their ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ after being shown the simple facts of physics which contradict their ludicrous claims is either a fool, or willing to go to nearly any lengths of cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance to avoid admitting that the gnostic cult that they cited to declare their singular genius was, in fact, just a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sandwich.
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
And this is the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sandwich you make for yourself. You know that the facts of physics you've been reluctantly exposed to have utterly demolished yet another conspiracy theory to which you've pinned your self-image of intellectual superiority, so you have to ignore them and pretend that everyone who's shot down your pet conspiracy theorists is doing so out of jingoistic fervor. Have you even considered how many of the people in this thread pointing out the massive failures of the "evidence" you're parroting aren't even U.S. citizens?
Vixen said:
Truth remains the truth regardless of argument.
Click to expand...
Indeed. For example: the truth that you lied about easily photographing stars with an SLR film camera. It's sad that you think anyone is going to play along with your pretense of scholarly knowledge when you so frequently lie and demonstrate such incompetence as to post a piece of (crappy) AI generated art as photographic evidence.
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
Your hoax proponents are no more qualified to evaluate the photographic evidence than you are, and you posted this thinking it was a real photograph taken from the moon:
View attachment 73157
Click to expand...

While Vixen has proven herself gullible and ignorant at times, I'm not sure that she actually thought that in this particular case, just that we'd be too stupid to look for her under the bridge.
 
Mojo said:
What was particularly impressive was that she also posted the description including the bit about sunlight in the lunar dawn having a "warm, golden glow".
Click to expand...
And that it was the first image that showed up on Bing, no doubt for search terms including something like "stars seen from moon". She'd previously been admonished for making claims, then Googling for evidence to support them, only to protest she didn't use Google. That was true, she was using Bing.
 
Foster Zygote said:
My gods! How is such a technology even possible?
View attachment 73173
View attachment 73174
Click to expand...
I had a vague recollection of it being some sort of aerial, but rather than state something as fact when I wasn't sure, I admitted that I wasn't sure. See how that works @Vixen?

Allen's deception was claiming no-one could answer his wide-eyed innocent JAQ-off, when in fact they could and did.
 
threadworm said:
I had a vague recollection of it being some sort of aerial, but rather than state something as fact when I wasn't sure, I admitted that I wasn't sure. See how that works @Vixen?

Allen's deception was claiming no-one could answer his wide-eyed innocent JAQ-off, when in fact they could and did.
Click to expand...
By the way, I'm sure it's obvious, but my snarky comment was directed at Allen, not you.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Well, the USSR sent a couple of tortoises to lunar orbit in, I think, 1968.
Click to expand...
Correct. The aim was to validate the Zond spacecraft's engineering and mission planning. Could living organisms survive transit of the Van Allen belts? Could living organisms survive the GCR exposure in lunar proximity? Could living organisms survive high g-force re-entry? The testudonauts carried out their mission in exemplary fashion, even enduring unfazed an unplanned 20 g re-entry. The Zond spacecraft design (an offshoot of the Soyuz) was eventually abandoned.

The U.S. took a slightly different approach. Apollos 4 and 6 were unmanned tests of the Apollo spacecraft that sent the spacecraft into the Van Allen belts and "soaked" them there for an extended period (a number of hours). The interior of the spacecraft was instrumented with various radiation-measuring devices to verify its radiation shielding factor. The spacecraft themselves were Block I-and-a-half ships. Leftover Block I ships were retrofitted with some of the Block II design elements.

Foster Zygote said:
And Apollo 17 actually had five mice, nicknamed Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum and Phooey in a small aluminum habitat aboard the Command Module. But none of them were ever taken to the surface. Nor were they asked to read from an eye chart.
Click to expand...
They were, however, asked to perish for the cause of science and the resulting dissections included eye tissue. The mice had previously been implanted with objective GCR dosimeters that recorded how many GCRs the mice encountered during their lunar orbit mission (hint: total of 80 for all five mice). The objective of the experiment was to determine to what extent GCR might cause short-term acute effects on eyes, organs, or the nervous system.
 
threadworm said:
Allen's deception was claiming no-one could answer his wide-eyed innocent JAQ-off, when in fact they could and did.
Click to expand...
That tactic is hardly unique to him, nor limited to the Apollo hoax claims. It's common for tabloids to cherry-pick facts and ask dangling questions. "Did aliens build the pyramids? We don't see how humans could possibly have done it, so yes it must have been aliens." There are, of course, several theories for how humans could have built the pyramids, but Marcus Allen won't sell sensationalist stories to eager gullibles by saying, "No, here are the seven ways humans could have build the pyramids." He gets more money the more he can claim, "It's a mystery—no one knows how it was done!" And of course the long-dead workers aren't around to take offense at Allen's claims of their ineptitude and incompetence.

Not so with Apollo. Not only were the solutions to the problems of crewed space flight meticulously and copiously documented, the people who actually did the work are still around to be offended by those ignorant claims. It's not even a matter of theory. We can literally point to the solutions and their inventors and say, "No, really, we know how that problem was solved."

"How can they possibly have navigated to the Moon?" Here's the computer, telescope, and guidance platform they used. Here's the 40,000 lines of computer code that did it. Here's the decade of academic papers written by MIT describing the science in full nuts-and-bolts detail right down to the equations and actual numbers. <fx eyes closed, fingers in ears> "Nope, nope, nope, you didn't debunk anything. Some guy I just met says it can't be done, so there!"
 
Foster Zygote said:
Well, the USSR sent a couple of tortoises to lunar orbit in, I think, 1968. And Apollo 17 actually had five mice, nicknamed Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum and Phooey in a small aluminum habitat aboard the Command Module. But none of them were ever taken to the surface.
Nor were they asked to read from an eye chart.
Click to expand...
How would it be possible for anyone to use an eye chart? The letters are black and when something is black you can't see it! Common sense that is!
 
threadworm said:
...
Click to expand...
[snip]
threadworm said:
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.
Click to expand...
I hadn't read this claim from her, but if she is referring to the antenna on the [Gemini capsule that is easily explained by the antenna was stored in the caosule and was deploayed after coming out of the heating of reentry had abated somewhat.
 
bknight said:
[snip]

I hadn't read this claim from her, but if she is referring to the antenna on the [Gemini capsule that is easily explained by the antenna was stored in the caosule and was deploayed after coming out of the heating of reentry had abated somewhat.
Click to expand...
That wasn't her claim, but Allen's. I expect Vixen knows even less about Mercury and Gemini than she does about Apollo.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Well, the USSR sent a couple of tortoises to lunar orbit in, I think, 1968. And Apollo 17 actually had five mice, nicknamed Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum and Phooey in a small aluminum habitat aboard the Command Module. But none of them were ever taken to the surface. Nor were they asked to read from an eye chart.
Click to expand...
And since it was in space it just turned and floated on its superstruture.
 
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