• 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:
You do know planets orbit? Aspects?
Click to expand...
You do know you were specific about stars?

You do know that the star field on view is no different on the moon compared to Earth? (Hint: you do, because you've been told this).

You do know that planets were photographed exactly where they should be from the lunar surface, lunar orbit and cislunar space? (Hint: you do, because you've been told this).
 
threadworm said:
You do know you were specific about stars?

You do know that the star field on view is no different on the moon compared to Earth? (Hint: you do, because you've been told this).

You do know that planets were photographed exactly where they should be from the lunar surface, lunar orbit and cislunar space? (Hint: you do, because you've been told this).
Click to expand...
Here's what I can expect to see in the skies above me today:

  • Venus: Shines brightly as an Evening Star shortly after sunset.
  • Mars: Typically visible before sunrise, appearing high in the sky.
  • Jupiter: Rises in the early morning sky for northern observers.
  • Saturn: Best seen later at night in the southeast.
So, bearing in mind the topic under debate it can readily be seen that if (a) the deniers are right that NASA left off the stars because the sequences were filmed in advance and time of live broadcast was uncertain, then it becomes a headscratcher. Obviously, this can be filled in retrospectively after the event. However, in addition to their absence ('stars' being a generic term for what people see in the night skies) the astronauts (Armstrong) also claimed to have no recollection when asked about it ('I don't recall'). So, in terms of the debate that is a valid point. If you were going to use old footage, that is how you would do it.

PS here's a planet tracker for you to see where the planets are according to your postcode:

 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Here's what I can expect to see in the skies above me today:

  • Venus: Shines brightly as an Evening Star shortly after sunset.
  • Mars: Typically visible before sunrise, appearing high in the sky.
  • Jupiter: Rises in the early morning sky for northern observers.
  • Saturn: Best seen later at night in the southeast.
Click to expand...
Oddly, that's in exactly the same format as Google's AI presents the information.
Vixen said:
So, bearing in mind the topic under debate it can readily be seen that if (a) the deniers are right that NASA left off the stars because the sequences were filmed in advance and time of live broadcast was uncertain, then it becomes a headscratcher. Obviously, this can be filled in retrospectively after the event. However, in addition to their absence ('stars' being a generic term for what people see in the night skies) the astronauts (Armstrong) also claimed to have no recollection when asked about it ('I don't recall'). So, in terms of the debate that is a valid point. If you were going to use old footage, that is how you would do it.
Click to expand...
"Sod it, the bloody thing's stuck again." - Major Clanger.
 
Vixen said:
This was the 1960's, remember? There was no photoshop or easy way of manipulating photos, with negatives. Digital didn't really arrive until the nineties.
Click to expand...
TheDoomsdayMachine.jpgmantrap-HD-planet_old.jpgimages (5).jpg

1966-1967. TV budget. Star Trek's stars were made from a sheet pf black velvet with holes punched into it, and lit from behind. Mat paintings were a thing. Had NASA wanted to fake the landings they would have done so using these OLD tricks.
 
Vixen said:
Here's what I can expect to see in the skies above me today:

  • Venus: Shines brightly as an Evening Star shortly after sunset.
  • Mars: Typically visible before sunrise, appearing high in the sky.
  • Jupiter: Rises in the early morning sky for northern observers.
  • Saturn: Best seen later at night in the southeast.
So, bearing in mind the topic under debate it can readily be seen that if (a) the deniers are right that NASA left off the stars because the sequences were filmed in advance and time of live broadcast was uncertain, then it becomes a headscratcher. Obviously, this can be filled in retrospectively after the event. However, in addition to their absence ('stars' being a generic term for what people see in the night skies) the astronauts (Armstrong) also claimed to have no recollection when asked about it ('I don't recall'). So, in terms of the debate that is a valid point. If you were going to use old footage, that is how you would do it.

PS here's a planet tracker for you to see where the planets are according to your postcode:

Click to expand...
What planets you can see from your location right now means nothing. Run along and check what planets could be seen during the missions. Maybe use the same astronomy software I used when I checked for myself.

Yet again you deliberately misrepresent Armstrong's specific response to a specific question. Maybe you're too invested in the hoax lie to see that.
 
JayUtah said:
Weaver is not a reliable reporter and simply declares that there was no proof. The Soviets were well positioned to know whether the Apollo engineering efforts were genuine or were a coverup and were capable of obtaining proof. We similarly had inside information about the Soviet space program and the ability to surveil their efforts and confirm or disconfirm their claims.
Click to expand...
The Russians still park surviellance ships off Florida and California to record our space and missile launches.
 
threadworm said:
What planets you can see from your location right now means nothing. Run along and check what planets could be seen during the missions. Maybe use the same astronomy software I used when I checked for myself.

Yet again you deliberately misrepresent Armstrong's specific response to a specific question. Maybe you're too invested in the hoax lie to see that.
Click to expand...
The point being made is that the aspects to one another literally change minute by minute, hour by hour. Well, the argument could be made that had you just returned from the Moon you'd be busting to tell the world what you saw and experienced but the three guys look like they've just been to a funeral. I am looking at the facts.
 
Vixen said:
Here's what I can expect to see in the skies above me today:

  • Venus: Shines brightly as an Evening Star shortly after sunset.
  • Mars: Typically visible before sunrise, appearing high in the sky.
  • Jupiter: Rises in the early morning sky for northern observers.
  • Saturn: Best seen later at night in the southeast.
So, bearing in mind the topic under debate it can readily be seen that if (a) the deniers are right that NASA left off the stars because the sequences were filmed in advance and time of live broadcast was uncertain, then it becomes a headscratcher. Obviously, this can be filled in retrospectively after the event. However, in addition to their absence ('stars' being a generic term for what people see in the night skies) the astronauts (Armstrong) also claimed to have no recollection when asked about it ('I don't recall'). So, in terms of the debate that is a valid point. If you were going to use old footage, that is how you would do it.

PS here's a planet tracker for you to see where the planets are according to your postcode:

Click to expand...
Was the tv sequence that broadcast this recorded in advance? Simple yes or no will do.
 

Attachments

  • wp18891049_05_06.jpg
    wp18891049_05_06.jpg
    10.6 KB · Views: 4
Vixen said:
The point being made is that the aspects to one another literally change minute by minute, hour by hour. Well, the argument could be made that had you just returned from the Moon you'd be busting to tell the world what you saw and experienced but the three guys look like they've just been to a funeral. I am looking at the facts.
Click to expand...
The point being made is that it is not the case for stars, but it is for planets, and the planets photographed are where they should be for the time and location specified. Feel free to check that for yourself.

Your subjecrive impression, based largely on what you've been told to think, of how you feel 3 astronauts should behave in front of a large audience some time after an event happened proves precisely nothing.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Some can see the bigger picture and understand how classified information works.
Click to expand...
Yes and no.

Things are classified as secret for different reasons: National Security, Personal Security, Operational Security, and institutional protocols. In the end, keeping things secret has a finite shelf-life, and usually the larger the secret the harder it is to keep in the dark.

Vixen said:
So you might say, "It's a bonkers conspiracy fantasy that Prince Philip had a mistress for years and they had a daughter together" and you can, because it is classified information (for 50? 70? years).
Click to expand...
One - nobody outside of the commonwealth cares about Prince Phillip.
Two - it's not a matter of national security on any level.
Three - Even if it's classified due to the Royal Family's status, I doubt anyone in the UK would be shocked, nor would it cause damage to the strategic, or social status of the country.

So again you've picked to dumbest example to try to make a point about state secrets that demonstrates you don't understand state secrets, and how, and why they are kept.

Vixen said:
People like yourself can describe people who espouse this as being stark raving mad, but do you know what...?
Click to expand...
It is my personal belief that people who are obsessed by the lives of the British Royal Famaily are insane.

Vixen said:
You can't get past what you've been told in the newspapers. As they are not allowed to mention it you can make a decision to hurl abuse at anyone who mentions it ...because, er, it's not official.
Click to expand...
And you don't understand how newspapers work (or used to work). Every newspaper editor dreams of breaking a story of government malfesence. After Watergate there was naked competition for the next big secret to expose, and for most of a decade all the major US, UK, French, and German news agencies did just that. Believe it or not, there was a time when government interference was met by a team of pissed lawyers, and ended with a huge payout for censorship.
 
threadworm said:
The point being made is that it is not the case for stars, but it is for planets, and the planets photographed are where they should be for the time and location specified. Feel free to check that for yourself.

Your subjecrive impression, based largely on what you've been told to think, of how you feel 3 astronauts should behave in front of a large audience some time after an event happened proves precisely nothing.
Click to expand...
A debate is a weighing up of the facts and the arguments for and against a topic. It really isn't anything to get upset about.
 
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