Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[MBDK]

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.

Except you seem to be weighing in as if you are in cislunar space, as your "facts" and "logic" have less gravity than the Moon.

 

[threadworm]

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 planning on doing that any time soon?

 

[Darat]

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.

Another lie.

 

[Worm]

Are you sure about that?

My NASA Friend Found a Box of Film from Apollo 15 in His Desk Drawer

I recently had the amazing opportunity to work with some very interesting historical media. A retired NASA engineer friend contacted me having found a box

petapixel.com

You may wish to consider the relevance of the word 'negative'.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Man, I wish I was that expert at the photomatogramaphy lark!

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Oh...Re Prince Philip...

It has been common knowledge over here for a long time that all the Battenburg-Slough males were notorious shaggers and that Phil essentially used Britannia as a floating brothel on a couple of solo foreign jaunts while Brenda stayed back here doing things with corgis. Exactly who, when, how many times etc they shagged may not be completely known, but that they were using their position (ahem), perceived power, wealth and all for their own ends is known.

 

[steenkh]

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 have often said that you have not decided on a position yet, and that you are only bringing up arguments for the conspiracy theory because they seem valid for you.

Could you please tell us what arguments you have found for the opposing side that you find valid, given that you apparently still will not completely commit yourself to the conspiracy theory.

 

[Vixen]

Oh...Re Prince Philip...

It has been common knowledge over here for a long time that all the Battenburg-Slough males were notorious shaggers and that Phil essentially used Britannia as a floating brothel on a couple of solo foreign jaunts while Brenda stayed back here doing things with corgis. Exactly who, when, how many times etc they shagged may not be completely known, but that they were using their position (ahem), perceived power, wealth and all for their own ends is known.

No, it's not. The will is sealed for X no. years.

 

[steenkh]

Tongue-in-cheek. But they could just as easily have been recorded on Earth . They obviously had loads of rehearsals beforehand surely.

Radio crackle sound effects here:

You now claim that the fact that the voice recordings could be made in a studio, is making it likely that they were.

That brings us back to your claim that the fact that no stars were present in the pictures taken on the moon — as predicted by physics — makes it more likely that the pictures were actually taken in a studio. In fact, if there were stars in the pictures, it would be more likely to have been faked. A huge scam that cost billions of dollars would surely have put the correct stars into the pictures taken on the "moon".

And if there had been stars, your lot would have — correctly — pointed out that given camera technology, and physics, the pictures must have been taken in a studio. There is really no way, reason can win against conspiracy nuts.

 

[Vixen]

Pig ignorant people deliberately pissing on the lifework of thousands of dedicated people is something to get upset about.

[Edited to add qualifier]

That's a fine appeal to the emotions. "This is how you thank me, after all I've done for you!" Sadly, this type of special pleading doesn't really cut the mustard in a fact-finding debate or say, a court of law (cf. Prince Harry recently bleating about how upset Meghan was about the DM. Justice Nicklin was not swayed as it had nothing to do with the issue at hand.) To claim all these 'thousands of dedicated people' are having their 'lifework p!ssed on' is rather presuming that the matter has been settled à priori.

 

[Vixen]

Another lie.

Hardly. It's on camera.

 

[threadworm]

Hardly. It's on camera.

Nope. It's subjective interpretation of cherry picked footage. It's claiming knowledge of their motives and emotions.

Stick to facts. Not emotions.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

"It's nothing to get upset about."

"Yes it is."

"Getting upset doesn't impress me."

 

[Pixel42]

To claim all these 'thousands of dedicated people' are having their 'lifework p!ssed on' is rather presuming that the matter has been settled à priori.

It wasn't settled à priori. It was settled by comparing a mountain of objective evidence with a compost heap of lies and manifestly bonkers speculation.

 

[Steve]

Are you sure about that?

My NASA Friend Found a Box of Film from Apollo 15 in His Desk Drawer

I recently had the amazing opportunity to work with some very interesting historical media. A retired NASA engineer friend contacted me having found a box

petapixel.com

View attachment 73275

Vixen, Vixen, Vixen....... . You really need to come up with some better porkies. You are not even trying here. "friend"? , "found"?, and "film" even?

 

[Axxman300]

Hardly. It's on camera.

No, this is a hack making content with zero context about the men involved, nor the situation. Armstrong. Aldrin, and Collins are test pilots, not public speakers, yet they've been cast into that role. Few people like being interviewed on camera. I've been interviewed three times by local news reporters, and it's not that fun. You do your best not to look like an idiot because you're nervous. Armstrong was nutoriously private and his speaking voice was always stilted (even on the mission).

These are also men who actually think before they speak, something you can learn from them.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Nope, pretty much everything in that post is opinion.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

And yet they are still somehow supposed to have convincingly faked going to the moon.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.


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.


It is my personal belief that people who are obsessed by the lives of the British Royal Famaily are insane.


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.

I can just hear Number One clearing his throat meaningfully.

 

[Vixen]

You now claim that the fact that the voice recordings could be made in a studio, is making it likely that they were.

That brings us back to your claim that the fact that no stars were present in the pictures taken on the moon — as predicted by physics — makes it more likely that the pictures were actually taken in a studio. In fact, if there were stars in the pictures, it would be more likely to have been faked. A huge scam that cost billions of dollars would surely have put the correct stars into the pictures taken on the "moon".

And if there had been stars, your lot would have — correctly — pointed out that given camera technology, and physics, the pictures must have been taken in a studio. There is really no way, reason can win against conspiracy nuts.

Unfortunately, the US Presidents at the time, Lyndon B Johnson and Richard Nixon had no problem or qualms in lying to the American people (for example, about Vietnam), so I am not sure they are reliable witnesses to history. It is no surprise people question whether there was the technology within eight years of John F Kennedy announcing the space race in 1962. NASA was formed by Eisenhower in 1958. I mean, various countries have collaborated to build various space stations over the years (for example, Mir by the Soviets being the first, IIRC) their aim having docking stations and currently refuelling facilities and the US today is not even ready to do much beyond the next Artemis (III) doing a crewed Lower Earth Orbit. Trump signed an Executive Order wanting a crewed lunar landing by 2028. Really? Not ready yet? So a rocket simply firing straight off 250,000 miles to the Moon and back via an LEO (orbit), when ISS (space station) just 250 miles up is still in development stage, tells me that, yes, it is worthy of debate: whether the so-called 'deniers' raise valid points and whether the so-called 'debunkers' succeed in their debunking. (I get that many people aren't interested in intellectual discussion and want to shut it down. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, few people are interested in ideas. But I am not sure why you would feel so angry about it.)