Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[zooterkin]

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

You think the Royal wills will contain details of their extra-marital shagging?

 

[zooterkin]

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.)

Are you completely unable to connect your replies to the posts you're responding to? Do you even bother to read them first?

Would you expect to see stars in the photos taken on the Moon by Apollo 11 astronauts with the known settings on their cameras?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

Nobody thinks NASA went to the moon because LBJ and Nixon told them so. That is a stupid argument.

It is no surprise people question whether there was the technology within eight years of John F Kennedy announcing the space race in 1962.

But it is a surprise, or rather a disappointment, that some supposedly intelligent people give the appearance of remaining uneducable about the very well documented technologies involved.

<blah, blah, blah> yes, it is worthy of debate: whether the so-called 'deniers' raise valid points and whether the so-called 'debunkers' succeed in their debunking.

That debate is over. It was over long, long ago. No honest debater does not get that.

(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.)

It's the dishonesty that gets annoying.

 

[threadworm]

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.)

*ISS in development?? It's nearly retired.

*Person A doing one thing is not proof they did another entirely different thing.

*You have yet to engage in intellectual discussion. You have merely regurgitated the claims of others and avoided any difficult questions that would require you to put any effort into the discourse.

*The thread has shown many times that hoax claims have no intellectual merit, or basis in fact, do keep up.

 

[Vixen]

You think the Royal wills will contain details of their extra-marital shagging?

Er, who do you think Phil's beneficiaries are?

 

[Mojo]

She has got to be kidding us. Surely.

I prefer to be charitable, and accept that she might really be this stupid and ignorant.

 

[zooterkin]

Er, who do you think Phil's beneficiaries are?

That's a 'no', then.

Would you expect to see stars in the Apollo 11 photos with the known settings used?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

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

What are you on about? The will?

What does that have to do with us all knowing that Phil, Chucky, Uncle Louis et alia were all notorious shaggers? Or the usage that Phil put Britannia to?

They recorded all the details of their shagging in wills? What?

 

[Vixen]

I prefer to be charitable, and accept that she might really be this stupid and ignorant.

Hmm. To quote Titania to Bottom: Thou art as wise as thou are beautiful. ~ Shakespeare

 

[Foster Zygote]

You do know planets orbit? Aspects?

Vixen, if the average radius of the earth's orbit is reduced to one foot, then the radius of the moon's orbit will be 0.030 inches. At that scale, the closest star to our sun is 52 miles away. There's no way in Hell that there will be any discernible difference in the perspective of the stars between the earth and moon.

 

[catsmate]

That's a fine appeal to the emotions.

Strawman. Again.

 

[Vixen]

What are you on about? The will?

What does that have to do with us all knowing that Phil, Chucky, Uncle Louis et alia were all notorious shaggers? Or the usage that Phil put Britannia to?

They recorded all the details of their shagging in wills? What?

I was trying to explain in simple terms why the truth about the 1969 Moon Landing might be classified. It is common gossip that Prince Philip when he died was in a long-term relationship with a figure mysteriously papped at his funeral but remaining unidentified by the press and that they are said to have reproduced. The fact it has not been official 'news' does not mean it is a hoax or a conspiracy theory, was the point being made. But clearly it went over people's heads.

 

[catsmate]

Hardly. It's on camera.

"Body language analysis" is more pseudo-scientific drivel.

Psyched Up: Body Language Analysis Cannot Help You Decode Another Person

Despite what some body language experts say, there are no proven signs of deception.

www.theswaddle.com

Most of What You Know about Body Language is Wrong | SPSP

spsp.org

Darwin's illegitimate children: How body language experts undermine Darwin's legacy - PMC

Key words: body language expert, Darwin, emotions, facial expressions, misinformation, nonverbal behaviour

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Debunking Body Language Myths

What you have heard about body language and detecting deception may be all wrong.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[Mojo]

I was trying to explain in simple terms why the truth about the 1969 Moon Landing might be classified.

Go on then; please explain "why the truth about the 1969 Moon Landing might be classified".

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, if the average radius of the earth's orbit is reduced to one foot, then the radius of the moon's orbit will be 0.030 inches. At that scale, the closest star to our sun is 52 miles away. There's no way in Hell that there will be any discernible difference in the perspective of the stars between the earth and moon.

Time and location. So, were the Apollo 11 sequences filmed in, say, Area 51, a secure US military base in a desert region, then the aspects of the planets would be in a different angle to each other as of the time of the 'live' tv broadcast later, of which timing could vary considerably and in unexpected ways.

 

[Steve]

What are you on about? The will?

What does that have to do with us all knowing that Phil, Chucky, Uncle Louis et alia were all notorious shaggers? Or the usage that Phil put Britannia to?

They recorded all the details of their shagging in wills? What?

Well Vixen lives in this special world, see.... Where the wills of shagging royals have a known connection to the faked moon landings

 

[catsmate]

Unfortunately, <drivel snip>

More strawmannery.

 

[catsmate]

Er, who do you think Phil's beneficiaries are?

Strawman.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Time and location. So, were the Apollo 11 sequences filmed in, say, Area 51, a secure US military base in a desert region, then the aspects of the planets would be in a different angle to each other as of the time of the 'live' tv broadcast later, of which timing could vary considerably and in unexpected ways.

And yet they got the Earth exactly right, including the clouds for the days they were there.

 

[Vixen]

"Body language analysis" is more pseudo-scientific drivel.

Psyched Up: Body Language Analysis Cannot Help You Decode Another Person

Despite what some body language experts say, there are no proven signs of deception.

www.theswaddle.com

Most of What You Know about Body Language is Wrong | SPSP

spsp.org

Darwin's illegitimate children: How body language experts undermine Darwin's legacy - PMC

Key words: body language expert, Darwin, emotions, facial expressions, misinformation, nonverbal behaviour

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Debunking Body Language Myths

What you have heard about body language and detecting deception may be all wrong.

www.psychologytoday.com

No, it is a scientific fact that for most people (assuming no personality disorder or being on certain medications) lying causes a stress reaction which is completely autonomous (i.e., you have no control over it [think: sweating when you are hot, or going red when embarrassed or angry]). That is how lie detectors work. They are rarely permissible in a court of law but the principle is sound. When caught fibbing, you tend to sweat more and the increase in moisture registers on the ECG. This can be as little as a tag on a finger connection. If you have ever shaken a hand that is cold and clammy (and probably limp) that is the effect of nervousness.