Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Carrot Flower King]

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.

But philandering Phil, lecherous Louis and tampon Chucky's serial shaggings are actually known about and are not speculation about "shadowy figures" at funerals and are not "classified". The stuff about Phil may be having a bairn with someone else has been the stuff of rumour for donkey's years and has nothing to do with being "classified", as it is more a convenient convention that royal wills aren't published, rather than actual statute law, like the Official Secrets Act (a convention only just over a century old at that and was started to prevent a scandal over a royal being a shagger and leaving a gift to a shaggee).

Not "classified" in a sense that anyone else uses the term.

 

[threadworm]

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.

Again, which planets would be visible from the lunar surface during the missions?

Was this TV sequence recorded in advance?

Intellectual discussion requires all sides to actually take part, not pronk their way through the hoaxer bingo card every time a question gets difficult.

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

[Edited to add qualifier]

Even worse, she's pissing on the graves of all the astronauts who've given their lives in pursuit of space exploration, especially those who died during the Gemini and Apollo programs. Just like she pisses on the graves of the Estonia victims, and of Meredith Kercher.

 

[Vixen]

But philandering Phil, lecherous Louis and tampon Chucky's serial shaggings are actually known about and are not speculation about "shadowy figures" at funerals and are not "classified". The stuff about Phil may be having a bairn with someone else has been the stuff of rumour for donkey's years and has nothing to do with being "classified", as it is more a convenient convention that royal wills aren't published, rather than actual statute law, like the Official Secrets Act (a convention only just over a century old at that and was started to prevent a scandal over a royal being a shagger and leaving a gift to a shaggee).

Not "classified" in a sense that anyone else uses the term.

Obviously I had to use an example of where something true or probably true is not 'official'. This was in response to claims that anyone doubtful about the Moon Landing must be a nutbar because 'it is official it happened' is the rather weak premise they rely on.

 

[Vixen]

Even worse, she's pissing on the graves of all the astronauts who've given their lives in pursuit of space exploration, especially those who died during the Gemini and Apollo programs. Just like she pisses on the graves of the Estonia victims, and of Meredith Kercher.

Oh please, gimme a break.

 

[threadworm]

OK vixen, try this:

This image is a composite of three taken over a space of 51 hours from lunar orbit during Apollo 17. The stars stay in the same spot, apart from three distinct smudges in the lower right.

Those smudges are Jupiter. Exactly where it should be from whers it was photographed.

 

[Steve]

Oh please, gimme a break.

Then do something to deserve one.

 

[steenkh]

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.)

What is this Wall of Text supposed to mean? I have pointed out that everything can be faked in a studio; stars/no stars, cackling sound/normal voice etc, and that it all doesn't matter because you CT's are always going to take the opposite view: if there are no stars, you'll (wrongly) claim that it is a sign of fraud, and if there are stars, you'll (rightly) claim it is fake.

Billions of dollars have been spent on something that you think was a huge fraud. Of course, Nixon could have lied, but more importantly, all the thousands of people who worked on this project: the scientists, engineers, and the experts on fakery, radio operators all over the world, the Soviets; all of them kept quiet about it for so long, and the U.S. is notorious for not being able to keep a secret for longer than a couple of years.

And your reply to this is a rambling text with no relation whatsoever to what I wrote.

 

[Steve]

What is this Wall of Text supposed to mean? I have pointed out that everything can be faked in a studio; stars/no stars, cackling sound/normal voice etc, and that it all doesn't matter because you CT's are always going to take the opposite view: if there are no stars, you'll (wrongly) claim that it is a sign of fraud, and if there are stars, you'll (rightly) claim it is fake.

Billions of dollars have been spent on something that you think was a huge fraud. Of course, Nixon could have lied, but more importantly, all the thousands of people who worked on this project: the scientists, engineers, and the experts on fakery, radio operators all over the world, the Soviets; all of them kept quiet about it for so long, and the U.S. is notorious for not being able to keep a secret for longer than a couple of years.

And your reply to this is a rambling text with no relation whatsoever to what I wrote.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

First of all, those aren't original, flown film. NASA produced a huge number of copies of the original original images, as both prints and transparencies, and these are, no doubt, of the latter type. All of the original film exposures are stored in a NASA archive. What his friend found in his desk has not "been to the moon and back".

Second, you have no idea what I'm talking about, as usual. By "negatives" I don't mean the strips of film like you show here, I mean a color negative, like this:


The Ektachrome film used by the Apollo crews was a color reversal film that produced a color positive image directly onto the exposed film. Did you not notice that the images in the article you linked to were in real color?

 

[Vixen]

OK vixen, try this:

This image is a composite of three taken over a space of 51 hours from lunar orbit during Apollo 17. The stars stay in the same spot, apart from three distinct smudges in the lower right.

Those smudges are Jupiter. Exactly where it should be from whers it was photographed.

That wasn't a 'live' tv broadcast.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Four - There weren't tens of thousands of people involved in covering up said affair.

 

[Foster Zygote]

A debate is a weighing up of the facts and the arguments for and against a topic.

We can't weigh something you have yet to provide.

 

[Steve]

That wasn't a 'live' tv broadcast.

Did someone claim it was? Why not just respond to threadworm's post with a modicum of actual intelligence?

 

[zooterkin]

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.

How do you deal with the constant damp pools around you?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Another lie.

She's just blindly parroting the standard conspiracy theory line.

 

[Vixen]

How do you deal with the constant damp pools around you?

Please stop with the boring tu quoque logical fallacy. <YAWN>

 

[Steve]

How do you deal with the constant damp pools around you?

The staff in the home have mops.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Hardly. It's on camera.

Next you should present a phrelological evaluation of the Apollo 11 crew's skulls.

 

[zooterkin]

Please stop with the boring tu quoque logical fallacy. <YAWN>

Not a fallacy, but the logical consequence of your statement. You must be sweating buckets given the number of lies you've told just in this thread.

Oh, and I think you meant ad hominem, not tu quoque (not that it was either).