Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

Agreed, that a better bead on it. Not sure why rejecting science and evidence would make one think they were an outside-the-box critical thinker, but it does seem to be the case.

Radical opposition may simply provide the medium in which the narrative is acted out.

 

[JayUtah]

I was not talking about pop psychology, such as the TV shows that claim to utilise 'lie detectors'. I said 'lie detectors' for ease of reference.

Your critics are well informed adults. Use the correct terms.

However, it is an observable, measurable and scientific fact that a normal person generally does show involuntary ANS stress symptoms when lying.

No, polygraphs cannot reliably detect deception by measuring these indicators.

Not everybody does and all such tests can be 'got around' by the wily.

Not everybody does it, and not everybody who does is doing so because they're lying. Therefore it is not a scientific fact that measuring those things can result in detecting deception. This is why polygraph evidence is inadmissible.

I was addressing the claim by a poster that a body language analyst claiming to be a psychologist isn't automatically wrong.

No claim to be able to detect deception by reading body language has scientific support. You're citing to a YouTuber who pretends he can do this as part of his monetized side hustle.

No, you can't look at a few clips from the Apollo 11 press conference and magically tell that the crew is lying.

 

[Vixen]

This is absolute nonsense. Have you watched the whole press conference, or even read the transcript? They confirm any number of times the full details of how they got to the moon and walked on it. If you are just talking about the single question, then they are explicit about not seeing stars from the surface without optics, but also explicit in that statement is that they were on the surface. Do you expect them to preface every answer with 'Well, when we were on the moon, which we totally were, honestly...' ?



If you want to live in the fantastical belief that none of the Apollo 11 crew ever stated explicitly that they had been on the moon, then you are....well, deluded I guess.

As to body language - you have no idea how the first man on the moon should react. Nor does anyone. He was first. They don't fit into some nice little pidgeonhole you have for them because they were exceptional. The best of the best. They don't react like most people because they're not most people. NASA were not in the habit of sending ordinary people to the moon. They were, by definition, exceptional. I'm not saying they were supermen, but they lived in a working environment that you don't seem to be able to comprehend. Where any number of decisions were a matter of life or death. Doing it right was not just a vague aim - it was an absolute requirement. So no, they don't get all giddy talking to the press, they do their job.

If you look at the video in the OP you can see Patrick Moore with a twinkle in his eye explaining why he specifically asked that question with specific wording. He was basically being sycophantic and saw himself as coming to their rescue. The question was answered in the context of the 'solar corona' causing glare and spoiling their potential view, as Moore specifically worded his 'question'. But you don't need to face the 'solar corona'.

The point being made re body language - albeit not by the guy in the video - is that any kind of 'blagging' would soon be exposed. They were not to know at the time it'd be almost another sixty years before another Moon Landing programme was to be initiated. That's the proposition, a theory of how astronauts might act if they never actually got there because the technology wasn't ready in time to beat the 'by the end of the 1960's' as pledged by JF Kennedy in 1962. but thought they would do so soon, thus, any mis-speak had to be avoided.

 

[Steve]

The Apollo Program was certainly real. I have never seen anyone dispute that. I am afraid the level of radiation and radioactivity involved in going to the Moon is a real health hazard.

Do you dispute that the real Apollo program achieved its objectives?

 

[Vixen]

Maybe you should have read the replies you were given in this thread on that topic. That would have helped you understand the nature and significance of the various problems posed by radiation and the steps taken to deal with them.

Or not. You could just play dumb and say radiation too scary from time to time.

Please recap what Trevor Weaver had to say in the OP video. He is right.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If you look at the video in the OP you can see Patrick Moore with a twinkle in his eye ...

The twinkle is of course evidence that Patrick Moore was surrounded by an atmosphere.

Say, Vixen, that reminds me: should stars have shown up in those Hasselblad photos?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Please recap what Trevor Weaver had to say in the OP video. He is right.

Please tell us if it is right that stars should have shown up in the Hasselblad photos.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Straw man. No one in this thread bases their belief in Apollo's authenticity on statements made by Johnson or Nixon.

And further to that, I'd bet a billion (10⁹) Elon Fun Bux that few, if any, participating in this thread haven't seen through the aforementioned administrations' manipulations of the Vietnam war narrative. It's not like people like Cronkite weren't broadcasting reality into people's living rooms.

 

[JayUtah]

If you look at the video in the OP you can see Patrick Moore with a twinkle in his eye explaining why he specifically asked that question with specific wording. He was basically being sycophantic and saw himself coming to their rescue.

"Because I say so."

The point being made re body language - not the guy in the video - is that any kind of 'blagging' would soon be exposed.

No, you cannot magically tell that someone is lying.

 

[bknight]

Bean discovered the hard way just how sensitive the SEC pickup tube can be. It's very sensitive, militarily so. The SEC tube in the Westinghouse cameras was one of the few items on Apollo that was classified at the time of the mission, but of course has been declassified now for a long time.

And yes, the SEC was capable of imaging stars. It was designed for night vision. Yes, the Apollo 11 crew carried a lens for it that could open to f/1 and, if pointed carefully, could have imaged the stars or photographed the lunar night side using only earthshine. The iris on that lens was preset to f/22 as it was deployed on the MESA to capture Neil Armstrong coming down the ladder. That was an appropriate iris setting for objects lit only indirectly and is stopped down too far to see stars. Armstrong replaced that lens with one that offered an f/50 setting for photographing sunlit objects with the incredibly sensitive tube. Again, too stopped down for stars also to be visible.

Was it ever discovered why the tube burned out on only part of the screen instead of total loss>

 

[Foster Zygote]

I rather suspect it is literally faux outrage.

Is said outrage as faux as this image?

 

[Vixen]

Do you dispute that the real Apollo program achieved its objectives?

I wouldn't know. That is why I am debating it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... That's the proposition, a theory of how astronauts might act if they never actually got there because the technology wasn't ready in time...

But that is not what happened. A mountain of evidence you pretend to be unable to see says that is not what happened. Only your tiresome dishonesty keeps you pretending there is the slightest doubt of this.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I wouldn't know. That is why I am debating it.

You're not debating it. You're just playing dumb for attention.

 

[JayUtah]

Please recap what Trevor Weaver had to say in the OP video. He is right.

He is misleading. He says that if certain kinds of solar storms had occurred during the missions, the astronauts might have been irradiated to the point of injury.

No such storms occurred.

Weaver is not an expert, and not at all a reliable reporter.

 

[bknight]

"Because I say so."


No, you cannot magically tell that someone is lying.

Although there are some individuals who say that they can tell whether people are answering truthfully by the facial expressions the way the eyes move when answering them. Not that I necessarily believe/distrust them.

 

[Vixen]

"Because I say so."


No, you cannot magically tell that someone is lying.

You can infer it if they are 'lying by omission'.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You can infer it if they are 'lying by omission'.

Like omitting to answer a simple question they've been asked dozens of times?

 

[Vixen]

He is misleading. He says that if certain kinds of solar storms had occurred during the missions, the astronauts might have been irradiated to the point of injury.

No such storms occurred.

Weaver is not an expert, and not at all a reliable reporter.

The Moon is under a constant barrage of micrometeorites.

 

[bknight]

You can infer it if they are 'lying by omission'.

Yes, Marcus Allen does that all the time.