Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Mojo]

I am not in the habit of lying.

You had forgotten, then?

 

[Steve]

I am not in the habit of lying.

Copious evidence to the contrary in these forums.

 

[Vixen]

You had forgotten, then?

Look, I get that people take a dislike to other people on social media but IMV it is never acceptable or morally correct to haze them as a result, when they may have absolutely nothing to do with your feelings of antipathy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Interesting use of quotation marks around "Moon rocks": why?

 

[threadworm]

It is elementary nonsense that the favourite argument of your camp runs, "the scale of involvement by all manner of people would be ridiculous" because if something is Top Secret then of course, only a tiny handful of people would know of it. It really doesn't follow that all 400,000 people who worked for NASA were 'in on it'. In any case, the aim was true but it seems reasonable to believe they were nowhere near ready nor had the technology, so yeah, building all those machines and engines were in perfectly good faith, nobody said it wasn't.

BTW I do not present myself 'as better than the average person' but I am entitled to set the record straight when people make false claims. For example, one individual keeps spreading a persistent lie that I am suffering from a terminal illness*. Anywhere else that would be considered abhorrent.

*Needless to say 100% untrue.

Did I claim 400k people would need to be in on it? No-one does. The argument presented is that 400k people were employed in the project one way or another, and that it would not be possible for someone, somewhere, not to realise what was happening. Everyone involved in building every component would have to believe they were building fully functional components for a carefully designed fully workable process.

The same is true of the alleged hoax. Everyone involved in faking it would know it. I repeat: for the photographic, 16mm and TV record to have been done, in advance, on Earth then personnel, locations and equipment would have been involved. Knowledge in advance was required of lunar details and terrestrial meteorology that just didn't exist. Your explanation is...?

You most definitely are presenting yourself as better than average. You are also entitled to correct false claims. You have not done so about the Apollo missions. You have presented many false claims as fact, but you have made no attempt to provide any kind of refutation to facts that you claim are false.

You have instead, accused everyone else of being too emotionally invested to see the things you are apparently blessed to have insight into, provided diversionary wall of text non sequiturs and played the victim. Boohoo, poor you to carry such a weighty burden of knowledge and understanding denied we mere underlings.

◊◊◊◊ or get off the pot. Stop pretending you have a superior level.of knowledge and start demonstrating it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I really have no idea but there is nothing that deems only crewed spacecraft can collect them.

So the goalposts move, wearily, from "they're not really moon rocks" to "unmanned sample and return".
We had a long argument over that here years ago. Anyone remember who the proponent was?

The half-baked notion was that NASA had Grumman build the lunar lander, in good faith as Grumman were not in on the conspiracy, and it was intricately designed and built to carry and be operated by two humans. And it would genuinely have worked, as it really was designed for that exact job.

But then NASA secretly gutted it and retrofitted it with equipment of their own design which fitted in the same space and somehow did the same job as the humans were expected to achieve on the moon, roaming out onto the surface, selecting and retrieving tens of pounds of lunar rock samples and returning them.

And of course they didn't make one of these. They built a whole series.

If NASA had these capabilities in-house, why did they pay Grumman to build the wrong thing, just to rebuild it themselves?

And how might it have worked? What kind of machine clambered down to the surface and selected rocks before loading them back into the craft? You've suggested you doubt the technologies NASA did use were available in time but that is all documented. Don't you have similar doubt over a bunch of secret robotic technologies you're imagining for them?

It is, in short, a stupid idea.

 

[Darat]

No, actually, it was a 'whooosh' that went over your head.

Nope - people did in fact see your tissue of lies.

 

[Vixen]

That's a monocle. No but seriously, I see no such thing. I see Patrick Moore explaining why he asked a particular question, in his own inimitable style, talking at about 1.5x speed.

Are you familiar with Patrick Moore? 'Sycophantic' was not really his bag. 'Irascible' maybe, 'Opinionated' sure. He held any number of views that I find quite repulsive, but I've never seen anyone serious criticise his scientific credentials, or suggest that he was sycophantic by any measure.

You might be interested in Peter Hyatt's take on the exchange between Moore and Armstrong:


Patrick Moore

Mr. Armstrong I do realize that when you were on the Moon you had very little time for gazing upwards, but could you tell us something about what the sky actually looks like from the Moon? The Sun, the Earth the stars if any, and so on.

The Interviewer prefaces his question about what the subject (Neil Armstrong) could see by stating that Mr. Armstrong was limited in time. The wording of interviewers can impact answers and here, he allows for time limitation which may limit what the subject reveals; giving him a ready available for qualifying his answer. If the subject has any reluctance to answer this question, he may thus invoke the interviewer’s own words to excuse the limited response. This is something interviewers should avoid.

The interviewer also uses the word “actually” which indicates he is comparing the appearance of the sky from the subject to something else. This additional word may also influence the answer. It could raise suspicion and increase a subject’s defensive posture.

The question is “sensory” and given the unique experience that the subject had, the answer should have three elements:

1. The pronoun “I”
2. Past Tense verb
3. Sensory description

This was an unique, dynamic and even overwhelming experience; the language should reflect this.

Neil Armstrong

The sky is erm a deep black, errr, when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from er cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. (Pause.)

We note “erm” and “errr” as pauses in the answer and seek to determine if this is a habit of speech or if it is a signal that the subject needs more time to consider his answer.

That he began with “The sky is a deep black” indicates a willingness to answer the question directly.

This is a somewhat lengthy answer, which begins with two pauses for thought. The subject is presupposed to have been on the moon; something of great rarity at the time of this interview. The subject is intelligent and well trained. The expectation is that he will, according to the wording of the question, report what he, himself saw.

In any singular, or “exclusive” event, there is an expectation of heightened importance and when we speak from experiential memory, the structure of the sentence is reliable.

Expected: Given the unique experience of being on the moon, we first note that the subject does not begin his answer with the pronoun “I.” In analysis, this reduces reliability. Given the context of unique experience, the pronoun “I” would have shown the psychological strength of experiential memory. It’s absence is noted.

Even with influence from the interviewer, the expectation is the experiential use of

“I saw…” in some part of the answer. Here is the same answer without the pauses:

The sky is a deep black, when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from er cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon

Next, we note the use of passive voice with “when viewed from the moon.” Passive voice removes the subject, himself, personally from the statement. The use of passivity is found in concealing identity and/or responsibility in statements. For example, “the gun went off” is passive voice. If the subject was in a crowd and did not know who fired the gun, this would be appropriate.

Here, the subject is describing a ‘universal’ viewing and avoiding the singular experience that is expected.

With such a unique and unusual event, we expect not only a strong use of the pronoun “I” but of distinct sensory detail: what his eyes experienced, including emotional impact. This is common among those who speak from experiential memory and is used to discern veracity.

He has told us it is “deep black” but not that he saw it.

Next: when viewed from er cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon

This is similar to the universal pronoun “you” that is used to describe a common experience. This leads to a question: is viewing the space between the Earth and the Moon a common experience that listeners would readily relate to?

The, erm, the Earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen although there’ve been some reports of seeing planets.

This is his second sentence after reporting in both passive and universal language. He tells us, in general terms what “you” (universal, unnamed) can know, similar to what would be reported in a textbook.

Please note also the inclusion of “some reports.”

He has, thus far, avoided giving us personal experience that is highly expected in such an event. This is an indication of ‘avoidance’ of the response.

There is no linguistic connection here between the subject and experiential language to this point.

Patrick Moore

What about the Sun? Did you see any trace of the corona?
Neil Armstrong

No the er glare from the Sun on the helmet visor was too difficult to pick out the corona.

Here, he says “no”, which answers the question, but then continues to avoid personal linguistic connection such as:

No, the glare of the Sun on my helmet visor was too difficult for me to pick out the corona.

This would have been a statement of personal connection which he has not yet made. Remember, he was asked, “Did you…?” with the focus upon himself. He should answer for himself.

You can read the entire lengthy analysis here: https://www.richplanet.net/astronauts.php

 

[Darat]

I am not in the habit of lying.

Yet you do it so often, so should we call it a hobby rather than a habit?

 

[Darat]

So the goalposts move, wearily, from "they're not really moon rocks" to "unmanned sample and return".
We had a long argument over that here years ago. Anyone remember who the proponent was?

The half-baked notion was that NASA had Grumman build the lunar lander, in good faith as Grumman were not in on the conspiracy, and it was intricately designed and built to carry and be operated by two humans. And it would genuinely have worked, as it really was designed for that exact job.

But then NASA secretly gutted it and retrofitted it with equipment of their own design which fitted in the same space and somehow did the same job as the humans were expected to achieve on the moon, roaming out onto the surface, selecting and retrieving tens of pounds of lunar rock samples and returning them.

And of course they didn't make one of these. They built a whole series.

If NASA had these capabilities in-house, why did they pay Grumman to build the wrong thing, just to rebuild it themselves?

And how might it have worked? What kind of machine clambered down to the surface and selected rocks before loading them back into the craft? You've suggested you doubt the technologies NASA did use were available in time but that is all documented. Don't you have similar doubt over a bunch of secret robotic technologies you're imagining for them?

It is, in short, a stupid idea.

The prime suspect:

 

[Vixen]

Based on your unjustified assumptions which rest upon a foundation of demonstrable ignorance. Your assumptions regarding the ionizing radiation environment encountered during the Apollo missions are no more learned than your assumptions about photography. You thought that exposure to radiation would make the astronauts radioactive. And remember, you thought this was a real photograph supporting your assertion about stars and photography.

View attachment 73287

No, I clearly stated it was AI generated.

 

[Darat]

You might be interested in Peter Hyatt's take on the exchange between Moore and Armstrong:


Patrick Moore

Mr. Armstrong I do realize that when you were on the Moon you had very little time for gazing upwards, but could you tell us something about what the sky actually looks like from the Moon? The Sun, the Earth the stars if any, and so on.

The Interviewer prefaces his question about what the subject (Neil Armstrong) could see by stating that Mr. Armstrong was limited in time. The wording of interviewers can impact answers and here, he allows for time limitation which may limit what the subject reveals; giving him a ready available for qualifying his answer. If the subject has any reluctance to answer this question, he may thus invoke the interviewer’s own words to excuse the limited response. This is something interviewers should avoid.

The interviewer also uses the word “actually” which indicates he is comparing the appearance of the sky from the subject to something else. This additional word may also influence the answer. It could raise suspicion and increase a subject’s defensive posture.

The question is “sensory” and given the unique experience that the subject had, the answer should have three elements:

1. The pronoun “I”
2. Past Tense verb
3. Sensory description

This was an unique, dynamic and even overwhelming experience; the language should reflect this.

Neil Armstrong

The sky is erm a deep black, errr, when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from er cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. (Pause.)

We note “erm” and “errr” as pauses in the answer and seek to determine if this is a habit of speech or if it is a signal that the subject needs more time to consider his answer.

That he began with “The sky is a deep black” indicates a willingness to answer the question directly.

This is a somewhat lengthy answer, which begins with two pauses for thought. The subject is presupposed to have been on the moon; something of great rarity at the time of this interview. The subject is intelligent and well trained. The expectation is that he will, according to the wording of the question, report what he, himself saw.

In any singular, or “exclusive” event, there is an expectation of heightened importance and when we speak from experiential memory, the structure of the sentence is reliable.

Expected: Given the unique experience of being on the moon, we first note that the subject does not begin his answer with the pronoun “I.” In analysis, this reduces reliability. Given the context of unique experience, the pronoun “I” would have shown the psychological strength of experiential memory. It’s absence is noted.

Even with influence from the interviewer, the expectation is the experiential use of

“I saw…” in some part of the answer. Here is the same answer without the pauses:

The sky is a deep black, when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from er cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon

Next, we note the use of passive voice with “when viewed from the moon.” Passive voice removes the subject, himself, personally from the statement. The use of passivity is found in concealing identity and/or responsibility in statements. For example, “the gun went off” is passive voice. If the subject was in a crowd and did not know who fired the gun, this would be appropriate.

Here, the subject is describing a ‘universal’ viewing and avoiding the singular experience that is expected.

With such a unique and unusual event, we expect not only a strong use of the pronoun “I” but of distinct sensory detail: what his eyes experienced, including emotional impact. This is common among those who speak from experiential memory and is used to discern veracity.

He has told us it is “deep black” but not that he saw it.

Next: when viewed from er cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon

This is similar to the universal pronoun “you” that is used to describe a common experience. This leads to a question: is viewing the space between the Earth and the Moon a common experience that listeners would readily relate to?

The, erm, the Earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen although there’ve been some reports of seeing planets.

This is his second sentence after reporting in both passive and universal language. He tells us, in general terms what “you” (universal, unnamed) can know, similar to what would be reported in a textbook.

Please note also the inclusion of “some reports.”

He has, thus far, avoided giving us personal experience that is highly expected in such an event. This is an indication of ‘avoidance’ of the response.

There is no linguistic connection here between the subject and experiential language to this point.

Patrick Moore

What about the Sun? Did you see any trace of the corona?
Neil Armstrong

No the er glare from the Sun on the helmet visor was too difficult to pick out the corona.

Here, he says “no”, which answers the question, but then continues to avoid personal linguistic connection such as:

No, the glare of the Sun on my helmet visor was too difficult for me to pick out the corona.

This would have been a statement of personal connection which he has not yet made. Remember, he was asked, “Did you…?” with the focus upon himself. He should answer for himself.

You can read the entire lengthy analysis here: https://www.richplanet.net/astronauts.php

Remember folks - LLMs mimic fluency but there is no understanding, this is the type of human behaviour they have learnt to mimic.

 

[Worm]

There is a certain arrogance in effectively nitpicking how Neil Armstrong, an almost unique man, should answer questions. He doesn't say 'I'? Gimmie a break.

 

[Darat]

There is a certain arrogance in effectively nitpicking how Neil Armstrong, an almost unique man, should answer questions. He doesn't say 'I'? Gimmie a break.

And a complete lack of intelligence to say that counts against (indeed or for) the moon landings.

 

[catsmate]

I am not in the habit of lying.

Your lies are getting recursive......

 

[catsmate]

You might be interested <snippage of repetitive, second hand, drivel>

No, no-one is interested in you tired, debunked, nonsense.

 

[threadworm]

I am not in the habit of lying.

That is not the same as "I have not told lies'.

 

[Vixen]

Did I claim 400k people would need to be in on it? No-one does. The argument presented is that 400k people were employed in the project one way or another, and that it would not be possible for someone, somewhere, not to realise what was happening. Everyone involved in building every component would have to believe they were building fully functional components for a carefully designed fully workable process.

The same is true of the alleged hoax. Everyone involved in faking it would know it. I repeat: for the photographic, 16mm and TV record to have been done, in advance, on Earth then personnel, locations and equipment would have been involved. Knowledge in advance was required of lunar details and terrestrial meteorology that just didn't exist. Your explanation is...?

You most definitely are presenting yourself as better than average. You are also entitled to correct false claims. You have not done so about the Apollo missions. You have presented many false claims as fact, but you have made no attempt to provide any kind of refutation to facts that you claim are false.

You have instead, accused everyone else of being too emotionally invested to see the things you are apparently blessed to have insight into, provided diversionary wall of text non sequiturs and played the victim. Boohoo, poor you to carry such a weighty burden of knowledge and understanding denied we mere underlings.

◊◊◊◊ or get off the pot. Stop pretending you have a superior level.of knowledge and start demonstrating it.

Look, people making stuff on assembly lines, engineers testing fuses and rockets, would not ipso facto know what LB Johnson or R Nixon talked about in camera with their personnel. Nobody said it was faked. However, I can see the reasonable argument that Nixon, in his desperation to beat the Soviets (remember, the Soviets hurriedly sent a module that [they claim] immediately crashed on the Moon, ahead of the Apollo scheduled lift off), did decide to use film and photo sequences from the many training and rehearsal sessions to give the appearance they had done it in time for the '60's as avowed by JF Kennedy. Okay. So if that was true, how would they have gone about it is the problem.

So, doing reverse engineering, so to speak, to the issue, we can recreate how it could have been simulated.

1. (a) send up the rocket, but all it actually does is orbit Lower Earth Orbit for eight days,
2. (b) fake the splashdown and show footage of a frogman rehearsal pulling out three unidentifiable guys garbed in wet suits (to explain the wet suits they have to come up with a story that the astronauts had to change out of their spacesuits so that they could be sprayed with Dettol to kill 'Moon Germs', first).
3. (c) this would be in the expectation that they would achieve it in the very near future but at least the USA was first historically
4. (d) Knowing the three guys' adventure could possibly be revealed as doubtful in the future and wanting to protect their integrity and reputation,
5. (e) during quarantine they are debriefed in what to say and how to say it without actually lying.

No-one is saying this is what did happen - Allen himself says to Short he hopes he is wrong - it is testing the hypothesis of could there be any merit in the claims of people such as Kaysing?

As for claiming people are 'too emotionally invested', people have indeed indignantly posted that we should not be 'p!ssing' (charming) on these people's achievements. An appeal to the emotions based on nothing but feelings.

 

[threadworm]

No, I clearly stated it was AI generated.

That is not the point being made.