Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

Liar.

My mistake, Eisenhower as Commander and Head of the Allied Forces was Commander of NATO but a civilian head of NASA. Interesting to note that in your social circles making a mistake or an error is 'a lie' or 'lying'. Weird kind of vocabulary.

 

[Thermal]

I expect that Vixen is Just Asking Questions.

Yeah, but I'd like a more engaging question other than "Can you repeat things to me while I don't listen?"

 

[JayUtah]

My mistake, Eisenhower as Commander and Head of the Allied Forces was Commander of NATO but a civilian head of NASA. Interesting to note that in your social circles making a mistake or an error is 'a lie' or 'lying'.

You made this "mistake" before and were corrected, citing to the evidence refuting your claim. When you make the same "mistake" again, it becomes a lie.

 

[Steve]

Now you are making things up.

Full credit to you as an expert in the field.

 

[JayUtah]

I understand similar rocks can be found in Antarctica.

Similar except for the obvious evidence of having passed through Earth's atmosphere and having been in an Earth environment for eons. The Apollo samples are not burdened by this evidence and instead show evidence consistent with a long exposure to the lunar environment.

You do know the Moon and the Earth once split off from each other, so aren't that different in structure, except that the Moon is largely dehydrated.

The hydration level is massively important to the difference between Earth geology and lunar geology. Geologists know this because they aren't just making stuff up.

 

[Vixen]

Every claim that Apollo was faked or otherwise couldn't have happened is very directly calling Armstrong (and many thousands of others) a liar.

But if it is what Allen, Weaver and co suggest in perfectly good faith in the interest of objective examination of the facts - as everyone is entitled to do - why shouldn't they present their views? They have explained their reasoning. Weaver explains that the Moon is an incredibly dangerous environment in terms of radioactivity, solar storms and radiation alone and that is a reasonable point IMV.

 

[JayUtah]

I am sure Armstrong is legendary, iconic, amazing, or whatever. I never said he wasn't.

No, you're just saying he's lying.

Now you are making things up.

You spent several pages arguing that Armstrong was lying in the press conference. You spent those pages arguing that you could tell from body language whether someone was lying, and that others could too, and that Armstrong was being asked to cover up a secret and lie about it to the press.

In any case Armstrong claims he collected lunar samples on the Moon and took photographs on the Moon. You're claiming instead that the photographs were taken by others during training and that the Moon rocks were collected some other way.

You are quite obviously accusing the Apollo astronauts of lying.

I am not sure what hero worship has to do with this.

You accuse your critics of believing the Apollo narrative only because they worship the people who worked on Apollo. You press that straw man irrespective of the evidence your critics offer for their belief. That said, it is appropriate to praise people who accomplished something in the face of great personal risk, and who can provide ample evidence that they did so. It is commensurately appropriate to chastise people who call those accomplishments into question on a basis of their own ignorance and deception.

You are not being treated unfairly. But you are certainly treating unfairly the people who worked on Apollo and who flew the missions.

I am sure Armstrong was well paid and well regarded by all.

He is appropriately well regarded, except by conspiracy theorists like you who suggest he is a fraud. Astronauts, as federal employees, are paid according to a standard pay scale along with other employees of their skill. I currently earn more than an astronaut in my job.

 

[Thermal]

But if it is what Allen, Weaver and co suggest in perfectly good faith in the interest of objective examination of the facts - as everyone is entitled to do - why shouldn't they present their views? They have explained their reasoning. Weaver explains that the Moon is an incredibly dangerous environment in terms of radioactivity, solar storms and radiation alone and that is a reasonable point IMV.

Again, it's fine to question. Healthy, even. But when the question is thoroughly addressed and the misconception clarified, it gets a little pig headed to keep treating it as gospel. Weaver et al are simply wrong, at fundamental levels. And the Van Allen belts are not an insurmountable obstacle. And rooster tails do not rely on an atmosphere, and all the rest.

This stuff is basic, grade school science, that these clowns don't have much of a grasp on, and they rely on conspiracy nuts to not question THEM too much.

 

[Mojo]

But if it is what Allen, Weaver and co suggest in perfectly good faith in the interest of objective examination of the facts - as everyone is entitled to do - why shouldn't they present their views? They have explained their reasoning. Weaver explains that the Moon is an incredibly dangerous environment in terms of radioactivity, solar storms and radiation alone and that is a reasonable point IMV.

What makes you think it is reasonable, given the evidence that others have posted in this thread?

 

[JayUtah]

But if it is what Allen, Weaver and co suggest in perfectly good faith...

No.

These people are not arguing in good faith. Examples have been provided. You spent many pages avoid admitting that Marcus Allen was obviously lying. You still won't admit it and you still presume to defend them.

They have explained their reasoning.

And you dismissed the rebuttal to the reasoning without even hearing it.

Weaver explains that the Moon is an incredibly dangerous environment in terms of radioactivity, solar storms and radiation alone and that is a reasonable point IMV.

Why do you think it's reasonable? He has no qualifications or experience in the field and misstates the facts. Thousands of properly qualified and experienced engineers offer a well-informed acceptance and explanation of the lunar environment and the means by which Apollo dealt with it. Weaver's only answer to that is to accuse them of being part of some secretive NASA cabal.

Is that your idea of good faith?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I understand similar rocks can be found in Antarctica. You do know the Moon and the Earth once split off from each other, so aren't that different in structure, except that the Moon is largely dehydrated.

How were the rocks found in Antarctica identified as being from the moon?

What are the differences between the Apollo samples and those recovered from Antarctica?

 

[JayUtah]

As I said, it wasn't intended to be a stunt, it was a genuine desire to be first on the Moon.

It was a desire realized by hundreds of thousands of extremely skilled people who were handed the task and believed they had accomplished it. You argue instead that only some small high-level group understood that it could not be done, or might not be done on time, and perpetrated a hoax upon all these people who did the actual work. That's pure fantasy.

 

[Vixen]

That's a dishonest misrepresentation. The real argument is that the claims put forth by the conspiracy theorists are such that millions of experts, worldwide, for more than half a century would all need to be too stupid to see something so blindingly obvious that a bunch of troglodytes with little to no knowledge of the relevant subjects have been able to blow it wide open by watching some YouTube videos and cherry picking from Google and Bing, or that they've all been enticed or coerced into maintaining the hoax for generations.

But you don't like that the actual argument makes yours look as silly as it is, so you make yourself a straw man to argue against.

This is just it. World leaders actually DO know how easy it is to 'lie to millions of experts, worldwide, for more than half a century'. The idea that, 'if they are lying everyone would see it' just isn't borne out by history. This is a variation of the '400,000 NASA employees can't all have been in on it'. This is actually put forward as the ultimate proof by most people, when it really doesn't follow. In other words, you believe a thing because...erm...everybody else believes it.

 

[JayUtah]

How were the rocks found in Antarctica identified as being from the moon?

And when?

The notion that lunites can be passed off to geologists as samples collected from the lunar surface is as credible as believing in the Tooth Fairy.

 

[JayUtah]

World leaders actually DO know how easy it is to 'lie to millions of experts...

Not when you're lying to the experts you gave the task of landing someone on the Moon. A political figure lying to largely uninformed and disinterested constituents is not the same as telling experts they didn't do what they know they did.

This is actually put forward as the ultimate proof by most people...

No. It is one point in a whole mountain of evidence. We point to the volume and consilience of the evidence to illustrate how difficult it would be to fake. Indeed the conspiracy theorists have to come up with a Rube Goldberg concoction of disparate and incompatible ad hoc methods for explaining away this or that.

 

[Vixen]

No, you're just saying he's lying.


You spent several pages arguing that Armstrong was lying in the press conference. You spent those pages arguing that you could tell from body language whether someone was lying, and that others could too, and that Armstrong was being asked to cover up a secret and lie about it to the press.

In any case Armstrong claims he collected lunar samples on the Moon and took photographs on the Moon. You're claiming instead that the photographs were taken by others during training and that the Moon rocks were collected some other way.

You are quite obviously accusing the Apollo astronauts of lying.


You accuse your critics of believing the Apollo narrative only because they worship the people who worked on Apollo. You press that straw man irrespective of the evidence your critics offer for their belief. That said, it is appropriate to praise people who accomplished something in the face of great personal risk, and who can provide ample evidence that they did so. It is commensurately appropriate to chastise people who call those accomplishments into question on a basis of their own ignorance and deception.

You are not being treated unfairly. But you are certainly treating unfairly the people who worked on Apollo and who flew the missions.


He is appropriately well regarded, except by conspiracy theorists like you who suggest he is a fraud. Astronauts, as federal employees, are paid according to a standard pay scale along with other employees of their skill. I currently earn more than an astronaut in my job.

I have never advocated hero worship in the first place.

I can't see that the appeal to hero worship is anything other than a logical fallacy.

 

[Steve]

And when?

The notion that lunites can be passed off to geologists as samples collected from the lunar surface is as credible as believing in the Tooth Fairy.

Well Vixen knows rocks better than any geologist. She learned all about them in accountancy psychology naval architecture fire investigation school, of some sort.

 

[JayUtah]

I have never advocated hero worship in the first place.

Irrelevant. You are improperly accusing your critics of hero worship.

I can't see that the appeal to hero worship is anything other than a logical fallacy.

It is not "hero worship" to cite to the circumstances that make your conspiracy theory improbable compared to a genuine Apollo. The scale of it is one such circumstance. The composition of it is another. In order to make your theory work, you have to invent a wholly different industry.

That said, holding you accountable for your ignorant attacks on people for whose expertise and accomplishment we have ample evidence is wholly appropriate. It is perfectly natural to want to defend people who have been unjustly accused.

 

[steenkh]

As I said, it wasn't intended to be a stunt, it was a genuine desire to be first on the Moon.

And if it is not intended to be a stunt, then a "tiny handful' of people can pull a stunt that 400,000 scientists and engineers who work on the project would not notice? Not to mention journalists who would love to expose a lie like that, and get the Pulitzer Prize for it? And then there is the Soviet Union who had spies everywhere …

I copied my text to show you that, again, you did not address the point, but came up with something irrelevant. Do you really think this is particularly smart?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The Apollo 11 splashdown was not broadcast.

Plenty of satellites orbiting the Earth. It wouldn't necessarily be visible. That is a 'would, could' should' rationalisation.

"Plenty of satellites" aren't in LEO. "Plenty of satellites" are a fraction of the size of the Apollo spacecraft.

In addition to the question of visibility, there is the matter of radio signals. Apollo's radio signals were tracked by multiple entities. By Jodrell Bank. By Bochum Observatory. By the Soviets. They knew which direction the signals were coming from. And with that information, it would have been easy to tell whether the emitter were in LEO or approaching the moon.

A spacecraft in low earth orbit would "rise" in the west, then "set" in the east less than an hour later. A spacecraft approaching the moon would remain in the vicinity of the moon, "rising" in the east, then "setting in the west about twelve hours later. No one would mistake one for the other.

Your LEO idea is busted.