Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[P.J. Denyer]

...which means it was fake because _______________ ?

The Dalek Invasion of the Earth isn't until 2155.

 

[catsmate]

The Dalek Invasion of the Earth isn't until 2155.

Actually.......

 

[bknight]

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.

They have no perfectly good faith, because they are all grifters with hands out to anyone who will pay them to indicate inaccurate ideas and speak lies. For you to accept those lies buy presenting them here makes you a complete liaar.

 

[Vixen]

You know the saying that you can fool a few people all of the time, and you can fool all the people a short time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Nevertheless, you believe, sorry, your neutral view is that everybody (except for a tiny handful of conspiracy theorists) have been fooled for three generations?

Logical fallacy #212 The appeal to credulity.

 

[JayUtah]

Logical fallacy #212 The appeal to credulity.

If by that you mean an argument from incredulity, then no. The scale of the conspiracy you propose requires an entire industry to behave entirely differently than it is known by its participants to operate. You provide no evidence that it did operate that way. Therefore people who have appropriate knowledge of the industry (like those of us who have worked in it for decades) are not irrational for rejecting your fantasy.

If instead you mean that it's easy for a small group of people to fool a large group of experts for decades on the subjects of their expertise, then also no: asked and answered.

In order to be taken seriously you need to provide a credible scenario for how several entire high-technology fields—literally the people who claim to have build the program—have been fooled or silenced for decades. And you need to show evidence that it actually happened, not that it's vaguely possible in some fantasy alternative world. You have not done so, therefore the scenario you propose is far less credible than the scenario in which Apollo actually happened as evidenced.

 

[Vixen]

No.

Stop trying to patronise people who are smarter and better educated than you

Now you know why I made a factual correction.

 

[JayUtah]

Now you know why I made a factual correction.

Some of your facts are correct, such as the Moon being anhydrous.
Other of your facts are incorrect, such as Moon and Earth having a similar "structure.'

The conclusions you insinuate from these and previous statements are not correct.

You cannot pass off lunar meteorites to scientists as samples collected from the Moon. Their time in the Earth environment leaves signs that cannot be altered or erased without leaving evidence of the erasure.
You cannot pass off Earth rocks to scientists as Moon rocks. The anhydrous environment of the Moon and its lower gravity affect the formation of rocks in ways scientists can easily see.

 

[EHocking]

Plenty of those fall to Earth, anyway.

Micrometeorites or moon rocks?
Please clarify for us which of these “fall to earth” in plentiful supply.

Most of the 'Moon rock' samples supposedly brought back are locked away and only available for those who apply citing special research.

As per usual, you are wrong.

Moonrock samples exhibiting micrometeorite impact craters (often called "zap pits") can be viewed at several institutions. Notable locations include the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., the Wende Museum in Culver City, California, and the New York State Museum in Albany, which displays Apollo 17 sample 76015 with clearly visible micrometeorite

 

[EHocking]

I gave you the description in the post. It's unequivocal what I was referring to, even if the acronym was the wrong one, in error. Yes, we did use these things as psychology students doing experimental psychology.

In high school and university we had to perform some experiments as part of our assessment.

This does not mean I was doing experimental chemistry.
With your superior psych background you would understand the term Grandiose Narcissism, although D-KE May cloud your ability to recognise it?

 

[LondonJohn]

Logical fallacy #212 The appeal to credulity.

Still obsessed with "logical fallacies" I see - presumably because you think it makes you look clever and superior to point them out. But once again you're way off the mark: not only is there no logical fallacy named "appeal to credulity", the post you were criticising contained no logical fallacies at all.

If you want to sound all intelligent loike... try to get things right first, eh?

 

[LondonJohn]

Now you know why I made a factual correction.

Have you ever, EVER, employed the words "Sorry, I made a mistake"?

 

[JayUtah]

As I suggested before: it'd be like someone starting up a discussion about Finland and saying that fair weight should be given to a person who stated that Finland lies on the Equator.

All you have to do is redefine what ′ and ″ mean for latitude. You're allowed to do that, you know.

 

[Steve]

Have you ever, EVER, employed the words "Sorry, I made a mistake"?

Why on Earth would Vixen do that??? Other people make mistakes, not our Vixen.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why on Earth would Vixen do that??? Other people make mistakes, not our Vixen.

Soz, my bad, etc etc

 

[EHocking]

Why on Earth would Vixen do that??? Other people make mistakes, not our Vixen.

One of my favourite comebacks at work used to be,
“I don’t make mistakes, I make corrections.”

(But usually I didn’t have to have multiple people point these corrections out to me before I claimed to have been the first to identify a correction.)

 

[EHocking]

Soz, my bad, erratum etc etc

FTFY

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Logical fallacy #212 The appeal to credulity.

As we approach 4000 submissions (200 pages) of appeals to incredulity, credulity, logical fallacies, and rebuttals to fallacies, this might be a good time to review the first two months of this thread. This is a selection of the greatest mishits. Many have been edited for brevity, and to remove obfuscations and distractions. For context and rebuttals, please click on the little up-arrows and examine nearby posts. In a few cases, however, I quoted some of the context.

Not to detract from the the achievements of Armstrong & Aldrin and the third guy who stayed inside the capsule, and of course, it is undeniably factual it all happened. However, I have a query: when the two astronauts clambered back into the capsule, via some kind of step ladder (..?), how did the capsule manage to take off again, and in the right direction? It's pointed out that there is more computer technology in one's smart phone than in the entire banks of computers at NASA at the time.

I don't think you could call Marcus Allen 'under-educated'; he is merely taking a scientific stance towards it - devil's advocate, if you like. He is taking the null hypothesis "didn't happen", then seeking evidence that he was wrong. It's as good a way as any to get to the truth,

The moon's surface is actually very bright so simply taking a camera designed for earthly parameters - depth of field, focal point, contrast, etc., - is going to be extremely tricky on the moon, especially with thick gloves, limited head movement, resulting in limited field of vision - seems rather optimistic in 1969. Who remembers compact cameras? Awful! Absolutely awful. At least with single lens reflex (SLR) photography, one had some control over the quality but then ... problems with film...developing...keeping slides and negatives in good condition. It's not hard to see why Allen was curious about the Apollo photography. Hardly makes him a scoundrel.

Please! I've taken pics of the night sky. No problem in catching the stars.

People who didn't think the background looked real.

There is also the claim of 'fall off' by a professional photographer, Perry. For example, this pic here of Buzz Aldrin:

View attachment 71174

As you know, NASA claims the only light source was the sun but this 'fall off' indicates extra lighting by the way the background falls off, when one would expect the ground to show uniform brightness. Credit NASA AS11-40-5903

Why does the 'fall off' in your version of the photograph look so exaggerated compared to the copy previously posted by JesseCuster in reply #162?

Because NASA has since brightened it and increased the dpi. (Ref. A11-69-HC-684). As you can see, it has had the effect of making Buzz now look washed out. The one above was the original used by the GUARDIAN (17.7.2019, Jonathan Jones), who likely got it from the Smithsonian or one of NASA's own webpages.

So the provenance of your version has a number of guesses. Despite your insinuation that NASA has doctored it later I don't think you have any good reason to think so.

My first observation is that your version has higher contrast, and increasing contrast is like the entropy of photographs: The more times they get copied, the more contrast increases. So the version JesseCuster posted is very, very unlikely to be derived from the version you posted. It looks to me much more likely to be closer to the original.

Or stated more obviously, the photo has been through a number of hands that have nothing to with NASA, has been altered for reasons that have nothing to do with scientific or historical accuracy (i.e., to make it look good for publication), and from which absolutely nothing can be inferred in a photometry sense. Just because you know its NASA Apollo photo reference number doesn't mean you have an original.

The GUARDIAN credits the photo to NASA.

So in other words it hasn't been doctored by anyone

Cropping a photo is 'editing' not 'doctoring', as in intent to deceive. The GUARDIAN pic is the ORIGINAL one, issued by NASA and reproduced in newspapers all over the world. (-5903). As of 1969. Only NASA had the rights. This is factual. Then in 2004 came the DOCTORED version - by NASA - (-684) bleaching out the 'fall off' area, and also having the effect of making Buzz look less sharp. This is cold objective fact and nothing at all to do with opinion or 'theory', conspiracy or otherwise, it just is.

The photo @Vixen attributes to the GUARDIAN cannot be the ORIGINAL one, issued by NASA, because it has been cropped to square, resized, and processed to increase contrast. If you compare to a version that's closer to the original, for example, you will see the more original version shows more detail in the gold thing at lower right. In Vixen's version, which she claims to be original, that detail has been washed out.

Here is Vixen's version (on the left, resized) and a similarly sized and cropped version from one of the versions online at Wikimedia:


See also:

A quick and dirty experiment, to see if I could reverse engineer that Vixen posted from the Guardian, from a scan that Jay posted earlier.

The results of my experiment (I didn't try to match up the color balance). My version on the left, created from the scan in the middle, and the Guardian image on the right. Huh, turns out there's a lot of detail to be extracted from what looks like quite a flat image, even though it's also jsut an 8-bit per channel JPEG.

View attachment 71260

Trying to go the other way results is very ugly, nowhere near as much dynamic range and lots of compression artefacts become very visible, etc. Not a fair comparison as I expect for a photo process, resized, compressed for publication on a commercial website, to not be amenable to much processing before things got ugly. Anyway, just thought it was a fun experiment.

There were 5,771 photos taken over a total of 4,834 minutes, over all six missions (excl. Rover photos) or one every 50 secs, according to Marcus Allen. The Hasselblad shutter speed is 1.5 sec, for the shutter to open and shut and auto-wind on to the next frame. Apollo 11 took 123 surface pics in 151 minutes does the maths work?

Allen also queries how come the Ektachrome film didn't get damaged, as the equipment was not kept in a pressurised unit ? The film consists of silver halide grains in a [organic] gelatin layer, which means it would be susceptible to Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR) and, except for the silver chloride, would be subject to turbity. But there appears to be no radiation damage such as fogging, as might be expected and why other space missions use pressurised units. As you know, GCR makes organic matter susceptible to degradation. There is no magnetic field on the moon to protect from this.

In addition, the astronauts backbacks were similar to their body weight (180lbs in the video). Imagine carrying your own weight on your back, or even, as in the 'Mythbusters' video evenly distributed around your body like a body vest. You'd be bent forward with the weight, yet they all appear perfectly upright

The point being made was that the gelatin layer being organic was subject to GCR damage.

Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) would cause pinpoint damage, not fogging.

What is lighting up the interior of the capsule, given the sun is behind it? Can't be the suit, no matter how bright.

View attachment 71290

Speaking of the moon buggy sequence in Apollo 15 - or was it 17 - as you know, there is no spreading effect on the dust thrown up by wheels on the moon (lack of any wind and all that) yet it shows a classic 'rooster' tails sequence after it - which we expect to see on Earth - but we'd want to see the parabolic pure physics version, ceteris paribus, on the moon, i.e., no 'rooster tail'-style line of flying dust behind the buggy.

On Earth, this would be wind that causes the 'rooster tail' effect, rather than the detritus falling in a parabolic wave. But there is no wind on the Moon. On the Moon, the lack of wind is a fixed variable and we should never see a 'rooster tail' effect, regardless of weather, temperature or other random variables such as weight or type of dust. The fact we DO see a 'rooster-tail' effect on the Apollo buggy shots of the dust whipped up behind it, indicates it was filmed on Earth, not on the Moon.

No, 'rooster tails' is an effect of wind.

There is no wind or atmosphere on the Moon. This is factual. A moving vehicle creates wind behind it and it is this wind that uplifts the dust behind it to remain airborne for a period causing the 'rooster tails' effect. This cannot happen on the Moon; there is no wind behind the moving Rover and any dust thrown up by the wheels would immediately fall directly to the ground in a parabolic arc. This is factual. I have no intention of upsetting you or dissipating your fond beliefs. Even NASA describes the clouds of dust behind the buggy as being 'rooster tails'; whoops! Therefore, even NASA inadvertently admits that sequence was shot on Earth. You are quite welcome to disbelieve this fact and I do hope I haven't accidentally upset you.

I was into photography once. I had all the gear, different lenses, flash bulbs, filters, trendy Ilford black & white film, ultra-violet, infra-red, etc. I even won a section in an annual photography competition in the Camden New Journal once.

No, I didn't need to do 'a post hoc search for "how to photograph stars"'. How insulting.

Whilst orbiting planets is a relative doddle, landing and mucking about with cameras is pure nonsense and then taking off again, based on a closely followed script (there was no software)

To explain away the very real and serious dangers of GCR, she seems to have referred to a comment by Dr. James Van Allen himself, who wrote in 1958 that 'any human exposed to even 10 roentgens per diem would only have an even chance of survival'. [....]

Van Allen stated that the 'maximum radiation level as of 1958' in entering the radiation belts is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour. [....]

10 roentgens per day, over the course of an entire year, would be a problem. One day of exposure to 10 roentgens would be undetectable.

Dearie me. The Moon being 1/6th gravity of Earth does not mean a weight on your back is any less lighter. The weight of 180lbs to your 180lbs on your back would still be in the same ratio even on the Moon and still as arduous to carry on your back.

If you go to the Moon carrying say, one half of your weight on the Moon, that proportion remains exactly the same on the Moon. Or are you claiming it's suddenly not half your weight, whether on the Moon or Mars.

A 10kg weight is still pro-rata your weight, whether on Earth, Mars or the Moon.

I never said anything about muscles. Please read more carefully in future. You claimed a man weighing 180lbs would have no problem wearing his own weight on his back on the Moon, as opposed to on Earth. I simply pointed out the ratio remains exactly the same regardless of gravity.

Er, by the same criteria, what do you think happens to a man who weighs 180lbs on earth?

Clue: the ratio to back pack remains identical, in other words.

An Apollo astronaut weighing 180lbs carrying 180lbs on his back (ratio 1:1) on Earth, carries exactly that same ratio on the Moon, for the umpty-ninth time.

Deep breath. If as a poster points out, a 180lb pack pack weights just 30lbs equivalent on the Moon. Then a chap of the same weight will also weigh 30lbs, ceteris paribus.

And it's piss easy to carry 30lbs on my back. septic pubis.

If you are now the equivalent of 30lbs, no it would not.

O-Level Physics was far harder than anything people do today.

Yeah, let's all pretend I'm the stupid one.

I am not 'playing the victim'. I am simply correcting your ridiculous and patronising assumptions. I know it is safer for you to assume I am an idiot (and you are quite welcome to call me an idiot); what I am doing is pointing out your defence mechanisms: by asserting I am an idiot you are just protecting your own fear of addressing the issue that Marcus Allen has a point.

I was addressing Wollery and his pompous claim his 13-year-old pupils know better.

Indeed, where are all the amazing fold-away Lunar Rovers? GM could have made a killing on the general market. Knocks Clive Sinclair's C5 into a cocked hat.

No IIRC the Hasselblad shutter speed, including winding onto the next frame, was 1.5 secs.

I was better at things that move (Biology) and things that explode (Chemistry).

That doesn't mean your claim that your 13-year-olds have a better understanding of Physics than myself is the slightest bit accurate. I just sneaked a look at my school report for that age (these were all people who passed the 11+ [so top 20 percentile of all the pupils in that age group and then top 25 percentile in the academic stream = top 5% overall). So, I was first in English and French, second in Biology. Chemistry, Physics and Music; third in German. Top six in everything else. So your claim my understanding falls short of your 13-year-old's is just a cheap insult. I would guess that this is because you haven't grasped the point being made.

The reason you can't see stars coming out of a lighted building is because (a) your location (b) light pollution and (c) weather conditions.

I'd estimate a good ten seconds on a tripod. Much longer than that and one would be subject to star trail due to Earth's rotation.

It has been corrected to 250K because that is how we accountants speak.

I shan't be wasting my time arguing facts.

I know I am right about the potential weight of the backpack on the Moon...because I was read up on it by reading books on the matter. Thus, it was faintly amusing and irritating to have a whole line of people claiming to have up to Nobel Prize physicist status that I was an uneducated imbecile. Only one person had the integrity to affirm I was correct.

WD Clinger, perhaps now we are getting somewhere? Bearing in mind the topic matter, consider the following hypothetical scenario. (NB: that is not to say it is a hypothetical question.)

A country, let's say Nonsuch Republic, [....]

What do you mean we, Kemo Sabay?

The time the Apollo 11 astronauts were there was very early morning so the sun isn't overhead but let's say up to your chest height, maximum, where your camera is. So, just turn around with your back to the sun, put your camera on a tripod, if you can, or use something solid to steady your arm and shoulder. Simply point your lens up into the still dark firmament.

I keep forgetting: there is a massive communication gap.

It's never anything personal with me. It's a shame actually to not be able to debate on an intellectual level.

So the Hasselblad had three settings marked in red that they could select. It is only sunlight on the horizon. It is not 'harsh' at 27°F, which is why they chose that time. During lunar daytime the temperature hits >250°F (120°C) and nighttime -350°F (-185°C). If people in Europe start dropping off at 45°C, you'll appreciate they would have been there when the sun was minimal but just warm enough. So, it should have been easy enough to set it to aim the lens at the sky, or at least try.

I said 'hundreds of thousands if not millions' to allow for the fact Brits and Americans don't always mean the same thing!

For goodness sake, it was a generalised comment in which I considered all eventualities such as different cultures using different measures both historically and colloquially but as they say, no good deed goes unpunished. It really doesn't change the thrust or substance of what was being conveyed.

The thing is, Earth is not like-for-like re photography because whilst the Sun's rays on the Moon are incredibly fierce, by the same token, if you step into a shadow in that same landscape, you are in pitch blackness. As you know, here, we can be in a shade and still see.

You are in pitch black darkness, perfect for taking a beautiful picture of brightly twinkling stars above.

Not if your camera is set to take pictures of the moon in daylight.

Or more likely the sad tragedy of when mean sd meets three sd. You saw the grief I was subjected to over primes.

I was right and I know I am right.

I haven't said NASA 'faked it'; I am objectively weighing up the issues in debate, which means applying objectivity and listening to what the other parties say. I haven't reached a conclusion except filtering out the obvious fluff.

Okay, so I looked up the set-up of NASA and whilst it's not part of the department of Defense [sic] (or should that now be War?) it was until recently under the auspices of the Executive body answering directly to the Senate and US President. Quasi-military, answering to Defense. So the rotund orange one recently divested NASA from government, meaning it is no longer State-funded or owned but is now an ordinary company owned by shareholders, of which from the recent IPO Elon Musk is a 40% shareholder, and I dare say the orange crime family also have large significant investments.

I've revisited the article I read re NASA. Correction: it is the International Space Stations being divested into the commercial sector 'by 2031', i.e., no longer a government body. (See BBC Science Focus, Colin Stuart for a similar article.)

I honestly can't remember the camera settings used X years ago. Each photo would demand its own individual merits, depending what you want to achieve. But I'd say between 10 - 25 seconds for a decent night sky shot with my old SLR. Black and white 200.

Some of us don't feel threatened by intellectual discussion.

I find this 'trading of insults' incredibly boring.

And yet here you are.

YAWN

This is why you are not good at debating. You have already decided people who advocate homeopathy are 'morons'.

For those interested in Marcus Allen's views, here's an interview with The Moore Show. (Skip to 3:00 to avoid the blurb.)

All points which have already been addressed, debunked, and dismissed multiple times in this thread. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and if you keep repeating his points, neither do you.

It's shocking people don't know how light works.

I honestly think it is a moot point talking about what shutter speed is needed. Yes, it might take 'tens of seconds' to photograph weak starlight from UK Home Counties in the nighttime. That is not like for like for the Moon.

I might have been regularly and horrendously victimised for no reason other than hate because of my interests but I am proud to say I have never bullied or victimised anyone. Glad to be a triple niner.

I am more than happy to discuss the topic under debate.

However, I am not used to rough language and any man (who theoretically could be a rapist or wifebeater) telling any woman to 'stop wittering' disgusts me and makes my skin crawl. Yet I am instructed I have to take it.

This has nothing to do with the topic under debate. If someone spreads a factually untrue statement that I am a moron then I will issue a factual correction and I don't care if the true verified fact of the matter upsets you

The guys were frolicking about on the Moon whose surface is highly radioactive (cf recent Chinese study, as quoted, above). Given the fancy footprints, it indicates high quantities of this highly radioactive dust. Of course as a NASA health care specialist you would be concerned about all of this.

Stop pretending radiation is harmless. Marie Curie died a horrible death.

The Moon, as you know is >250,000 miles away and passes into the VA Belt about 1,000 miles out, for another 29,000 miles: or, at 25,000mph (IIRC - check this), for between two to four hours to even pass through it, and all they were in was a thin-walled aluminium rocket then of course radiation is a major health concern. Then back again.

Every one of the points you listed was already addressed and debunked thoroughly. Fringe reset attempt fail.

Since you asked me a direct question pertaining to the topic of the thread, here is an image of the sun rising on a Moon surface dawn which was amongst the first to come up on BING.

What do you notice in the sky?

View attachment 73083

Caption:

Lunar dawn awakens with the sun rising over the rugged Moon surface revealing detailed craters and a starry indigo sky. A breathtaking view captures the moment when the sun rises over the Moon's rugged surface, illuminating craters and rocky terrain with a warm, golden glow against a deep indigo sky. ​

Lunar Dawn Awakens with the Sun Rising Over the Rugged Moon Surface Revealing Detailed Craters and a Starry Indigo Sky Stock Image - Image of silence, landscape: 363286507

Lunar dawn awakens with the sun rising over the rugged Moon surface revealing detailed craters and a starry indigo sky. Photo about silence, landscape, exploration, rocky - 363286507

www.dreamstime.com

(AI Generated Image)

NB You will see grey shaded areas because it is digitally enhanced to do so.

You have to be ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ kidding me.

I used to think people who couldn't see what was obvious to me were somehow deliberately lying or being obtuse but I have come to realise they are not; they really cannot grasp it, people really are unable to think. They see any query as a threat and react with rancour and incredulity.

It's very silly because you are assuming vision on the Moon is the same as that on Earth, when of course, our eyes have evolved to suit our unique Earthlyconditions (compare and contrast the eye of a bumble bee to that of a crepuscular animal such as a cat or a fox). When I go for a walk in sub-zero winter my vision soon distorts thanks to the effect of frost. The temperatures on the Moon are extreme, as is the brightnness of the Sun. Simply saying, oh they had special visors isn't really a debunk, more of a rationalisation.

A conspiracy theorist is someone who believes bonkers theories about say, Covid being a hoax, vaccinations causing autism or certain death by such and such a date; there is a plot to replace populations and a creeping in of two-tier policing (they tend to have neo-nazi tendencies as they are a bit dim). This clever way of describing people who are aware that MV Estonia and Apollo 11 are almost certainly 'classified' just gives abusive people an excuse to well, abuse with impunity. Apollo 11 is likely classified until 2076, when everyone with living memory of it is dead and buried in their graves.

What do you have to say about the almost certain 'fogging' of the 60's-camera film due to the effects of radiation?

Amazing General Motors invented a fold up EV buggy (or, rather one with a battery/engine in each wheel) yet never mass produced it. It was designed to 'fold up' to fit into the Lunar Module. Meaning the astronauts had to assemble it before use. An amazing invention yet how come these fold up cars never made it to the market, not even today. Instead we had poor old Sir Clive Sinclair inventing the C5 and get mocked and laughed at for it.

This was the 1960's, remember? There was no photoshop or easy way of manipulating photos, with negatives. Digital didn't really arrive until the nineties.

When someone speaks of negatives in the context of Ektachrome 160, as @Vixen did above, then their ignorance of that era's photography deserves to be described by something stronger than "You are not paying attention."

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

Yes. Positive.

Yes, understanding how duration of time is expressed can be very difficult but I shouldn't worry about it.

(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.)

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

The mean sd pile-on, aka bullying, is pathetic and boring.

So no, the average person can't grasp that what they perceive as reality is true, ain't necessarily so, which is why people are so convinced the Apollo 11 Moon Landing happened and get so incredibly upset when I wanted to debate it having heard the arguments of the sceptics. They actually believe they have to worship the people who did it and it's a kind of blasphemy to enquire after apparent discrepancies.

I am not in the habit of lying.

You do know that calling someone names doesn't make it true? It simply reveals the insecurities of the person who indulges in name-calling.

I was pointing out it was a common phenomenon for people to be unfairly bullied just for being themself.

I am as objective as I possibly can be.

Eisenhower after WWII established NASA as a military arm of the USA,

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.

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.

 

[Thermal]

As we approach 4000 submissions (200 pages) of appeals to incredulity, credulity, logical fallacies, and rebuttals to fallacies, this might be a good time to review the first two months of this thread. This is a selection of the greatest mishits. Many have been edited for brevity, and to remove obfuscations and distractions. For context and rebuttals, please click on the little up-arrows and examine nearby posts. In a few cases, however, I quoted some of the context.

















The photo @Vixen attributes to the GUARDIAN cannot be the ORIGINAL one, issued by NASA, because it has been cropped to square, resized, and processed to increase contrast. If you compare to a version that's closer to the original, for example, you will see the more original version shows more detail in the gold thing at lower right. In Vixen's version, which she claims to be original, that detail has been washed out.

Here is Vixen's version (on the left, resized) and a similarly sized and cropped version from one of the versions online at Wikimedia:
View attachment 73354

See also:







Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) would cause pinpoint damage, not fogging.













10 roentgens per day, over the course of an entire year, would be a problem. One day of exposure to 10 roentgens would be undetectable.

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

 

[LondonJohn]

Ahhhh I'd almost forgotten about the backpack-weight-on-the-moon fiasco and how laughably wrong Vixen was on the matter (and how, predictably, she arrogantly refused to countenance anyone correcting her).

 

[Vixen]

In high school and university we had to perform some experiments as part of our assessment.

This does not mean I was doing experimental chemistry.
With your superior psych background you would understand the term Grandiose Narcissism, although D-KE May cloud your ability to recognise it?

I can confirm we had to produce fifteen lab reports (not 'assessments') plus a dissertation. They were entirely bog standard and not 'grandiose'.