• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

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.
No. The lunar rocks found in Antarctica all show distinctive features of having entered the earth's atmosphere at high speeds. Again, geologists actually know more about this than you do. When they are convinced that samples have come directly from the moon's surface, it means something. When you think they're wrong, it doesn't mean anything.
 
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.
You certainly don't disappoint. Given the choice between admitting you're wrong and positing that entire fields of science, the world over, for more than half a century, are too stupid and complacent to challenge the lies of Nixon or Johnson, you go with the latter.
 
Didn't it take until the '80s before a geologist suggested looking for lunar meteorites in Antarctica?
The idea that Antarctica was a good place to look for meteorites in general goes back to the 1960s. A lot of ordinary meteorites were collected in the 1970s. It was not until 1982 that some of them were identified as being from the Moon.
 
Last edited:
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.
It is, however, remarkably similar to conspiracy theory peddlers lying to scientifically ignorant plebes about subjects they don't understand but imagine they do.
 
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.
No one is appealing to hero worship. No one is saying the evidence they went is that we think they were awesome. We're saying, here's the mountain of scientific evidence that they went, and going there was also awesome.
 
Another good thing to come from this thread - it's inspired me to bump Chernobyl and to move From the Earth to the Moon to the top of my 'to be re-watched' pile instead. Watching that show again after being exposed to so much incredible background info from this thread should put a fascinating spin on it.
 
Last edited:
Another good thing to come from this thread - it's inspired me to bump Chernobyl and to move From the Earth to the Moon to the top of my 'to be re-watched' pile instead. Watching that show again after being exposed to so much incredible background info from this thread should put a fascinating spin on it.
Many have been the times where a claim has been made, and my internal response of "that can't be right...." opened up a whole new rabbit hole to fill a gap in my knowledge. My internal reponse is more often than not correct, but I get to understand why.
 
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.
So I don't hero worship Neil Armstrong, or JayUtah, even if I have the utmost respect for their knowledge, but you, sir, are now my hero! That has to be considered a truly Herculean task!
A couple of hours ago I looked in on the thread and found I was 10 pages behind.
Ok, now that I have a few minutes I'll see if I can catch up a little.
Fifteen pages behind. Sheesh.
Never was so much time wasted by so many for so little.
Not wasted; there are those who come away from this thread a little better informed (not naming names, but it starts with H, and ends with elen), and also quite amused...
 
No. The lunar rocks found in Antarctica all show distinctive features of having entered the earth's atmosphere at high speeds. Again, geologists actually know more about this than you do. When they are convinced that samples have come directly from the moon's surface, it means something. When you think they're wrong, it doesn't mean anything.
Again, the lunar rocks are rather like the reflectors, they don't actually prove the topic at hand.
 
You certainly don't disappoint. Given the choice between admitting you're wrong and positing that entire fields of science, the world over, for more than half a century, are too stupid and complacent to challenge the lies of Nixon or Johnson, you go with the latter.
I didn't say that at all. I just don't think it is a relevant argument. It is like saying entire countries, 66m Brits and 330m Americans believed Sadam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (= Iraq War). We now know that was completely false propaganda from Bush and Blair. So we have to reject the hypothesis that X no. of people believe it, therefore it happened.
 
Again, the lunar rocks are rather like the reflectors, they don't actually prove the topic at hand.
They are yet another item of evidence consistent with Apollo 11 actually visiting the Moon, for which you need to provide a convincing alternative explanation rather than just hand waving if you want to show a hoax.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom