Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

Asked and answered.


No, those are documented facts.


Asked and answered. You are not qualified to interpret that data or Cook's expert statements. Neither is Weaver.

We don't need to because NASA has never confirmed it went on that 'safe route'. Because it is bunkum.

 

[Vixen]

This is simply false. When did you become immune to education?

Seriously, what effort have you expended in attempting to discover what NASA's plans were for getting safely past the Van Allen belts, before you called them a lie?

We had this discussion earlier in the thread. The diagram was drawn up by a member of the debunking camp, based on what Van Allen himself said in 1958. He mentioned the intense radiation is weakest at the Poles. So what do the debunkers do? Make up a load of hogwash that Apollo 11 followed a route via one the Poles. NASA never denied it because the story suits them. But they have never made it an official story. Why? Because it is pure conjecture based on a learned study by Van Allen in 1958.

 

[LondonJohn]

I haven't made any 'claims' at all, other than to defend myself against severe bullying. If someone keeps, say, spreading a story that one is say, 40 stone and 3' 6", then it is reasonable for that person to set the record straight. If the truth were, say, that person is actually 10 stone and 5'10" (say) then it doesn't follow they are bragging or claiming they are special or making out they are considerably better than yowww. That's how bullying operates: you can't win if you're stupid you can't win if you are clever.

So, just for the record: you consider yourself to be "3 sd" above the mean (on a widely discredited "intelligence" test scale), while at least most of the rest of us are at or near the mean (or "mean sd" as you ignorantly put it )? Is that right?

Now: what magnitude of camera settings would you need, assuming ISO 160 film, in order to photograph stars if one was standing on the Moon's surface? And would you expect the pre-set camera settings on Apollo 11 - which were deliberately set up to give the correct exposure of subjects lit by the Sun on the Moon's surface - to have also exposed the stars in the sky? Can you answer those questions or not?

 

[LondonJohn]

We had this discussion earlier in the thread. The diagram was drawn up by a member of the debunking camp, based on what Van Allen himself said in 1958. He mentioned the intense radiation is weakest at the Poles. So what do the debunkers do? Make up a load of hogwash that Apollo 11 followed a route via one the Poles. NASA never denied it because the story suits them. But they have never made it an official story. Why? Because it is pure conjecture based on a learned study by Van Allen in 1958.

I'll leave it to Jay to hand you your arse on this one too.

 

[threadworm]

Well, sticking to the OP topic and video, we clearly see Tony Cook making a blatantly untrue claim re Weaver's excellent point about the radiation dangers of space, that oh, they just zipped through it ultra fast using a super-safe route. He just made it up on the hoof. There was no 'safe route' through the Van Allen belt, that was just a story dreamt up by Apollo PR merchants and 'debunkers'. (See Foster Zygote's grandiose diagrams of this so called route earlier in the thread, or jump to it here at around 37:00.)

How abouut Weaver's blatantly untrue claim about NASA supplying documents for Kubrick to make moon sets? Or the blatantly untrue claim that stars are not visible "in any Apollo phorographs"?

What steps have you taken to check those claims?

 

[Andy_Ross]

We don't need to because NASA has never confirmed it went on that 'safe route'. Because it is bunkum.

Apart from the third parties that tracked them?

 

[JayUtah]

We had this discussion earlier in the thread.

Yes, and you're simply repeating the same misconceptions you had before despite attempts to educate you to the contrary.

The diagram was drawn up by a member of the debunking camp, based on what Van Allen himself said in 1958.

The diagram is accurate enough to convey informally the shape of the Van Allen belts. It is not possible to fully convey the radiation properties of the magnetosphere in a single two dimensional diagram.

He mentioned the intense radiation is weakest at the Poles.

That is correct. The intensity of the Van Allen belts varies continuously over space and time. There are extensive mathematical models to help us plan space missions in and through them.

So what do the debunkers do? Make up a load of hogwash that Apollo 11 followed a route via one the Poles.

No. The "debunkers" did no such thing. We simply report the orbital parameters given by NASA (cf. Apollo by the Numbers, the debriefs, the press kits, and the mission reports) that describe the translunar trajectory and note that it does indeed pass through the weakest parts of the Van Allen belt at the poles. Keep in mind the poles in question are the magnetic poles, not the geographic poles.

NASA never denied it because the story suits them.

Pure fantasy. NASA did not take their cues from debunkers. The missions were flown 1968-1972 and the data published at the time (e.g., the mission reports). Boeing separately published the Saturn V trajectories in 1968-1973 since it was their equipment that controlled the translunar injection. The first hoax claims were published in 1976, including Kaysing's claim that the Van Allen Belts posed an impassable radiation risk. We simply report and interpret the published trajectories that existed before Kaysing made his uninformed claim.

But they have never made it an official story. Why? Because it is pure conjecture based on a learned study by Van Allen in 1958.

Asked and answered. What Prof. Van Allen said in 1958 is rudimentary compared to what he (and the rest of us) knew in 1968 after considerable additional study. Van Allen participated in designing the Apollo trajectories to avoid the trapped radiation environment. He is also on record repudiating the hoax theory that the Van Allen belts will prevent crewed missions to the Moon.

All this was presented to you previously. You're simply repeating your same fantasy as if nothing has been said to you.

 

[JayUtah]

We don't need to because NASA has never confirmed it went on that 'safe route'.

Hogwash.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So, just for the record: you consider yourself to be "3 sd" above the mean (on a widely discredited "intelligence" test scale), while at least most of the rest of us are at or near the mean (or "mean sd" as you ignorantly put it )? Is that right?

I don't recall her saying she is 3σ above the mean on any identifiable scale. Not in this thread, at least, and I have recently reviewed absolutely everything she's written in this thread.

No, I've been assuming she wanted us to know she is 3σ below the mean. By way of offering a partial excuse for so much of what she's written here, or so I assume.

Personally, I find it hard to believe she's 3σ below the mean on any scale that might be positively correlated with intelligence. One standard deviation, sure, perhaps even two, but three?

But I have to admit it's possible. These self-reported scores, on no identifiable test or scale, can be surprisingly tricky. We've got another member of the forum with a self-reported IQ of 1600, which is 100σ above the mean, and I honestly haven't seen much reason to believe his IQ is more than four or five standard deviations above @Vixen's.

 

[JayUtah]

But I have to admit it's possible. These self-reported scores, on no identifiable test or scale, can be surprisingly tricky. We've got another member of the forum with a self-reported IQ of 1600, which is 100σ above the mean, and I honestly haven't see much reason to believe his IQ is more than four or five standard deviations above @Vixen's.

His comprehension of physics is marginally better than hers too.

 

[Steve]

The following spoiler quotes several of @Vixen's non-claims.

Those sure look like claims that Vixen has made. And the last one could well be true, ie that it is not actually possible for Vixen to be objective to any noticeable degree.

 

[Steve]

We don't need to because NASA has never confirmed it went on that 'safe route'. Because it is bunkum.

Could this be a claim, Vixen?

 

[bknight]

We had this discussion earlier in the thread. The diagram was drawn up by a member of the debunking camp, based on what Van Allen himself said in 1958. He mentioned the intense radiation is weakest at the Poles. So what do the debunkers do? Make up a load of hogwash that Apollo 11 followed a route via one the Poles. NASA never denied it because the story suits them. But they have never made it an official story. Why? Because it is pure conjecture based on a learned study by Van Allen in 1958.

The VARB is weakest at the poles, and NASA chose an exit trajectory that entered the VARB in a high latitude, no one but hoaxers claim that the trajectory was over the pole. Review the original data given to anybody that covered the mission, and then look at the recent mission of Artemis, similar to the Apollo trajectory. Are you saying that was faked also?

 

[JayUtah]

The VARB is weakest at the poles, and NASA chose an exit trajectory that entered the VARB in a high latitude, no one but hoaxers claim that the trajectory was over the pole.

Correct, the claim is not that the spacecraft went "over" a pole or even "via" a pole. The trajectory was obviously an orbit in three dimensions that's somewhat difficult to describe without those three dimensions. I famously (if humorously) illustrated it with a postcard and a donut. It's most accurate to say that the trajectory passed through the polar regions of the magnetosphere where the flux intensity is lowest.

If you think of Earth as a sphere and the Van Allen Belts as an auto tire loosely placed around it, you can imagine an elliptical departure course in a plane that's highly tilted with respect to the rim of the tire. A high-inclination orbit of the proper altitude will fly largely through the big hole in the center of the tire while still making it to the Moon.

Review the original data given to anybody that covered the mission, and then look at the recent mission of Artemis, similar to the Apollo trajectory. Are you saying that was faked also?

The notion that NASA took its cue from debunkers on this point is a particular Weaverism. In Weaver's universe, the debunkers are the real enemy, not NASA. The trajectory data for translunar injection has been publicly available since 1968, although it takes proper expertise to interpret it. (Weaver is not an expert. Kaysing is not even a competent layman.) It's a red herring to complain that NASA has not "confirmed" the safe trajectory. NASA (and Boeing) haven't changed their numbers since the 1960s, and those numbers are consistent with a safest-passage trajectory. Those are simply facts that have been around for decades.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Well, Buzz was an extrovert and became a rather entertaining tv character. His hint that they may have seen aliens or were followed by them was purely tongue-in-cheek IMV.

Aldrin never hinted that they'd seen a UFO. There was an interview, decades after the mission, in which he described how they'd seen an object in the distance as they were on their way to the moon. It was slowly "pulsing" as though it was tumbling through space. Their top candidates for what it might be were either the S-IVB (the Saturn V 3rd stage) or one of the Lunar Module adapter panels that separated before they extracted the LM from the S-IVB. He went on to explain that after they'd returned, during their debrief they learned it had, indeed, been one of the adapter panels. Some time later, a YouTuber produced a video with the explanatory part removed, deceptively editing it to make it appear as though Aldrin was saying they'd seen a UFO shadowing them, no doubt to inflate his views with a bit of sensationalism.

This is where the difference between actually studying a subject for decades, and recently viewing some YouTube videos by people with little to no knowledge of the subject, becomes significant.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No, you keep assuming that because you don't know something that I don't either, but here's the amusing thing: I was already six steps ahead of you.

How many more steps until you admit that you can't photograph stars with ISO 160 - f5.6 - 1/125 sec? How many more steps before you admit that radiation exposure doesn't make you radioactive? How many more steps until you realize that you haven't been brilliant enough to discover a big secret that millions of experts worldwide have been too stupid to see for over half a century?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I thought Weaver spoke a lot of sense and, unlike the giggling Pat Norris and Tony Cook, had actually given it thought. Sounded like the voice of reason (or maybe it was his no-frills flat Yorkshire accent).

And you thought this based on your feels about tone of voice. This makes sense, because you obviously didn't think this based on his knowledge of the subject.

This is usually how the scientifically illiterate, such as yourself, come to have strong opinions about science.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Please enlighten us (me). I'd love a laugh.

It was better when Leonard Nimoy narrated it. Even if he lacks a proper Dalesman accent.

 

[Foster Zygote]

A bad workman always blames his tools ~ old adage.

But the tools, in this case the cameras used by Apollo, all worked perfectly, including the camera employed by Apollo 16 to photograph astronomical subjects in the far ultraviolet.

Is this your way of obliquely implying that the Hasselblad, Maurer, Westinghouse and RCA cameras used would have been able to image stars as configured? You're claiming that the photography experts who say that the cameras couldn't image stars as configured are "blaming their tools"?

 

[steenkh]

We don't need to because NASA has never confirmed it went on that 'safe route'. Because it is bunkum.

So … all seven Apollo missions were faked, right?