Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

So … all seven Apollo missions were faked, right?

Nine Apollo missions. Apollo 8 and 10 also flew crews past the Van Allen belts to the moon.

And Artemis of course. Don't forget Artemis. Vixen claims to be withholding judgement about Apollo until Artemis shows it's really possible to go to the moon. Except of course Artemis has already carried a crew beyond the Van Allen belts and returned them safely. So, if Artemis can do it...

What Vixen thinks of this might be interesting to hear. Or then again it might not.

 

[Vixen]

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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Marcus Allen points out in the video that if the Saturn V rocket was so safe for the astronauts, why has the Gemini been made super safe, given, the need to keep the structure as light as possible?

 

[Vixen]

So … all seven Apollo missions were faked, right?

I haven't thought about the others.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Sure, he sounds very reassuring to the average viewer but then when you listen to him closely, he is just spouting platitudes - photos of shadows on pavement curbs, getting all jolly about reflectors and waving away the Moon's dangerous environment. He may or may not be correct but it's like watching a tv advert assuring one that your hands that do dishes grow as soft as your plate, etc... At least Allen and Weaver have applied logical thought to it, whether they are right or wrong because of course, it is impossible to prove a negative.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.)

You do this a lot. When too many facts pile up in opposition to your ignorance based claims, you resort to argumentum ad ridiculum. You think if you can add enough incredulous mockery to the facts of the issue, you can make them go away and stop haunting you. Then you won't have to admit that you are actually not a "triple niner" who's six steps ahead, but rather just a scientifically illiterate know-it-all who's pinned your egotistical posturing to the validity of someone else's castle of sand and ◊◊◊◊.

No matter how histrionically you talk about the radiation environment, you aren't going to will the mere presence of ionizing radiation to equal certain death, or even serious illness. You've been asked a number of times to give the actual particle flux within the sections of the VARB through which the Apollo spacecraft flew, but you've always ignored the request, because you have no idea.

By the way, the path taken through the lower flux outer regions of the belts wasn't made up later in response to a question about the radiation exposure. It was opening talked about in the early planning phases, long before the Apollo 8 flight.

 

[wollery]

Vixen, I have some bad news for you.

Those people you think are 6 steps behind you, they’re actually 2 laps ahead of you.

 

[JayUtah]

Marcus Allen points out in the video that if the Saturn V rocket was so safe for the astronauts, why has the Gemini been made super safe, given, the need to keep the structure as light as possible?

I have no idea what you're talking about. This is gibberish.

Try to stay focused. You claim NASA was indifferent to the notion of the translunar departure trajectory following a least-exposure path until "debunkers" proposed this. I have explained how that's not the case.

 

[JayUtah]

Sure, he sounds very reassuring to the average viewer...

...and completely correct to the suitably or expertly informed viewer.

...photos of shadows on pavement curbs...

Empirical refutation of the claims made by hoax advocates in the video for how proper shadows should behave.

At least Allen and Weaver have applied logical thought to it...

No. They are simply lying.

...whether they are right or wrong because of course, it is impossible to prove a negative.

It is quite possible to show that the hoax claims are wrong, and in most cases obviously wrong, and in a few cases maliciously wrong. I did so but you gave it just as little attention or credulity as you are giving all the other evidence that disputes your claims.

 

[JayUtah]

I haven't thought about the others.

Why not?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

Then please, by all means, use your top tenth of a percent intellect and facility with numbers to point out specifically where Robert Braeunig foes wrong with his calculations.

Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory

Then you can address this:

Apollo and the Van Allen Belts

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

More lies, Vixen. You've already been told that there was no such claim made.

 

[Vixen]

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?

Artemis is not comparing like for like. For example, we have the ISS in place for refuelling and docking. We have digital technology, computer and sateliite systems a million times more advanced and developed than in 1969. The entire Houston computer servers of 1969 are equivalent to the entire technology you now have in your smart phone. Calculators were as thick as a brick. President Nixon claimed to have rung up the astronauts on the Moon direct from his White House telephone because he was too dim to realise there were no telephone wires on the Moon. Telephone all used to be by wires, remember. So a story had to be conjured up that er, his 'direct line to Apollo 11' went via bouncing around various radio stations instead. Well, it has plausible deniability.

 

[JayUtah]

Artemis is not comparing like for like.

Its trajectory is, for the purposes of transiting the trapped radiation environment. All the other things you mention are irrelevant.

 

[zooterkin]

I haven't thought about the others.

FTFY

 

[Foster Zygote]

I haven't thought about the others.

Nor the Mercury or Gemini programs, I'm sure.

Still, credit to you for even knowing they existed. Most Apollo deniers I've encountered think that they just built the Apollo 11 launch vehicle and spacecraft, flew straight there and back first try, and that was it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Then please, by all means, use your top tenth of a percent intellect and facility with numbers...

Just thinking: wouldn't nearly all highly numerate people with IQs in the top 0.1% be found in the highest echelons of national/international business, commerce or politics? Surely it'd otherwise be a shocking waste of such talent?

 

[Vixen]

Nine Apollo missions. Apollo 8 and 10 also flew crews past the Van Allen belts to the moon.

And Artemis of course. Don't forget Artemis. Vixen claims to be withholding judgement about Apollo until Artemis shows it's really possible to go to the moon. Except of course Artemis has already carried a crew beyond the Van Allen belts and returned them safely. So, if Artemis can do it...

What Vixen thinks of this might be interesting to hear. Or then again it might not.

They didn't hop off onto the Moon down a step ladder, did they? They needed wheelchair back up and two aides to help them walk, on their return. One of the crew could barely lift his arm to wave. Compare and contrast to Apollo 11 fresh arrivals bounding down the helicopter steps into an area tv viewers were told led to 'a quarantine' tunnel, with hello, here's Tricky Dicky to have a few jovial words with the three (back in their space suits...? iirc) peering out of a quarantine window like zoo animals, when it was obviously a tv prop.

 

[JayUtah]

They didn't hop off down a step ladder, did they?

Asked and answered. Knock off the Gish gallop.

 

[Vixen]

Just thinking: wouldn't nearly all highly numerate people with IQs in the top 0.1% be found in the highest echelons of national/international business, commerce or politics? Surely it'd otherwise be a shocking waste of such talent?

It is certified and true. Please bear that in mind next time you abuse me as though you were addressing an idiot.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Marcus Allen points out in the video that if the Saturn V rocket was so safe for the astronauts, why has the Gemini been made super safe, given, the need to keep the structure as light as possible?

Care to try again in the form of a cogent sentence? What has the Gemini spacecraft to do with the Saturn V?