Axxman300
Philosopher
Just three years older than the B-52...which is still in service in case someone wants to know about the quality of aviation back then, and how cheap the US government really is.
-
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
- Thread starter Vixen
- Start date
Helen
Implicitly explicit
Readers of Dan Brown might very well need him to do that.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 36,957
Had nothing to do with you abject ignorance of radio communications.
This is more stupidly, the ISS isn't used (for obvious reasons) for refuelling.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
As long as we're talking about progress outside the United States, we have to talk about Avro. When the Avro Arrow was canceled, its top engineers came to the U.S. to work on Apollo spacecraft. Owen Maynard and Jim Chamberlin come to mind.
Again these are named individuals, many of whom were—pay attention, dear reader—considered legends in their field. These were people at the top of their game when the game was being played at its best. Sure, it's easy to poke fun at Richard Nixon. But that's an ongoing distraction. These people with impeccable credentials and demonstrable success are the ones @Vixen says must either be lying or have been fooled by shadowy unnamed forces.
Or maybe they suddenly came down with "mean standard deviation" in the U.S. Can I get a "Shee-eesh!" for our poor contributors from the Commonwealth?
Again these are named individuals, many of whom were—pay attention, dear reader—considered legends in their field. These were people at the top of their game when the game was being played at its best. Sure, it's easy to poke fun at Richard Nixon. But that's an ongoing distraction. These people with impeccable credentials and demonstrable success are the ones @Vixen says must either be lying or have been fooled by shadowy unnamed forces.
Or maybe they suddenly came down with "mean standard deviation" in the U.S. Can I get a "Shee-eesh!" for our poor contributors from the Commonwealth?
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
A straw man of Nixon on Earth weighs the same as the real Nixon on the Moon. If properly stuffed.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,427
You may not have declared it impossible, but you absolutely did imply it was ridiculous and that a cover story had to be cobbled together to explain it away. That appears to be based on absolutely nothing. Unless of course you'd like to have another try to explain yourself.
Disabuse me of what, exactly? If you had anything of value to say on the subject I'm quite certain you would have said it by now. Clearly, you have nothing.
May we take it you accept that your claim the ISS might act as an Artemis refuelling depot was just a flight of your imagination?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Then clarify your position, please.
Tom Kelly vigorously maintained that he built a working lunar module that flew to the Moon and landed on it. Did he do that or not? You maintain the technology "wasn't ready" for Apollo 11, but Kelly adamantly claims that Eagle, LM-5, was not only ready but functioned admirably as claimed and documented.
Was Tom Kelly fooled? Was Tom Kelly lying? Was his whole career nothing but the mediocre effects of "mean standard deviation?"
Last edited:
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,340
"[To the uninitiated] Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
You can't even decide whether to commit to the argument that you accept the technological realities of transmitting voice communications through a network involving both land lines and radio, but reject it as proof of the Apollo 11 landing, or that you find the idea of said technology to be unbelievable.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You didn't say anything relevant to the topic at hand, which was radiation. You said Marcus Allen was confused about the difference between the Apollo design and what you now might correctly understand to be the Orion design. You blabbered something about radiation and the Saturn V and then ignored every attempt to get a coherent statement out of you by frantically waving your hands at Richard Nixon's phone bill.
No, that's not the plan. And "docking station" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Here's the plan: We're going back to the moon so we can launch to Mars from there.
And wait, there's more:
NASA Identifies More Than 40 Space Technologies for Collaboration - NASA
NASA selected 41 proposals from 37 companies to advance technologies in support of the agency’s goals to establish a long-term presence on the Moon and enable
www.nasa.gov
NASA to Share Latest Moon Base Mission Progress - NASA
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman will host a virtual conversation at 2:30 p.m. EDT, Tuesday, June 30, to share updates to NASA’s plans to build a Moon Base
www.nasa.gov
So while you're babbling conspiracy theories, NASA is hard at work doing super cool stuff. I know this bothers you, which is why I mentioned it.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 84,831
The last Victors in service were the K2 in flight refueling tankers withdrawn in 2009.
threadworm
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,096
@Vixen obviously isn't going to answer the questions I put to her, so I will put her out of our misery.
There is a clear statement as fact in the OP video that there are no stars in "Any Apollo photos". Any.
This is not true. Even ignoring the UV photos, there are several magazines of star photos taken in lunar orbit and in cislunar space. The person making the claim either doesn't know this and is making an argument from a position of ignorance, or they do know this and they are lying. I know that these photographs exist because I checked. If vixen supports that claim, then she has also either not checked, or has checked but is happy to carry forward the lie.
The other claim I pointed out is one that states NASA handed over topgraphic data to Stanley Kubrick so that he could make lunar sets on which to fake the photographs.
This is simply a conflation of several claims.
One, that Kubrick was somehow involved in faking the Apollo missions. There is absolutely no evidence to support this, and quite a lot to contradict it.
Two, that there was a moon set. There is no absolutely no evidence to support this, and quite a lot to contradict it.
The final element of the claim is that NASA had topographic data. This is partially true. NASA did have maps. Those maps were made using data collected by lunar orbiter prior to the missions. Those maps, and the photos used to make them, did not contain the level of detail seen in Apollo's photographs - details subsequently confirmed by modern probes. In one of Weaver's books he mentions the existence of models used to practise landing approaches. He even mentions a computer model of Apollo 17 made by Bell. The models and that computer image have never been a secret, and the enormous fly in the ointment of his argument is that the later models and maps were made using data collected by the actual Apollo missions.
I know all of this because I checked. I downloaded the lunar orbiter imagery. I bought copies of original lunar orbiter images. I checked the topgraphic maps and the sources they used, likewise the 3D models. I looked at what surface features were not visible in those, but can be found in Apollo photography. I downloaded data from modern probes, and built 3D computer models of my own to see how they compare with Apollo imagery. Vixen did none of those things. Neither did Trevor Weaver, but it didn't stop him making his statement as if it was a fact. It is not. All Weaver did was compile several claims made by others without checking them for veracity and then declare that "this is how what was done". Anyone who accepts that without checking is a gullible idiot.
Vixen is keen to remind us all about the premise of the thread: comparing the relative merits of two opposing sides of an argument. The problem is that she is not interested in looking at the merits of the hoax claims, she's just taking them as fact without questioning them, while at the same time expecting everyone else to question their own viewpoint. That's dishonest hypocrisy.
There is a clear statement as fact in the OP video that there are no stars in "Any Apollo photos". Any.
This is not true. Even ignoring the UV photos, there are several magazines of star photos taken in lunar orbit and in cislunar space. The person making the claim either doesn't know this and is making an argument from a position of ignorance, or they do know this and they are lying. I know that these photographs exist because I checked. If vixen supports that claim, then she has also either not checked, or has checked but is happy to carry forward the lie.
The other claim I pointed out is one that states NASA handed over topgraphic data to Stanley Kubrick so that he could make lunar sets on which to fake the photographs.
This is simply a conflation of several claims.
One, that Kubrick was somehow involved in faking the Apollo missions. There is absolutely no evidence to support this, and quite a lot to contradict it.
Two, that there was a moon set. There is no absolutely no evidence to support this, and quite a lot to contradict it.
The final element of the claim is that NASA had topographic data. This is partially true. NASA did have maps. Those maps were made using data collected by lunar orbiter prior to the missions. Those maps, and the photos used to make them, did not contain the level of detail seen in Apollo's photographs - details subsequently confirmed by modern probes. In one of Weaver's books he mentions the existence of models used to practise landing approaches. He even mentions a computer model of Apollo 17 made by Bell. The models and that computer image have never been a secret, and the enormous fly in the ointment of his argument is that the later models and maps were made using data collected by the actual Apollo missions.
I know all of this because I checked. I downloaded the lunar orbiter imagery. I bought copies of original lunar orbiter images. I checked the topgraphic maps and the sources they used, likewise the 3D models. I looked at what surface features were not visible in those, but can be found in Apollo photography. I downloaded data from modern probes, and built 3D computer models of my own to see how they compare with Apollo imagery. Vixen did none of those things. Neither did Trevor Weaver, but it didn't stop him making his statement as if it was a fact. It is not. All Weaver did was compile several claims made by others without checking them for veracity and then declare that "this is how what was done". Anyone who accepts that without checking is a gullible idiot.
Vixen is keen to remind us all about the premise of the thread: comparing the relative merits of two opposing sides of an argument. The problem is that she is not interested in looking at the merits of the hoax claims, she's just taking them as fact without questioning them, while at the same time expecting everyone else to question their own viewpoint. That's dishonest hypocrisy.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Speaking as an author, Dan needs to mention Mona Lisa's status. He can't assume everyone knows the painting and it's history, so he'll give it a sentence...unless someone steals it, then we get four really fast paragraphs on the history. I found this out the hard way when I mentioned a character was armed with an MP-5. I assumed everyone knew what that was as it's a common weapon, but no. So the fix from then on was to add "sub machine gun" the first time I mention the weapon to clue the reader in, and now everyone's happy.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Wait, so maybe Prince Phillip is mixed up in this conspiracy too. I smell a book deal.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
It doesn't settle the debate, but it does inform the debate.
Tom Kelly literally wrote the book on the Apollo Lunar Module. Having served as project engineer and engineering manager for the first manned vehicle to land on the moon, his life and work is an important counter to your efforts to misinform the debate.
@JayUtah also mentioned Maxime Faget, whom NASA describes as "an engineering genius, who developed many of the innovative ideas and design concepts that have been incorporated into all of the manned spacecraft flown by the United States."
Mentioning those two men did more to inform this debate than all of your efforts over the past two months to cast doubt upon the moon landings they and thousands of others worked so hard, and so successfully, to achieve.
Thomas J. Kelly (aerospace engineer) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Looks to me like he was considered no "mean standard deviation" by people also outside my industry. So, @Vixen, which is he according to you: ignoramus or fraud?
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,340
One thing I particularly enjoy about that era of military aviation is that each nation's designs seemed to have a signature "look". U.S., British, Soviet - each had a distinctive aesthetic, almost like designs from a sci-fi series. The Victor is particularly British looking, to my eye.
It's hard to get much more Soviet looking than the early Tu-22.
Axxman300
Philosopher
On this Tueday, 14, July, while I've been reading this I have SpaceX up on Youtube launching a bunch of Starlink sats from Vandenberg:
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
It's not a question. You told us to look up " mean standard deviation " on Googl. He did and thats the result. Try it yourself.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 84,831
The Blackburn Buccaneer used by the Fleet Air Arm had the same crescent wing, high tail and 'area rule' fuselage as the Victor. It had a rotating bomb bay to keep the lines clean in an attack and a legendary low level capability.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
The ISS certainly is developing it, as I said.
Perhaps in future acknowledge I might be better informed than you.