Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[zooterkin]

How sure are you about this little factoid?

Here's the first time she trotted out this little gem.

...
There are parts of the Moon that have never seen sunlight. Ever. That would not be a case of 'weak starlight' and I believe a lunar South Pole PSR expedition is scheduled soon, so there's the opportunity to do so with digital equipment. Good job we have no Apollo starry skies to compare it to.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Fair point. So, how plausible do you think it is that in order to land, they just need to switch off the engine and move the gearr stick around a little bit to avoid a massive crater? 'We only had 15 secs of fuel left' and then on lift off they had to use a pencil as one of the thrusts had broken off. OK, I am not saying it didn't happen but the idea the thing didn't topple over is touch and go.

You can't even get sequences of events in the correct order, let alone terminology. Did you just copy and paste a comment from some CT site?

The DPS cutoff didn't occur until the very end, when the LM had already cleared the crater and had descended to just above the surface, allowing the contact probes, which Aldrin describes, to touch ground. These activated contact lights in the LM, also described by Aldrin, indicating that they were close enough to the ground to shut down the descent engine, allowing the LM to drop the last few feet and land.

By the way, I can't express how amusing it is that you call the controller "the gearr stick".

 

[Mojo]

She thinks the sun never shines on Downing Street?

No, it always shines there, that's why you can see it from Old Queen Street.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Only the generals are in the war room.

But this would be like the generals trying to do a Jedi mind trick on millions of scientists and engineers all over the world for half a century, telling them to ignore facts about geometry, radiation, technology etcetera that they know are true.

Why won't you acknowledge this?*



* That's a rhetorical question.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

After all, it's not like you or the clowns you're citing have access to top secret documents. You're making claims about basic physics and engineering - things that are covered in freshman textbooks.

To be fair, we have no reason to think she'd be any more aware of what's covered in freshman textbooks than of what is covered in top secret documents.

Even you, with your assertions of your top tenth of a percent intellect, realize how laughable it is to posit that that generations of legitimate experts around the globe have been too ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid to notice anomalies regarding lighting, stars, ionizing radiation and the lack of telephone lines stretching to the moon.

Those telephone lines stretching to the moon—isn't their status still classified?

 

[Steve]

Here's the first time she trotted out this little gem.

So she thinks the moon always presents the same face to the earth and to the sun? I would love to see her explain the physics for that.

 

[turingtest]

Here's the first time she trotted out this little gem.

"Parts of the moon that have never seen sunlight" is bad enough; but then strengthening that to "the side of the Moon that has never had any sunlight" is really raising the buffoonery to another level.

 

[GlennB]

I mentioned in passing the space stations were being developed to be used for docking and refuelling. Some time earlier I mentioned the plan to mine the ice-filled craters on the side of the Moon that has never had any sunlight in order to extract the water to use as fuel component. I trust you understand what type of fuel rockets run on...? And how it works...?

Astonishing. I wonder what the 'get out' will be, or whether it will be quietly ignored?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Some time earlier I mentioned the plan to mine the ice-filled craters on the side of the Moon that has never had any sunlight...

Now which side of the moon would that be?

 

[Mojo]

She meant the far side of Mercury, obvs.

 

[Helen]

"Parts of the moon that have never seen sunlight" is bad enough; but then strengthening that to "the side of the Moon that has never had any sunlight" is really raising the buffoonery to another level.

Obviously, she meant the side of the moon that has never seen the light of her eyes.

 

[Foster Zygote]

"A lot of people don't know..."

"...that 'dumb' has a 'b' in it."

 

[Foster Zygote]

Pink Floyd are part of the conspiracy!

We established this very early in the thread. Do try to keep up.

Sha-eeeeeeeeee-esh!

 

[Mojo]

... and then on lift off they had to use a pencil as one of the thrusts had broken off.

By an amazing coincidence:

One small pen for one giant fee: Buzz Aldrin’s mission-saving felt-tip sells for over $850,000

Second man on moon’s Duro Rocket pen, crucial to Apollo 11 return, reaches astronomical sum at Sotheby’s auction

www.theguardian.com

 

[Foster Zygote]

Here's the first time she trotted out this little gem.

At that point I assumed she was talking about the miniscule (as a percentage of lunar surface area) parts in deep polar craters that never get sunlight. But her recent wording is unambiguously implying a side of the moon that never gets light.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It’s always best to wait a couple of hours before pointing things like that out.

Thirty minutes isn't it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

By an amazing coincidence:

One small pen for one giant fee: Buzz Aldrin’s mission-saving felt-tip sells for over $850,000

Second man on moon’s Duro Rocket pen, crucial to Apollo 11 return, reaches astronomical sum at Sotheby’s auction

www.theguardian.com

But is it a million dollar Space Pen?

 

[welshdean]

If you kept up with the news as I do you'd know the plans for ISS.

I'm six steps behind you, I've only got 'A' level Geog and Geol.
I'm hoping to complete my Accountancy degree, like your one soon. The one that includes Psychology, Physics and Chemistry.

 

[JayUtah]

It works like this.

No, that's not how it works. How it works is that you make a coherent claim and you cite to evidence that supports that claim, not to irrelevant articles that underscore your misconception.

I mentioned in passing the space stations were being developed to be used for docking and refuelling.

No.

Space stations are not being developed as refueling stations. You thought SpaceX was the name of space station. SpaceX is one of the companies developing lunar landers for Artemis and the tankers they will need. Neither of those is a space station.

An existing space station, the ISS, is being used to test bits of the proposed fueling system. The station will not take part in the actual fueling of spacecraft.

You may have hit a new record. Every single post you've made on this subject contains a new significant misconception of what is really going on. It's rare to find someone so consistently committed to being wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

The 'mean' was a play on words, 'mean' having several meanings.

No.

You told us it was something we could Google. You were trying to say "people of average intelligence." But that's too colloquial for a Triple-Niner, so you had to try to dress it up with some statisticksy-sounding language to make yourself seem smarter than you actually are.