Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

All of which you first got wrong and then started lying about.


No, that's not the landing sequence. I see you're going to get this point massively wrong too.


What a dog's breakfast you've made.

Yes, the best estimates say there was only 15 seconds' worth of fuel left in the descent propulsion system. I don't know what point you think that makes. Armstrong used extra fuel to avoid obstacles in his path. The ascent stage used an entirely different engine and fuel supply.

No, one of the "thrusts" did not break off. What broke off was the cap portion of a pushbutton circuit breaker of the kind commonly used in airplanes and spacecraft. One of the astronauts knocked into it while suited up. Aldrin used the back of a felt-tip pen to press the broken portion and close the circuit.

Below, you seem to want to relate this to the stability of the lunar module. The APS ARM circuit breaker has nothing to with the flight stability of the lunar module.


Don't try to do physics.

IF, we adopt the 'deniers' argument that 'it didn't happen' as of that date and time, then what Aldrin is doing, the argument might go, is adding a cute anecdote - perhaps relating something that really did happen in one of the numerous training sessions - to make the thing that didn't happen, more convincing.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It was simply a factual correction.

Would you like to make a factual correction about thinking there might be something valid in the claim that there ought to have been stars in those photos, or are you still chickening out from that?

 

[Vixen]

Irrelevant. The question is what one should expect from photography on the lunar surface. Your source lied and said that from an expert point of view one should expect to see stars incidentally in Apollo photographs. You were shown empirical evidence that this cannot be so, and you confirmed it yourself. But because you're obviously biased in favor of the conspiracy theories, you can't bear to hold your source accountable for his lie. You're committed to maintaining the illusion that these people are arguing in good faith and are making reasonable points that are being poorly "debunked."

And you'll note that Marcus Allen also argued that none of the photos were 'bracketed'. This is a good point.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

IF, we adopt the 'deniers' argument that 'it didn't happen' as of that date and time, then what Aldrin is doing, the argument might go, is adding a cute anecdote - perhaps relating something that really did happen in one of the numerous training sessions - to make the thing that didn't happen, more convincing.

So it doesn't support the hoax claims at all, it's merely more details of the story about which the grifters like to yell "hoax".

 

[Vixen]

Would you like to make a factual correction about thinking there might be something valid in the claim that there ought to have been stars in those photos, or are you still chickening out from that?

You are missing the point there.

 

[Mojo]

And you'll note that Marcus Allen also argued that none of the photos were 'bracketed'. This is a good point.

Why?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

And you'll note that Marcus Allen also argued that none of the photos were 'bracketed'. This is a good point.

Why exactly do you think is it a good point, when the astronauts had trained to use pre-planned exposure settings, from their limited range, in each circumstance? A guide reminding them of the plan was fixed to the cameras.

It sounds like a stupid point to me, only intended to appeal to people who did not know the facts which have already been laid out in this thread. So anybody who has read the thread will already know it's dumb.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You are missing the point there.

I'm missing your answer there.

 

[Vixen]

So it doesn't support the hoax claims at all, it's merely more details of the story about which the grifters like to yell "hoax".

No. Imagine you are a barrister representing a client in a criminal court of law in which facts are being established. Your client accused of murder claims they changed out of the clothes they were wearing on the night 'to go to a nice beauty spot'. They might eleborate it was planned in advance and an aunt and uncle can vouch for it. Do you see the problem the judge and jury face? Having to work out whether it is a cute story to make the 'trip to the beauty spot' sound more convincing or is it because they are guilty and needed a story. One theory is, the more complex an explanation, the bigger the lie. The point being, you are taking the basic premise for granted but that is hardly a proof or persuasive of anything.

 

[zooterkin]

And you'll note that Marcus Allen also argued that none of the photos were 'bracketed'. This is a good point.

Do you know what 'bracketed' means, in this context? Would you expect to see stars with any of the available settings within the bracket?

 

[zooterkin]

IF, we adopt the 'deniers' argument that 'it didn't happen' as of that date and time, then what Aldrin is doing, the argument might go, is adding a cute anecdote - perhaps relating something that really did happen in one of the numerous training sessions - to make the thing that didn't happen, more convincing.

Why would we want to consider the 'IF' when there's not a shred of evidence for it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

And you'll note that Marcus Allen also argued that none of the photos were 'bracketed'. This is a good point.

Why would they be?
The light didn't change and bracketing would have reduced the number of photographs taken of different subjects by a considerable number.

 

[threadworm]

Yes, we get that Armstrong was legendary and an amazing test pilot. But is landing a lunar module onto the moon's surface really just like landing a plane..?

No. No-one said it was. If only they'd done hours and hours of training...

 

[Vixen]

Why?

Because, as with photography anywhere with a manually operated camera when in an unfamiliar place or situation, or where you want to 'create memories', you'd take numerous or at least several shots of the same pic, using different shutter speeds if you are unsure of how the light will affect your film. The Apollo 11 guys didn't do that.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No. Imagine you are a barrister ...

No. I'm not wasting my time imagining another of your stupid digressions.

 

[Vixen]

Why would they be?
The light didn't change and bracketing would have reduced the number of photographs taken of different subjects by a considerable number.

Doesn't follow. Their film magazine was designed by Kodak to take literally hundreds of photos. Of course Kodak would allow for dud shots.

 

[Vixen]

Do you know what 'bracketed' means, in this context? Would you expect to see stars with any of the available settings within the bracket?

They didn't try.

 

[threadworm]

I have acknowledged that this means much to you. I understand.

Please stop using the 'millions of people' appeal.

I acknowledge that you're heavily invested the lies of the hoax claimants.

Pleaeae stop being patronising and condescending in your attempts to gatekeep the discussion.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Because, as with photography anywhere with a manually operated camera when in an unfamiliar place or situation, or where you want to 'create memories', you'd take numerous or at least several shots of the same pic, using different shutter speeds if you are unsure of how the light will affect your film. The Apollo 11 guys didn't do that.

They were not unsure of how the light would affect their film. They were very well trained to use specific settings. It's not like they were going to find they arrived on the moon on a cloudy day. Is it?

Another stupid claim by Marcus Allen and you swallowed it again when you should already have known better, if only from actually reading this thread. You have read it as we've been going along, I suppose?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I have acknowledged that this means much to you. I understand.

Please stop using the 'millions of people' appeal.

Because you know it makes your* arguments look stupid? Seriously, explain to us how it is that you think there's an overwhelming scientific consensus when all those experts have access to the same ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ "evidence" as you. Are they just too dim compared to you to see the "truth" you've seen?



* They aren't even yours. You're just parroting other people's stupid arguments.