Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Smock]

Sorry, there should have been a comma there indicating or, as in a different method, by combustion. Although it should have been obvious electrolysis and combustion are two different methods of producing water.

Please explain how electrolysis is an "obvious" method of "producing water"?

<fasten your seatbelts folk, this should be a doozy!>

 

[Smock]

Let me help. On Earth, Oxygen is generally in gaseous form. On the Moon it tends to be embedded in rocks.

Good Lord, she actually went there.

 

[JesseCuster]

Although it should have been obvious electrolysis and combustion are two different methods of producing water.

Electrolysis is not a method of producing water.

I'm in the mood for a laugh Vixen. Tell us you obviously meant to say something other than that electrolysis is a method for producing water.

 

[Smock]

I wonder how long this flounce will last?

Less than an hour by my count.

 

[Steve]

Please explain how electrolysis is an "obvious" method of "producing water"?

<fasten your seatbelts folk, this should be a doozy!>

Should be a snap for someone who knows stuff better than 99.9 percent of the population, right Vixen?

 

[JayUtah]

"Of course I meant something other than what I actually wrote".

Now you know it's poor debate technique to focus on words. I mean, to take what people say and point out that the words they use mean something completely different than what is true, or what was supposedly meant!

Why does someone who is a triple niner intellect, an author, a scientist, someone who has written dissertations, someone with 5 years of physics education, who chooses their words carefully etc. so frequently make so many many basic errors that they have to excuse away with "Well, obviously I meant something else..."

Someone who is so obviously well-educated, accomplished, and eminent as @Vixen should be presumed correct. Therefore if anything she writes should appear wrong, her critics are obliged to assume she must have meant the right thing instead and got momentarily confused by the terminology. As someone said, "It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

Naturally, the above is intended as

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Less than an hour by my count.

Long enough to give an opening speech to CPAC? Pure speculation, but it would explain a lot.....

 

[Steve]

Now you know it's poor debate technique to focus on words. I mean, to take what people say and point out that the words they use mean something completely different than what is true, or what was supposedly meant!


Someone who is so obviously well-educated, accomplished, and eminent as @Vixen should be presumed correct. Therefore if anything she writes should appear wrong, her critics are obliged to assume she must have meant the right thing instead and got momentarily confused by the terminology. As someone said, "It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

Naturally, the above is intended as

Vixen, is the above correct? It does seem to concisely summarize your expectations of other posters here.

 

[zooterkin]

Earth is apx four times larger than the Moon and has infinitely more water.

The diameter of the Earth is about four times that of the Moon. I'll leave that as an exercise for Vixen to work out how many times larger that makes it.

The only water the Moon gets is possible vapour from striking meteorites.

Hang on, what about all the water you were telling us is on the dark side of the moon?

 

[Steve]

The diameter of the Earth is about four times that of the Moon. I'll leave that as an exercise for Vixen to work out how many times larger that makes it.

Hang on, what about all the water you were telling us is on the dark side of the moon?

It's dark water so it doesn't count.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It's dark water so it doesn't count.

It's dark water so it doesn't count.

It wasn't Jennifer Connelly's best film, but dismissing it altogether is a bit harsh.

 

[Mojo]

Now you know it's poor debate technique to focus on words. I mean, to take what people say and point out that the words they use mean something completely different than what is true, or what was supposedly meant!


Someone who is so obviously well-educated, accomplished, and eminent as @Vixen should be presumed correct. Therefore if anything she writes should appear wrong, her critics are obliged to assume she must have meant the right thing instead and got momentarily confused by the terminology.

"For though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does make the reassuring claim that where it is inaccurate, it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it is always reality that’s got it wrong. So, for instance, when the Guide was sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Traal literally - it said “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists” instead of “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists” - the editors claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing; summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty, and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that life itself was in contempt of court and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off for a pleasant evening’s Ultra-golf." - HHGG, Fit the Tenth.

 

[theprestige]

Hoaxers if NASA hires Neil Armstrong: Isn't it weird that he was able to pilot the LM with such finesse?

Hoaxers if NASA doesn't hire Neil Armstrong: Isn't it weird that they didn't hire literally the most qualified people in the world?

 

[JayUtah]

Vixen, is the above correct? It does seem to concisely summarize your expectations of other posters here.

...within the bounds of of course.

@Vixen wants to trivialize her constant ongoing erring by arguing that the corrections are just petty disagreements over wording rather than corrections to the gross misconceptions those wrong words express. It just doubles down on the triple-niner claim and insists that we treat her as the smartest person in the room who should be given the benefit of the doubt.

There is no doubt that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

 

[welshdean]

...within the bounds of of course.

@Vixen wants to trivialize her constant ongoing erring by arguing that the corrections are just petty disagreements over wording rather than corrections to the gross misconceptions those wrong words express. It just doubles down on the triple-niner claim and insists that we treat her as the smartest person in the room who should be given the benefit of the doubt.

There is no doubt that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

Not a jot. This is not an act. I see this daily with the 'gammons' I know. It's an abject aversion to learning.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I honestly don't know where to start on how wrong this all is. But let's make a try. So, how and why does oxygen on the Moon "take a broadly different form" from Oxygen on Earth?

Moon oxygen goes to a different school. On the moon.

 

[junkshop]

Earth is apx four times larger than the Moon...

No. This is wrong.

....and has infinitely more water...

No. This is wrong.

...The only water the Moon gets is possible vapour from striking meteorites.

No. This is wrong.

Pro tip: If you don't want your posts to be called out for being obviously wrong, then don't post obviously wrong things. Same goes for posting things silly, arrogant, fantastical, contradictory, poorly researched, irrelevant, cribbed from a conspiritorial grifter, stupid, dumb, untrue, and ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ insane.

HTH, and have yourself a day as wonderful as is your due.

 

[steenkh]

Please stop using the 'millions of people' appeal.

Why? It is a valid point.

 

[EHocking]

Hang on, does she think parachutes work because of buoyancy?

There’s a density joke in here somewhere…

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Why? It is a valid point.

I think that's called 'Answering your own question'