• 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

Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Apollo guys didn’t need to.

In the preceding Gemini and Mercury programs, extensive photography experiments were performed by astronauts inflight when NASA realised the full potential of the recording medium, including still and movie photography.
These formal experiments tested photographic equipment and methodology as well as testing the target subjects : the earth’s surface and weather as well as of astronauts inside the capsule and outside during EVAs.

Unsurprisingly during the formal photographic experiments spot meters were used when conditions were tricky or unknown.

Moon landers and Ranger, Surveyor, and the Lunar Orbiter, as early as 1964, took upwards 100,000 photos of the lunar surface. By the time Apollo came about, a lot was known about the sunlight strength at the moon as well as the moon’s own albedo.

Subsequently, nasa was not unfamiliar with the expected photographic environment in transit or on the lunar surface.
This is why their equipment and the setting parameters used worked.

If you are truly interested, here is the article outlining the above.
Here is the NASA Apollo Experience Report regarding how and why the photography program was developed for Apollo flights and astronauts as well as details of the photographic equipment used on all Apollo missions.

Frankly your entire “argument” can be debunked thoroughly by a single photo from the report.
(ironic, eh?)

This model was used by Apollo 11 astronauts.

1784259351033.png
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
...within the bounds of :LOL: 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.
Click to expand...
[Some] People just don't seem to have the art of debate. Don't worry, I found that was true of most Mensans as well. They just mostly wanna talk about the weather. There was one guy who was a great debater. When he died, someone brought out a 'Best of...' book of his finest stuff.
 
Vixen said:
[Some] People just don't seem to have the art of debate. Don't worry, I found that was true of most Mensans as well. They just mostly wanna talk about the weather. There was one guy who was a great debater. When he died, someone brought out a 'Best of...' book of his finest stuff.
Click to expand...
Debate? Where questions are put and amswers given? Propositions are made with evidence to support them? Points are logically constructed and rebutted? That sort of thing?

Or borrowed soapbox ranting where repetition and bluster are favoured over meaningful discourse?

Guess where you fall in that.
 
Vixen said:
[Some] People just don't seem to have the art of debate. Don't worry, I found that was true of most Mensans as well. They just mostly wanna talk about the weather. There was one guy who was a great debater. When he died, someone brought out a 'Best of...' book of his finest stuff.
Click to expand...
Cool story bro.

What does “geopositioned”mean Vixen? Did you obviously mean geostationary but didn’t know or couldn’t remember the correct word and so used the nonsense phrase “geopositioned” even after being told it was nonsense?
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
What does “geopositioned”mean Vixen? Did you obviously mean geostationary but didn’t know or couldn’t remember the correct word and so used the nonsense phrase “geopositioned” even after being told it was nonsense?
Click to expand...
I think this is the crux of the matter: Vixen does not have much knowledge of the subject matter that she wants to discuss, and she does not have the precision of language that is usual in science. Geostationary vs. geopositioned are both wrong, but much energy is spent on ridiculing her poor choice of words, rather than her wrong ideas. And more importantly, the discussion about the terms give her an opportunity to deflect from her wrong ideas and keep the discussion unfocused.

The "side of the Moon where the Sun never shines" is an example of this, where everybody know what she means, and she can keep the discussion going on for pages by coming up with one faulty concept after another because she'll rarely admit to be in error (amazingly, she did correct her concept of parachutes working by buoyancy to drag).

She is constantly wrong, but many pages could be saved by treating her words with a certain flexibility.
 
Let's further summarise vixen's contribution to the lost art of debate.

#1

Vixen: Person A says thing X
Everyone else: Person A is incorrect because of [every other letter in the alphabet]
Vixen: Yeah but Person A says X

#2

Vixen: Says something that makes her sound stupid
Everyone else: That makes you sound stupid
Vixen: Why are saying I sound atupid?

#3

Vixen: I am way more intelligent and informed than anyone here.
Loop to #2

#4

Vixen: This apple is an orange.
Everyone else: It's an apple. See argument #2.
Vixen: I meant apple, obviously, because #3, and also bananas.
 
Mojo said:
If we treat her words with the flexibility she requires it will make them meaningless.
Click to expand...
No. Everybody knew that she meant the craters in shade on the South Pole when she spoke about the dark side of the moon. The argument was wrong, but not meaningless. Some of her arguments are meaningless regardless of a flexible interpretation.
 
steenkh said:
I think this is the crux of the matter: Vixen does not have much knowledge of the subject matter that she wants to discuss, and she does not have the precision of language that is usual in science. Geostationary vs. geopositioned are both wrong, but much energy is spent on ridiculing her poor choice of words, rather than her wrong ideas.
Click to expand...
The "poor choice of words" betrays the wrong ideas, as, for example, when she first categorises electrolysis as a form of combustion, then denies she said that while still saying that it is a method of combining hydrogen with oxygen to form water.

Vixen needs to use words in their accepted meanings, any to avoid using words if she doesn't know what they mean. At the moment it's like trying to debate with Humpty Dumpty.
 
steenkh said:
I think this is the crux of the matter: Vixen does not have much knowledge of the subject matter that she wants to discuss, and she does not have the precision of language that is usual in science. Geostationary vs. geopositioned are both wrong, but much energy is spent on ridiculing her poor choice of words, rather than her wrong ideas. And more importantly, the discussion about the terms give her an opportunity to deflect from her wrong ideas and keep the discussion unfocused.

The "side of the Moon where the Sun never shines" is an example of this, where everybody know what she means, and she can keep the discussion going on for pages by coming up with one faulty concept after another because she'll rarely admit to be in error (amazingly, she did correct her concept of parachutes working by buoyancy to drag).

She is constantly wrong, but many pages could be saved by treating her words with a certain flexibility.
Click to expand...
Please may I ask you do not quote me out of context. The thrust of my post was about the possibility of mining water ice for the purpose of refuelling. Changing the subject to do I know what a side is was typical distraction instead of acknowledging that the plans for refuelling stations using this 'water' was perfectly correct. People are so focused on yelling, 'wrong!' instead of contributing. Obviously I am not referring to those who do contribute positively to the thread, just the occasions people prefer to talk about typos, or hurling insults.

ETA As for geopositioned satellites the point being made there was that there wasn't a geopositioned (or geostationed) one in place as of the time of the 'live' TV broadcast. I went on to describe this as orbiting the said planet (Moon) at the same speed so that it was stationary to the fixed spot. Thus, your complaint of wrong word is just a distraction from the point being made that as well as having to plan successful landing and timing with Collins, still in orbit, they somehow also had the additional burden of organising a satellite that could beam film from the camera to earth at that exact spot.

But let's ignore that point - although someone did answer it - and focus on the word 'geopositioned' twenty pages later, instead.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
The "poor choice of words" betrays the wrong ideas, as, for example, when she first categorises electrolysis as a form of combustion, then denies she said that while still saying that it is a method of combining hydrogen with oxygen to form water.

Vixen needs to use words in their accepted meanings, any to avoid using words if she doesn't know what they mean. At the moment it's like trying to debate with Humpty Dumpty.
Click to expand...
You know perfectly well the sense was electrolysis OR combustion. You only seem to contribute digs. It is very tiresome for the reader.
 
In the process of posting a factoid about water ice on the moon, of which every other thread participant was already well aware, you stated that there was a side of the moon which never received sunlight. Whilst trying to explain away that schoolboy error, you managed to make even more schoolboy errors about several other subjects. If you don't want posters to point and laugh, you need to stop making schoolboy errors. Try taking the time to read and understand the articles you google for, instead of just glancing at them and then trying to summarise them in your own words and getting it completely wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom