Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[steenkh]

Please may I ask you do not quote me out of context.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.

I wrote 'electrolysis or combustion' and ppl misread it (or claimed to) that these are the same thing (as if). How do you know I have a lack of knowledge? Some hecklers told you so?

As you are clearly out of your depth, you should avoid repeating your mistakes, and instead just admit to the errors, and move on. But time and again you attempt to hold on to your misconceptions, and just make a fool of yourself.

I have no problem in immediately putting up my hand in making a mistake because unlike yourself I see nothing shameful about it.

You definitely have a problem admitting to mistakes. Here we 260 pages later, and you still will not admit that you are dead wrong about stars in the pictures from the Moon, and you are bumbling around from one mistake to another in I'll-advised attempts to salvage the wreckage.

It is worrying that you think that you are the smartest person in the room, but is not able to get a single fact right. You remind me of a certain U.S. president, but at least he has the excuse that he is surrounded by sycophants telling him that he is god-like in his infallibility.

 

[JesseCuster]

Her level of knowledge is childlike. If only she had a childlike curiosity then her lack of understanding and knowledge could be fixed…

 

[wollery]

You're being too generous there: I want it expressed as apparent magnitude, as loads of hilarity could follow and my, already unhealthy, tendency to schadenfruede is all aquiver with anticipation.

At this rate I’ll settle for keV/cm^2/hr

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Fascinating how a whole bunch of Rongness can be pointed out, yet the only quibble about that is something to do with whether or not a comma should have been in a particular place in a vain attempt to pretend that everyone else was wrong about what they could clearly read...

 

[zooterkin]

Kodak most definitely marketed 64 ASA versions of Ektachrome for use on earth. Ektachrome-X came out in 1963, Ektachrome Pro 64 Daylight (using the E-6 process) in 1976, Ektachrome 64 Daylight (not Pro, so it was tolerant of a wider range of temperatures in storage) in 1977, and Ektachrome 64T in 1987. IIRC, I used some 64 ASA version of Ektachrome as my primary slide film throughout the 1980s. (I'm away from those slides at the moment, so I can't confirm.)

I was talking about what was available in 1969; so, you are correct about Ektachrome-X being available, and I was mistaken.

However, it's been stated in this thread several times that it was 160 ASA that was used.

 

[JayUtah]

However, it's been stated in this thread several times that it was 160 ASA that was used.

The color film, yes. The black-and-white film was ISO/ASA 80.

 

[zooterkin]

The color film, yes. The black-and-white film was ISO/ASA 80.

Which makes having visible stars in the photos one more stop impossible.

 

[Smock]

I honestly can't believe @Vixen has spent hundreds of pages trying to rectify the claim there should be stars in the Apollo photos with her admission that it requires 10 seconds or more to properly expose stars using film with an ASA of 160. All she'd have to do is admit the person who made the claim is obviously wrong/mistaken and she would gain a smidgen of respect. But no, she can't allow herself even that level of honesty if it means admitting one tiny bit of the CT house of cards has been debunked.

 

[bknight]

I honestly can't believe @Vixen has spent hundreds of pages trying to rectify the claim there should be stars in the Apollo photos with her admission that it requires 10 seconds or more to properly expose stars using film with an ASA of 160. All she'd have to do is admit the person who made the claim is obviously wrong/mistaken and she would gain a smidgen of respect. But no, she can't allow herself even that level of honesty if it means admitting one tiny bit of the CT house of cards has been debunked.

Admid she was wrong? The horror to oneself esteem.

 

[ferd burfle]

No, stars are extremely bright in outer space.

I’m only here for the howlers. Check that; I learn a lot from the other posters.

Punctuation

 

[Mojo]

Refer to previous answer. On Earth they twinkle on the Moon they appear 'crisp'.

Thank you for explaining that. Perhaps you could explain it to this person:

You are in pitch black darkness, perfect for taking a beautiful picture of brightly twinkling stars above.

 

[Mojo]

This has been answered numerous times.

But not by you.

 

[ferd burfle]

That feeling will not go away even if accepting what she means instead of what she writes.

With respect, it would not help, it would only encourage more nonsense.

 

[Mojo]

I don't actually remember anyone asking how they got the position of the Moon right, but happy to be proved wrong. It certainly wasn't me.

Surely Armstrong and Aldrin could see where the Moon was?

 

[threadworm]

Surely Armstrong and Aldrin could see where the Moon was?

Not when they were in the shadows.

 

[Mojo]

I wrote 'electrolysis or combustion' and ppl misread it (or claimed to) that these are the same thing (as if).

That's a porkie. Here's what you wrote:

Because its presence is presumed. In addition, it may need electrolysis or some other combustion technique to combine it with hydrogen in order to make it water, possibly via Moon soil extraction (= mining).

And even after attempts to correct you, you still maintained that electrolysis was a means of making water from hydrogen and oxygen.

 

[Mojo]

I don't recall that at all. I doubt I have ever called anyone a troll.

Perhaps you don't recall that the search function is now working.

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...-case-reopened-part-vii.377409/#post-14664855

Last time this issue came up on this thread a few years back I was trolled by someone claiming it was about Equality and the condescending attitude that 'women knew about this, so tough luck!' So I am not going to bother arguing about it again as the misogynist attitude is so deeply entrenched in many Brits even today (not all, I hasten to add).

There's an awful lot of trolling on this thread. It's a shame it's allowed unchecked.

Unfortunately, one poster decided it was some kind of dig against the labour party, and others, that being a war criminal was normal back in the day. So it did need some grasp of modern history rather than knee jerk attempts to shut it down as being 'politically incorrect' (when that certainly was not the intention at all). So now it is full of trolling and mocking because some people don't quite grasp the point of a forum.

I answered both TruthCalls re ENFSI and SpitfireIX re the missing bit on the bathmat. AmyStrange is just trolling when he says I didn't. Have a go at AmyStrange for misleading you.

 

[catsmate]

Some of us still read books, newspapers and magazines.

Some of us actually understand them.,

 

[Reformed Offlian]

A lady who was helping to set up a buffet at the Big Horn Women's Club tasted the fresh-brewed coffee
and found it weak. She declared, "Well! If I was going to make coffee, I'd make coffee! If I was going
to make water, I'd make water!" Two beat pause. Then she realized what she'd said.

Source: My mother's account of the incident when she got home. It became a staple joke at our house.
Now its a staple at mine.

ETA: You can have it if you want it.

Adds a whole new meaning to: "This coffee tastes like hot piss!"

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Closest I can recall is Vixen implying NASA couldn't have planned in advance which stars to show in the sky and I pointed out that if NASA could perform the calculations to place a spacecraft on a particular spot on the moon at a particular time it was beyond ridiculous to suggest they would be incapable of calculating which constellations should then appear overhead.

I already alluded to the fact that any astronomer capable of spotting stars in the "wrong" positions could have simply been hired by NASA to come up with a star chart showing them in the "right" position. I mean, money's no object for these guys, right? And they've already sworn legions of technicians and specialists to secrecy, what's a couple astronomers more?