Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Smock]

"400,000 people can't have kept it secret" is such a pitiable argument. Please stop it.

An effective rebuttal to the problem of how 400,000 people were kept silent about the faking of the greatest technological achievement of all time is not a childish retort of "Please stop it". Nice try, though.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

She does this sober, you know.

 

[Vixen]

You're trying to defend an implausible idea by saying "not everybody had to know it was being faked" rather than considering just how many people would have had to know it was being faked.

What would stop them all these years later from cashing in on the truth? A tell-all book. An exclusive for a TV channel or newspaper. Pay for the grandkids to go to college. Or just pay your own medical bills. Nobody? Really?

Here's the facts, rather than the would could and should. In 1958 Eisenhower military commander of the US and Allied Forces set up NASA to compete against the Soviet commies in the Space Race. It was real. Real research. Real experts. Real training. Real development of rockets. JF Kennedy pledged they would land on the Moon before the end of the decade.

It's all real and factual. Since 1969-74, it has been at least twenty years to develop the current space programme. China doesn't think it'll be ready until 2030. The orange tyrant orders 'by 2028'. By the end of the 1960's, there was no way they were going to send the All-American Golden Boy veterans of the Korean War to near certain death despite all their best efforts. So, the training pics via TETRA satellite was indistinguishable from the real thing - according to top experts - who's gonna know the difference? (There's always next year, as long as we beat the Russians!)

Aldrin turned to drink and Armstrong became a recluse.

Do the maths.

 

[Smock]

She does this sober, you know.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Smock]

Here's the facts, rather than the would could and should. In 1958 Eisenhower military commander of the US and Allied Forces set up NASA to compete against the Soviet commies in the Space Race. It was real. Real research. Real experts. Real training. Real development of rockets. JF Kennedy pledged they would land on the Moon before the end of the decade.

It's all real and factual. Since 1969-74, it has been at least twenty years to develop the current space programme. China doesn't think it'll be ready until 2030. The orange tyrant orders 'by 2028'. By the end of the 1960's, there was no way they were going to send the All-American Golden Boy veterans of the Korean War to near certain death despite all their best efforts. So, the training pics via TETRA satellite was indistinguishable from the real thing - according to top experts - who's gonna know the difference? (There's always next year, as long as we beat the Russians!)

Aldrin turned to drink and Armstrong became a recluse.

Do the maths.

Nice foot stomp.

 

[JayUtah]

In 1958 Eisenhower military commander of the US and Allied Forces set up NASA...

You misspelled "President of the United States." NASA was created by Congress. You keep trying to say NASA was a military organization. That's exactly counter-factual.

Since 1969-74, it has been at least twenty years to develop the current space programme.

Asked and answered. There was no guarantee the space program would continue on its footing from Apollo.

So, the training pics via TETRA satellite was indistinguishable from the real thing - according to top experts - who's gonna know the difference? (There's always next years as long as we beat the Russians!)

This is pure non-factual nonsense. For one thing, the TETR satellites did not have the bandwidth for television, nor was TV any part of the TETR training program.

Aldrin turned to drink and Armstrong became a recluse.

Asked and answered.

Do the maths.

There's nothing in your disconnected rant worth addressing much more than what I've said here.

You're just aping for attention.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Here's the facts, rather than the would could and should. In 1958 Eisenhower military commander of the US and Allied Forces set up NASA...

You twister. You're still trying to push your previous lie that NASA was a military agency. Since you've been called out on that lie you're backing off a bit and instead insinuating that Eisenhower was military, therefore anything he created was military too.

No. Eisenhower was the president of the US. Not a soldier any more. By 1958 he had been president for five years.

When you're this reliant on untruths, perhaps you could reflect on how watery weak your argument is.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

She does this sober, you know.

No, she does it without drinking. Note the difference.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... By the end of the 1960's, there was no way they were going to send the All-American Golden Boy veterans of the Korean War to near certain death despite all their best efforts.

You appear barely as qualified as any average-bright schoolchild to make any assessment of the level of risk involved. You pulled "near certain death" straight out of your arse.

 

[Vixen]

You misspelled "President of the United States." NASA was created by Congress. You keep trying to say NASA was a military organization. That's exactly counter-factual.


Asked and answered. There was no guarantee the space program would continue on its footing from Apollo.


This is pure non-factual nonsense. For one thing, the TETR satellites did not have the bandwidth for television, nor was TV any part of the TETR training program.


Asked and answered.


There's nothing in your disconnected rant worth addressing much more than what I've said here.

You're just aping for attention.

NASA was the civilian arm but in essence the development of rocket technology was arm in arm with the development of nuclear weapons and real paranoid fear of the Soviet Union.

How realistic was it to send guys to the Moon within seven years of Kennedy's pledge, from scratch, pre-digital and internet age, communicating by walkie-talkie, TV sets non-cable or WiFi, based on radio wave antennae and receivers - valves! Yet here we are 2026 and the Chinese won't even be ready for yet another four years.

 

[Vixen]

She does this sober, you know.

When accusation is confession. You do pants drunk posting, do you?

 

[threadworm]

Here's the facts, rather than the would could and should. In 1958 Eisenhower military commander of the US and Allied Forces set up NASA to compete against the Soviet commies in the Space Race. It was real. Real research. Real experts. Real training. Real development of rockets. JF Kennedy pledged they would land on the Moon before the end of the decade.

It's all real and factual. Since 1969-74, it has been at least twenty years to develop the current space programme. China doesn't think it'll be ready until 2030. The orange tyrant orders 'by 2028'. By the end of the 1960's, there was no way they were going to send the All-American Golden Boy veterans of the Korean War to near certain death despite all their best efforts. So, the training pics via TETRA satellite was indistinguishable from the real thing - according to top experts - who's gonna know the difference? (There's always next year, as long as we beat the Russians!)

Aldrin turned to drink and Armstrong became a recluse.

Do the maths.

The training photographs are very much distinguishable from the real thing, the reasons for which have been explained to you.

You dodged my question about this photo. Why is that?

https://flic.kr/p/zzPWnh

 

[Vixen]

The training photographs are very much distinguishable from the real thing, the reasons for which have been explained to you.

You dodged my question about this photo. Why is that?

https://flic.kr/p/zzPWnh

Please remind me of the question.

 

[JayUtah]

NASA was the civilian arm but in essence the development of rocket technology was arm in arm with the development of nuclear weapons and real paranoid fear of the Soviet Union.

Asked and answered. NASA was specifically forbidden from working on military technology.

How realistic was it to send guys to the Moon within seven years of Kennedy's pledge, from scratch, pre-digital and internet age, communicating by walkie-talkie, TV sets non-cable or WiFi, based on radio wave antennae and receivers - valves!

Asked and answered. The technical history of Apollo is one of the largest, most complete, most correct record of any development program in history. Your layperson's disbelief is irrelevant.

 

[JayUtah]

Please remind me of the question.

The Earth is showing discernibly correct weather patterns for the time it was known to have been shot. Explain that in terms of your hoax theory that it is a training photo taken previously.

 

[I Am The Scum]

View attachment 73762

Ah, so that's how the did it. Miniatures...

 

[threadworm]

Please remind me of the question.

Jay has stated the specifics, but in a nutshell:

How was it taken in advance?
Where?
When?
By whom?

It's the same set of questions I asked about this, which you also ignored.

 

[Vixen]

Jay has stated the specifics, but in a nutshell:

How was it taken in advance?
Where?
When?
By whom?

It's the same set of questions I asked about this, which you also ignored.

What photo is this? Date, time, place?

 

[JayUtah]

How was it taken in advance?
Where?
When?
By whom?

And most importantly, where is the evidence that it was done the way @Vixen says. It's one thing to imagine, "Well it could have been done by X, Y, Z, whatever." But unless there's evidence in favor of X, Y, or Z, all you have is a hypothesis that could be proven if only there were evidence.

Hoax claimants want that to stand as a meaningful rebuttal to the straightforward explanation for how the picture came about. The prevailing theory is that the people who took the picture flew there in the spaceship that you can see in the picture and took the photo with the cameras we all know about because they're available for us to inspect, etc. We can tell you all about the spaceship: who built it, what its design was, how it was tested, how people on the ground could track its progress. This all amounts to a single consilient body of overwhelming evidence. Claims like, "I can think of a way to fake that," fall far short. They amount to forcing history to prove that something cannot possibly have been faked, rather than the appropriate question of whether the evidence is more on the side of fakery or authenticity.

 

[Steve]

Please remind me of the question.

There's that eidetic memory again! Only one this time: