• 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:
What I was trying to convey is dismissal of an argument based on the person behind it, or whom you believe can have an argument disregarded on your say so, based on the name of the person, or claiming 'a loony' is behind any argument that does not coincide with your opinion. In other words it only needs you to declare a person is personna non grata and that's the matter settled.
Click to expand...

And you thought that the best way to convey all this was to accuse me of lying, berate me for fearing and not understanding abstract concepts, and to assure us that Bollyn, of whom you are totally not a follower, really knows his stuff about the Middle East and 9/11.

Triple niner stuff, I guess.

Vixen said:
Do you see why that is a logical fallacy?
Click to expand...

Sure. It's also a self-serving caricature of the critiques you have received.
 
Vixen said:
What I was trying to convey is dismissal of an argument based on the person behind it, or whom you believe can have an argument disregarded on your say so, based on the name of the person, or claiming 'a loony' is behind any argument that does not coincide with your opinion. In other words it only needs you to declare a person is personna non grata and that's the matter settled. Do you see why that is a logical fallacy?
Click to expand...

But as you have been shown many times now, there is direct line of sight between the moon and Earth. A satellite of any kind unnecessary and wasn't used.
 
Vixen said:
No it wouldn't be the stationary space craft being geopositioned as that would mean being in orbit.

As was explained the Moon is so close to Earth, if its 'hill' were to be achieved theoretically it would be sucked into Earth's gravitational force.
Click to expand...
And...?

You aren't being asked where a satellite could be placed in a stationary location relative to the earth/moon system (and you've chosen to ignore the L1 point, which while ultimately unstable, would certainly allow a dedicated communications relay to stay on station long enough for each Apollo mission). You are being asked why you claimed it was necessary in the first place. Why can't a direct link be established between antennae on the Apollo spacecraft and the DSTN on earth? This is the issue you are clearly dancing around.
 
Vixen said:
What I was trying to convey is dismissal of an argument based on the person behind it...
Click to expand...
No, what you were trying to convey was a sense of superiority by borrowing arguments from people you wrongly believed would correctly inform you. Watching you try to restate Allen and Weaver's satellite argument in your own words is highly entertaining. It's called the Hill sphere not because it, or any part of it, is a "hill," but after its discoverer, astronomer George Hill. Your rendition of it was so garbled that it took pages to figure out what you were trying to say.

Vixen said:
...based on the name of the person, or claiming 'a loony' is behind any argument that does not coincide with your opinion. In other words it only needs you to declare a person is personna non grata and that's the matter settled. Do you see why that is a logical fallacy?
Click to expand...
The reliability of sources matters.

You need to grasp that we are far more familiar with your sources than you are. We know their reputations. We know their methods. We know to a very great degree where they are deliberately lying in order to make money. Do you really think that a magazine publisher and a software project manager know more about satellites and space communications than the people who build and operate those systems?

Allen and Weaver's selenostationary satellite argument was addressed thoroughly. There is objectively measurable data that shows the camera was moving, not stationary. That's something the authors should have considered, if they had known what they were talking about. That makes them unreliable sources on grounds of dereliction. The authors also removed context in the form of the narration that was part of the record. That makes them unreliable sources on grounds of deceptive manipulation of evidence.

You tell us your sources are honest people arguing in good faith. Therefore we should take their claims and representations at face value. But you simply ignore the evidence that this is not so. If your authors tell you something about Apollo, there is plenty of cause to believe that they are lying or otherwise mistaken about it. Why? Because they've been caught numerous times being wrong or outright lying. These problems with your sources do not simply go away because you believe assessing the reliability of a source is some kind of an ad hominem argument.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
But as you have been shown many times now, there is direct line of sight between the moon and Earth. A satellite of any kind unnecessary and wasn't used.
Click to expand...
Foster Zygote said:
Why can't a direct link be established between antennae on the Apollo spacecraft and the DSTN on earth? This is the issue you are clearly dancing around.
Click to expand...
I don't know how fruitful this will be. @Vixen clearly believes she is making Allen and Weaver's argument, but she is not (or was not). What she initially wrote was:
Vixen said:
...photos taken without view finders and directly transmitted to Earth via a non -Geopositioned satellite (really? Look it up!)...
Click to expand...
This certain suggests a communication relay. But then all the rest of her comments on the subject (a dozen or so) are notably mum on the subject of what that satellite was supposed to do. She speaks variously about a "non-geopositioned satellite" without explaining what she's trying say about it.

Even though we have thoroughly addressed A. and W.'s actual argument, getting her to explain her special version of it is likely not to happen because I don't think she understands their claim enough to know what they actually mean, and I don't think she has any coherent notion of what she's trying to say. I think she's just saying words.
 
What the actual ◊◊◊◊ have "abstract" discussions to do with actual, real, verified, documented events, whose existence depend upon very real and well understood principles of science and engineering?

When I as a lad in a university pure science faculty anyone saying "abstract" would have been pointed to the nearest art gallery (only around 300m in this instance). Abstraction is as irrelevant here as debate.

"I'll use a big word and hope no one knows about it."
 
JayUtah said:
This certain suggests a communication relay. But then all the rest of her comments on the subject (a dozen or so) are notably mum on the subject of what that satellite was supposed to do.
Click to expand...
She's certainly been talking about a satellite being used to relay signals from the Moon to the Earth, for example here:
Vixen said:
So, now that we are all on the same page, tell us which satellite was used to beam TV images to earth, and whilst you are busy, the logistical steps by which to set it up for that exact time and place.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
She's certainly been talking about a satellite being used to relay signals from the Moon to the Earth, for example here:
Click to expand...
That's how I interpret "beam TV images to earth." But @Vixen insists on using ambiguous colloquial language and rarely clarifying or explaining it until her critics provide the correct answer. Then she can say, "Obvs that's what I meant. You guys are so dumb to think I meant otherwise."

Allen and Weaver say the television camera capturing the images of craters etc. had to have been on a stationary platform. But that platform would also be the origin of the television signal. Since "beam" is ambiguous and can mean either an origin or a relay, it's not really the distinction we hope for. (Ugh, being married to a lawyer is simultaneously thrilling and exhausting.)

Vixen is imprecise about what she means by "TV images." For the purposes of this claim, Allen and Weaver are not. They mean specifically the TV images taken in lunar orbit, not the TV images from the surface during the moonwalk. If we're inclined to include those surface images, then we have to conclude that Vixen is talking about a relay. But that's not necessarily what she means. That's what must logically follow from what we think she means. The moonwalk signals would have to originate from the lunar surface, and we've been thinking that she therefore believes some kind of satellite, "non-geopositioned" or otherwise, would act as a relay between the surface and Earth. That's not true, of course, but it might be what she imagines A. and W. to mean when they say such a satellite "would be necessary."

Sadly any time we ask her to explain in pedantic detail what she thinks is happening, or needed to have happened, she mistakes it as an invitation for her to teach us the basics of "geo-positioned" satellites, since it is apparently going over our heads. In fact we're asking the student to explain her misconception in detail so that her betters have some toehold to correct her. If she could tell us step-by-step which specific "TV signals" she's talking about, where she thinks they originate from, and which waypoints (if any) are convenient, required, or otherwise employed, and why, we could hope to correct her. Instead she bluffs her way along with stuff like, "What? Don't you guys know?"
 
Carrot Flower King said:
What the actual ◊◊◊◊ have "abstract" discussions to do with actual, real, verified, documented events, whose existence depend upon very real and well understood principles of science and engineering?
Click to expand...
She doesn't know any of that, so she has at times fallen back on the notion that it had to have been faked since there was allegedly a political motive to do so. These are her "abstract" principles. She imagines herself to be a great social, historical, and political commentator who can read the tea leaves and determine based on geopolitical strategems whether anything was hoaxed. Then all those nasty technical details just somehow sort themselves out because she has confirmed the question "in the abstract."

This too is a common conspiracy theorist tactic. They imagine a question can be settled conclusively by some high-altitude argument. And once settled, the details must be false even if they can't figure out individually by what artifice that happened in each case. It's a way to sidestep all the hoary details of a claim without addressing them.

Pretending that we're afraid to have "abstract" discussions is just her goading us into agreeing to reframe the debate away from objective fact and toward her handwavery. In her universe of "Tricky Dick" and associated handwaving, she can wallow forever in questions that have no definitive answers.

Carrot Flower King said:
When I as a lad in a university pure science faculty anyone saying "abstract" would have been pointed to the nearest art gallery (only around 300m in this instance). Abstraction is as irrelevant here as debate.
Click to expand...
Well, not necessarily so.

When she says, "Can you explain how they did X?" and the answer is, "They didn't do X," this falls into an abstract pattern of argumentation called the subversion of support. No explanation is required for something that didn't happen.

"How could they have relayed television signals via a satellite in selenostationary orbit, as required, when no such orbit is possible?" The answer we've given is that it doesn't matter that such an orbit is impossible because no satellite is required to serve as a relay. Above I touch on how she may be misinterpreting what A. and W. mean when they say one is necessary. But the abstract point to make here is that if no such requirement exists, there is no obligation to explain how it was satisfied in apparent violation of physical law.

As I wrote earlier, she can't get the abstractions right either.
 
Last edited:
All of a sudden, there's a lot of catching up to do.

Reformed Offlian said:
Your interlocutors are not frightened. They are exasperated and annoyed.
Click to expand...
Or amused.

Foster Zygote said:
You test the waters with something to the effect that you're not agreeing with the conspiracy theorists, "but isn't 'X' funny?".
Click to expand...
To be fair, 'X' does become exceedingly funny when she tries to explain it.

Foster Zygote said:
Trust me, no one is frightened by your arguments. (Electrolysis produces water, an object in 1/6g is just as "arduous" to carry as in 1g, radiation exposure makes you radioactive, etcetera...)
Click to expand...
To be fair, many are amused by her arguments.

Vixen said:
That's like saying a historian or sociologist who took the trouble to read Mein Kampf must be Third Reich supporters. When actually the conclusion is that Hitler was stark raving mad.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I doubt whether Marcus Allen is stark raving mad. He's just a grifter, seeking to profit from the credulity of people like you, mentally ill perhaps but no crazier than a US President who repeatedly claims to have reduced drug prices by 500% or more.

Vixen said:
No it wouldn't be the stationary space craft being geopositioned as that would mean being in orbit.
Click to expand...
Actually, geopositioning generally refers to determining the position of things on earth, not in orbit.

But no one expects you to know such things.

Carrot Flower King said:
When I as a lad in a university pure science faculty anyone saying "abstract" would have been pointed to the nearest art gallery (only around 300m in this instance). Abstraction is as irrelevant here as debate.
Click to expand...
If I may speak in favor of abstraction: Abstraction is highly relevant in disciplines such as mathematics and computer science, and therefore meaningfully relevant in science and engineering.

Abstraction is the process of identifying what a wide range of theories or situations have in common.
 
JayUtah said:
She doesn't know any of that, so she has at times fallen back on the notion that it had to have been faked since there was allegedly a political motive to do so.
Click to expand...
she tried the same thing when she tried to use "cui bono" to argue that the Estonia must have been sabotaged, rather than establishing that it was sabotaged and using "cui bono" to identify suspects.
 
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