Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Thermal]

Herewith, as you requested.

View attachment 74491

And how would someone of even middling intellect not recognise that this random internet claim was (fetch me my fainting couch) complete and obvious bull ◊◊◊◊, as literally everyone commenting saw immediately?

 

[Smock]

That was the caption beneath it. It said credited to NASA. Stars would be visible, would they not?

So a caption put underneath something can now be construed as a verified, legitimate credit? Cool . . .

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 0 and 12.

 

[Steve]

That's the summary generated by Google image search. I got the same thing. When you click on "Visit" it takes you to a photo montage containing many actual Artemis images but not the thumbnail in the search summary. You didn't even bother to visit the actual site. You just trusted Google to slop together your research for you.

Absolutely pathetic.

Beat me to the "visit" issue. Vixen avoids facts like the plague.

 

[JayUtah]

I do not 'dismiss' anyone. I am the person who is 'dismissed' because people no longer have the ability to differentiate beween what is fact...

No, you're not the smartest person in the room. No, the facts are not on your side.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I do not 'dismiss' anyone. I am the person who is 'dismissed' because people no longer have the ability to differentiate beween what is fact and what is merely a common assumption.

For example, you apparently do not have the ability to differentiate between an obvious AI image popping up in a Google search from an actual photo taken during a NASA mission.

For example, we have been constantly informed that the Apollo 11 landing and 'live tv' broadcast really happened because people enjoyed watching it on tv.

What is your factual basis for saying this? Or is it just you making a common assumption?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

...which—along with the obvious illumination difficulties—tells a person of ordinary intelligence that it's a fake photo. And that in turn would immediately cause the conscientious researcher to question the attribution.

You did none of that, despite claiming to be a person of extraordinary intelligence.


There is no legitimate question, as you well know but refuse to admit.

Armchair Detectives just 8n't what they used to be..


But I am looking forward to seeing how NASA are going to fake a solar eclipse in two hours time. I have the Eclipse Viewing Glasses of Truth standing by.

 

[JayUtah]

For example, we have been constantly informed that the Apollo 11 landing and 'live tv' broadcast really happened because people enjoyed watching it on tv.

No, that's not the evidence being offered to prove Apollo was authentic. Nearly 400 pages of discussion has amply shown you're completely inept at dealing with the actual evidence, despite people of ordinary intelligence being able to grasp it easily when it is explained to them.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

No, that's not the evidence being offered to prove Apollo was authentic. Nearly 400 pages of discussion has amply shown you're completely inept at dealing with the actual evidence, despite people of ordinary intelligence being able to grasp it easily when it is explained to them.

As @Vixen has often told us, she is not a person of ordinary intelligence.

 

[Mojo]

For example, we have been constantly informed that the Apollo 11 landing and 'live tv' broadcast really happened because people enjoyed watching it on tv.

Citation, please.

 

[Steve]

I do not 'dismiss' anyone. I am the person who is 'dismissed' because people no longer have the ability to differentiate beween what is fact and what is merely a common assumption. For example, we have been constantly informed that the Apollo 11 landing and 'live tv' broadcast really happened because people enjoyed watching it on tv.

"We", your majesty? You have been informed of no such thing, You have amply demonstrated a complete inability to understand any of the myriad evidence that has been posted here showing that the moon landings - all of them - actually happened. Your mind is so completely bunged up with numerous conspiracies that you cannot comprehend reality.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I asked for the official NASA source, not your search history or a Facebook page.

Here's what the Google reverse image search function says:



Try harder, genius.

It's worth another few pages though

 

[Andy_Ross]

That was the caption beneath it. It said credited to NASA. Stars would be visible, would they not?

Why would stars be visible in a photo exposed to show details on a daylight earth?

 

[JesseCuster]

You're just looking for the slightest excuse to have a jolly good gripe.

Yes I am.

Because you deserve to be laughed at. Anyone who boasts about their debating standards, their superior intelligence, their righteous behaviour, being a scientist and an author, continually talks about how they choose their words carefully, etc. and who is the only person in the discussion who posts this kind of lazy oblivious AI slop, repeatedly and without recognising it as AI slop, absolutely deserves to be pointed and laughed at.

I'll note that I was 100% correct that you didn't actually address my question at all,which is:

What does the AI image that you posted actually prove about stars or shadows on the moon?

 

[catsmate]

I do not 'dismiss' anyone. I am the person who is 'dismissed' because people no longer have the ability to differentiate beween what is fact and what is merely a common assumption. For example, we have been constantly informed that the Apollo 11 landing and 'live tv' broadcast really happened because people enjoyed watching it on tv.

More self deluding rubbish.

 

[JesseCuster]

You're just looking for the slightest excuse to have a jolly good gripe.

Here's NASA's official photo of the same pic taken by Artemis II as they travelled behind the Moon. Not terribly different.

View attachment 74488

MWHAHAHAHAAA.... Oh dear Vixen... oh dear. "NASA's official photo of the same pic"?

That's obviously not a "NASA official photo" of anything. Just look at the lighting, the sunlight illuminating the moon's surface is clearly not coming from the same direction as the sunlight illuminating the earth. This is not an actual photo, it's clearly AI, CGI and/or a composite.

Keep digging Vixen, keep digging. Pathetic, lazy slop.

 

[Mojo]

Since you asked me a direct question pertaining to the topic of the thread, here is an image of the sun rising on a Moon surface dawn which was amongst the first to come up on BING.

What do you notice in the sky?

View attachment 73083

Caption:

Lunar dawn awakens with the sun rising over the rugged Moon surface revealing detailed craters and a starry indigo sky. A breathtaking view captures the moment when the sun rises over the Moon's rugged surface, illuminating craters and rocky terrain with a warm, golden glow against a deep indigo sky. ​

Lunar Dawn Awakens with the Sun Rising Over the Rugged Moon Surface Revealing Detailed Craters and a Starry Indigo Sky Stock Image - Image of silence, landscape: 363286507

Lunar dawn awakens with the sun rising over the rugged Moon surface revealing detailed craters and a starry indigo sky. Photo about silence, landscape, exploration, rocky - 363286507

www.dreamstime.com

(AI Generated Image)

NB You will see grey shaded areas because it is digitally enhanced to do so.

Incidentally, Vixen, what do you think causes "warm, golden" sunlight at dawn on Earth?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Why would stars be visible in a photo exposed to show details on a daylight earth?

There you go with your troublesome "Incredibly Basic Photograpy Facts" again...

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Well, either the eclipse has started, or the Vorlons are here.

Hhhmmmm, given the timing, anyone know how they get on with the Recyclons?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Incidentally, Vixen, what do you think causes "warm, golden" sunlight at dawn on Earth?

Is it angels' wings, fluttering delicately?

That's it, isn't it?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Is it angels' wings, fluttering delicately?

That's it, isn't it?

Ah, you must be the thread's Science Doing Guy.