Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Reformed Offlian]

Unfortunately, this post epitomises how people no longer debate.

Why should your interlocutors put more effort into their responses to you than you do into your Google "re"searches?

It's understandable as it can cause anxiety in some people who might feel a core value is under threat.

From what? An embarrassingly botched image search?

Your shenanigans in this thread have not posed a serious challenge to anybody else's anything. What they have done is waste people's time and insult their intelligence.

 

[JesseCuster]

I saw the 1999 eclipse in Brixham - we drove down the M4 especially for it - got the t-shirt, done that. In Brixham, Torbay, Devon, there was a MASSIVE crowd. Today, there was a 'crowd' of ... just eight of us. The view from Finland was just an 80% partial eclipse and had an azimuth of 294°WNW. 10° above the horizon at the start to 4° by the time of maximum effect.

Cool story bro.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You only assume it's ignorance because you can't conceive that people are capable of complex ideas.

I'm sure that your ideas are complex. That's why they contain so many imaginary terms.

 

[JayUtah]

You only assume it's ignorance because you can't conceive that people are capable of complex ideas.

You have shown that you are not capable of understanding the ideas pertaining to Apollo, space travel, or science. It has nothing to do with the complexity of the ideas. Indeed, you argued that having less gravity would not make something lighter. That's as simple as an idea can get, and you still managed to get it wrong.

We are not assuming that you are ignorant. We are observing that you are ignorant.

 

[Vixen]

Because it's in full sunlight.
Now, tell me how the stars can be visible in a photograph exposed to show details on the Earth in full sunlight.

Wait. This issue arose because a previous AI-composed image by Dream time - in lieu of scant photography of the Moon at sunrise - was claimed to be inaccurate. But it is very close to the one recently taken by Artemis II, so all those who sneered it was an impossible photograph now have to pretend it was something else they objected to.

 

[Vixen]

You have shown that you are not capable of understanding the ideas pertaining to Apollo, space travel, or science. It has nothing to do with the complexity of the ideas. Indeed, you argued that having less gravity would not make something lighter. That's as simple as an idea can get, and you still managed to get it wrong.

We are not assuming that you are ignorant. We are observing that you are ignorant.

No, that is a brazen fib. I said it would not be any less arduous to carry around ceteris paribus.

 

[JayUtah]

But it is very close to the one recently taken by Artemis II...

No.

You claimed it was an official NASA image taken on an Artemis mission. You were absolutely wrong, and you made that error only because of your lack of perceptive skills and your sloppy research practice.

...so all those who sneered it was an impossible photograph now have to pretend it was something else they objected to.

You posted two pictures that were both AI slop. Both were immediately identified as such.

 

[JayUtah]

No, that is a brazen fib. I said it would not be any less arduous to carry around ceteris paribus.

Here's what you said.

The Moon being 1/6th gravity of Earth does not mean a weight on your back is any less lighter.

 

[Steve]

You only assume it's ignorance because you can't conceive that people are capable of complex ideas.

Oh Vixen, Vixen, Vixen . Your scientific ignorance has been demonstrated in literally thousands of posts in these forums. I will concede though, that your ideas are complex - to the point of being completely addled.

 

[JesseCuster]

Wait. This issue arose because a previous AI-composed image by Dream time - in lieu of scant photography of the Moon at sunrise - was claimed to be inaccurate. But it is very close to the one recently taken by Artemis II, so all those who sneered it was an impossible photograph now have to pretend it was something else they objected to.

People sneered at it for being obvious low-quality AI slop obvious to everyone, and sneered at you for not only posting AI slop in the first place, thinking it was an actual photography, and then doubling down by posting an “official NASA photograph” which was just another AI slop image which everyone instantly recognised and you didn’t.

The images you posted aren’t remotely “close” to actual space photography, and if you think so, you’re truly clueless. They only look superficially similar to actual space photographs because they’re bodged together from actual space images (and other images trawled from the internet) by an AI algorithm.

You have been caught twice now in this thread posting obviously AI generated images, thinking and claiming that they were genuine and official NASA photographs, when it anyone remotely clued in to either astronomy or AI in general should be able to detect at a glance.

This is exactly the kind of lazy, low effort, sloppy research and debating tactics typical of you however.

 

[Vixen]

Even when the Earth is between the moon and the Sun?

Then it would appear as a black disc with a red ring, if a lunar eclipse.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Wait. This issue arose because a previous AI-composed image by Dream time - in lieu of scant photography of the Moon at sunrise - was claimed to be inaccurate. But it is very close to the one recently taken by Artemis II, so all those who sneered it was an impossible photograph now have to pretend it was something else they objected to.

Still not answering the question

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Wait. This issue arose because a previous AI-composed image by Dream time - in lieu of scant photography of the Moon at sunrise - was claimed to be inaccurate. But it is very close to the one recently taken by Artemis II,

apart from the whole showing stars thing, you mean?

so all those who sneered it was an impossible photograph now have to pretend it was something else they objected to.

Your eidetic memory is failing you again. "This issue arose" because many moons (ha!) ago, you parroted Marcus Allen's ignorant notion that one should expect to see stars in the surface photographs taken during the Apollo EVAs. That doomed thesis is now even more exposed than those photos showing stars would have to be, and your only remaining recourse is to post irrelevant AI images, pretending that they're actually "offical NASA" photographs.

You need a better argument.

 

[Steve]

Here's what you said.

Vixen still doesn't understand that all her posts here can be quoted as required. Too many "complex thoughts" interfering with comprehension, I suppose.

 

[Vixen]

No.

You claimed it was an official NASA image taken on an Artemis mission. You were absolutely wrong, and you made that error only because of your lack of perceptive skills and your sloppy research practice.


You posted two pictures that were both AI slop. Both were immediately identified as such.

But uncannily accurate, you must admit. (Well, I am aware hell will freeze over before that happens.)

 

[Vixen]

apart from the whole showing stars thing, you mean?



Your eidetic memory is failing you again. "This issue arose" because many moons (ha!) ago, you parroted Marcus Allen's ignorant notion that one should expect to see stars in the surface photographs taken during the Apollo EVAs. That doomed thesis is now even more exposed than those photos showing stars would have to be, and your only remaining recourse is to post irrelevant AI images, pretending that they're actually "offical NASA" photographs.

You need a better argument.

Citation, please re 'eidetic memory'.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

But uncannily accurate, you must admit. (Well, I am aware hell will freeze over before that happens.)

The valleys were especially uncanny. And the images you posted, whatever their other merits, still stubbornly differ from actual photographs in one crucial detail: the visibility of stars.

 

[JayUtah]

But uncannily accurate, you must admit.

No, I don't have to admit it.

Further, the question was not the accuracy of the image but its authenticity and authority. You were trying to correct your previous AI slop by posting what you claimed was an official NASA photograph. Instead you posted more AI slop because you can't tell the difference between real and fake.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Citation, please re 'eidetic memory'.

Already showed you that earlier in this thread. Try using those awesome search powers.

 

[JayUtah]

Citation, please re 'eidetic memory'.

Still not answering the question.

389 pages hence and we're still asking you how long it takes to expose stars on ISO 160 film. You know the answer, but you won't admit that it proves Marcus Allen was a liar.