• 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:
Piaget re child development found that children needed to have powers of imagination, i.e., abstract thought, to understand various concepts. Thus, accusing someone of being able to use their imagination that you yourself can't envisage, is not the big put down Reformed_Offlian thinks it is.
Click to expand...
Claiming a tendency to just make ◊◊◊◊ up and pretend it's real as your superpower isn't the boast you may be imagining it to be.
 
Vixen said:
The electrolysis was a reference to separating hydrogen from oxygen and applicable to rocket fuel.
Click to expand...
You specifically said that electrolysis was one method of producing water. Do we need to link to the actual post?

Vixen said:
I have never said radiation makes you radioactive.
Click to expand...
Again, you implied the living crap out of it, with a dramatic story about how people you knew had to be decontaminated after exposure to radioactive samples, and scoffing at the fact that the Navy dive teams and NASA took no precautions against radiation during the Apollo recovery operations.

Vixen said:
Live TV broadcast in 1969 would have required a method of geopositioning so that the picture remained stationary.
Click to expand...
This is complete nonsense. TV signals from the Westinghouse or RCA television cameras was broadcast via line of sight to the Deep Space Tracking Network on earth. Even in the one case of the lunar surface being shown from the CSM in orbit, the full broadcast shows that your sources were lying about the camera not moving over the terrain.

Vixen said:
Eastman Kodak brought in top experts to develop a bespoke film for Moon filming on the Moon surface. These were top bod consultants in Ektachrome technology.
Click to expand...
Ektachrome was introduced in 1946. ASA 160 Ektachrome in 1959. The only change for Apollo was that the actual film was thinner, to allow more exposures per roll. The emulsion itself was still standard ASA 160 Ektachrome.

And what is your point? Are you saying that because you believe that they invented a new film emulsion for Apollo that they should have been able to image sunlit objects and stars at the same time? Where do you think this is going?

Vixen said:
Saying it's not possible for a camera film to take pics of the firmament is a circular argument when they had one job.
Click to expand...
No one said that photographing stars was impossible. This is going beyond straw man arguments, beyond lying, and into the territory of gaslighting.

And they had quite a few jobs, none of which were to photograph stars. Astronomers already had far better photographs of stars and their spectra than anything Apollo could have provided (with the exception of Apollo 16's Far Ultraviolet Camera Spectrograph images).
 
Vixen said:
Thankfully that doesn't apply to me.
Click to expand...
That's tellin' 'em, Vixie! There's my girl!

For some reason, perhaps my upbringing, I'm thinking of the word Drilling, the German for a type of firearm once very popular with European gamekeepers. As you'd guess from the name, it usually has three barrels, one for a 12- or 16-guage shot shell, one for a center-fire rifle cartridge, and one for .22 rimfire. Depending on the occasion and the game in the sights, Herr Wildhüter would select his .22 barrel and plink! Hassenpfeffer! If that wouldnt do the trick, he'd dial up his center-fire rifle barrel and blam! another pair of antlers on his employer's hunting lodge gallery. And if that wasn't the medicine, he'd dial up old doctor 12-bore and KABOOM! feathers in the treetops! Earnest striving pays the bills.

Dunno how many barrels Vixen has, a lot I bet, but you can always count her to let off blams, bangs, plinks, squibs both wet& dry, and blanks as fast as she can load.

Since people are starting to take my posts seriously, I'm b'god going to post serious analogies.
 
Vixen said:
Oh gosh, here comes the 'I knew someone who smoked 100 cigarettes a day from age 11 and lived to 103' logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
Oh Vixen, are you really confused about the comparison of your claim to that of someone who was deluded into believing he had a special ability based on a media "test", or are you just pretending you don't see the point?
 
Vixen said:
Einstein said, 'Imagination is more important than knowledge'. Thank you for the unintended compliment. I understand. I believe you are genuinely baffled by the topic.
Click to expand...
He was right. You just reminded me of a time when you asserted that everyone was shocked that, at his autopsy, Einstein's brain was much smaller than normal. Not only was no one surprised, but it was slightly larger than normal.

That's not the kind of imagination ol' Albert was referring to. That's just being factualky wrong.
 
Vixen said:
There were 5,771 photos taken over a total of 4,834 minutes, over all six missions (excl. Rover photos) or one every 50 secs, according to Marcus Allen. The Hasselblad shutter speed is 1.5 sec, for the shutter to open and shut and auto-wind on to the next frame. Apollo 11 took 123 surface pics in 151 minutes does the maths work?
Click to expand...
Vixen, can you explain what argument you’re trying to make here?

Just summarise it in plain English as best you can, and please do the maths so we can see if it works or not.

Please just summarise the argument you’re trying to make here about. I bet you can’t. I think even you recognise that the argument was actually as dumb as it looks, so you’re going to deflect, whinge, tell a pointless anecdote, ramble on about 16th century priests, etc. anything but actually just explain what you meant. And I genuinely think you lack the arithmetic ability to do the extremely simple maths, which is why you have repeatedly ignored any requests to explain the argument and actually do the math.

Prove me wrong. Explain what you’re actually trying to argue here.
 
Vixen said:
There were 5,771 photos taken over a total of 4,834 minutes, over all six missions (excl. Rover photos) or one every 50 secs, according to Marcus Allen. The Hasselblad shutter speed is 1.5 sec, for the shutter to open and shut and auto-wind on to the next frame. Apollo 11 took 123 surface pics in 151 minutes does the maths work?
I'm not wasting time looking for this post, but Jack White made a similar nonsense comparison, let's dissect this hoax. The implication was that because of these numbers Apollo could not have taken all these images therefore they were taken somewhere besides the Lunar surface.
Firstly the implication of the images taken are from ONE camera when two cameras were in action during most of the EVAs so the time per image is not images divided by minutes, first lying by Marcus. Secondly many of the images were panoramas many images in the time it takes to take image turn body slightly take image until the full turn was made. Marcus did a lot of deceptive discussions like this. This is just more evidence of Marcus lying to attempt to prove his assertions. No, he didn't have any "valid" points concerning Apollo.
 
bknight said:
Vixen said:
There were 5,771 photos taken over a total of 4,834 minutes, over all six missions (excl. Rover photos) or one every 50 secs, according to Marcus Allen. The Hasselblad shutter speed is 1.5 sec, for the shutter to open and shut and auto-wind on to the next frame. Apollo 11 took 123 surface pics in 151 minutes does the maths work?
I'm not wasting time looking for this post, but Jack White made a similar nonsense comparison, let's dissect this hoax. The implication was that because of these numbers Apollo could not have taken all these images therefore they were taken somewhere besides the Lunar surface.
Firstly the implication of the images taken are from ONE camera when two cameras were in action during most of the EVAs so the time per image is not images divided by minutes, first lying by Marcus. Secondly many of the images were panoramas many images in the time it takes to take image turn body slightly take image until the full turn was made. Marcus did a lot of deceptive discussions like this. This is just more evidence of Marcus lying to attempt to prove his assertions. No, he didn't have any "valid" points concerning Apollo.
Click to expand...

And at the same time, we get complaints that the astronauts should have made the extra time to take photos of stars, in spite of their picture-taking cadence already being suspiciously frantic. It's almost like the hoaxers don't have a coherent thesis.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Absolute rubbish.
 
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