• 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

Uh oh, human-related microbes - might - be able to survive in niche places on the lunar surface.

science.nasa.gov

Human-Related Microbes May Survive Moon’s South Pole, NASA Finds - NASA Science

Some of Earth’s microbes likely to hitch a ride to space with human explorers could survive in the shaded nooks and crannies of the Moon’s South Pole region, NASA scientists say.
science.nasa.gov science.nasa.gov

So I guess we need to send US Navy frogmen to the moon to spray the astronauts with decontaminants BEFORE they step out of the LM.

I, for one, welcome whatever mutant overlords eventually take over earth as the invade from the moon, after evolving on the lunar surface.
 
Axxman300 said:
Uh oh, human-related microbes - might - be able to survive in niche places on the lunar surface.

science.nasa.gov

Human-Related Microbes May Survive Moon’s South Pole, NASA Finds - NASA Science

Some of Earth’s microbes likely to hitch a ride to space with human explorers could survive in the shaded nooks and crannies of the Moon’s South Pole region, NASA scientists say.
science.nasa.gov science.nasa.gov

So I guess we need to send US Navy frogmen to the moon to spray the astronauts with decontaminants BEFORE they step out of the LM.

I, for one, welcome whatever mutant overlords eventually take over earth as the invade from the moon, after evolving on the lunar surface.
Click to expand...
Those microbes at the South Pole could take pictures of stars.
 
On Conspiracy Thorists

Alex Boge
@alexboge
My God, I wish I could be a conspiracy theorist.

Imagine how easy life would be.

No sourcing. No burden of proof. No homework. No checking whether the thing you’re about to say is actually true.

Just wake up, make some ◊◊◊◊ up, hit POST, and congratulate yourself for “doing your own research.”

Someone proves you wrong? Ignore it.
Someone produces the paper? Don’t read it.
Someone posts the raw data? Fake.
Primary source? Compromised.
Expert consensus? Bought.
Photographs? CGI.
Video? Edited.
Measurements? Rigged.
Your own eyes? Trusted, but only when convenient.

Every possible piece of evidence against you arrives with a factory-installed escape hatch.

And if somebody corners you so completely that there’s nowhere left to run, you pull the emergency brake:

“SHILL.”

Done. Argument won.

Then tomorrow you post the exact same claim as if yesterday never happened. That’s the real luxury. Claims never have to survive contact with evidence. They just respawn.

Flat Earth, Anti-vax, 9/11, Apollo, Chemtrails, Virus denial, Evolution denial, Different costumes, same operating system:

Make claim.
Provide nothing.
Get corrected.
Ignore correction.
Change subject.
Make new claim.
Get corrected again.
Call opponent a shill.
Repeat original claim.

And if you’re truly committed, you follow the person who debunked you and camp in their replies for months, dropping dead claims under completely unrelated posts like a door-to-door salesman who won’t leave the porch, still pitching a product that was recalled years ago.

Meanwhile, if I get a statistic wrong, quote a paper sloppily, miss contrary evidence, or make an embarrassing typo, it’s screenshotted within the hour.

And here’s the humiliating part: I care. I go back and check. I correct it. I sit there irritated with myself over a decimal point. I couldn’t knowingly repeat a claim after finding out it was false. I’d be embarrassed by it.

Conspiracy addicts have been liberated from all of that. No embarrassment. No recalibration. No learning. No moment where anyone stops and thinks, “maybe I got this one wrong.”

They double down, triple down, invent three new conspiracies to explain why the first one collapsed, and come charging back into the replies like getting dismantled yesterday was a warm-up.

Being wrong isn’t a setback for them. It’s just another day.

God, that must be restful.

link
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
On Conspiracy Thorists

Alex Boge
@alexboge
My God, I wish I could be a conspiracy theorist.

Imagine how easy life would be.

No sourcing. No burden of proof. No homework. No checking whether the thing you’re about to say is actually true.

Just wake up, make some ◊◊◊◊ up, hit POST, and congratulate yourself for “doing your own research.”

Someone proves you wrong? Ignore it.
Someone produces the paper? Don’t read it.
Someone posts the raw data? Fake.
Primary source? Compromised.
Expert consensus? Bought.
Photographs? CGI.
Video? Edited.
Measurements? Rigged.
Your own eyes? Trusted, but only when convenient.

Every possible piece of evidence against you arrives with a factory-installed escape hatch.

And if somebody corners you so completely that there’s nowhere left to run, you pull the emergency brake:

“SHILL.”

Done. Argument won.

Then tomorrow you post the exact same claim as if yesterday never happened. That’s the real luxury. Claims never have to survive contact with evidence. They just respawn.

Flat Earth, Anti-vax, 9/11, Apollo, Chemtrails, Virus denial, Evolution denial, Different costumes, same operating system:

Make claim.
Provide nothing.
Get corrected.
Ignore correction.
Change subject.
Make new claim.
Get corrected again.
Call opponent a shill.
Repeat original claim.

And if you’re truly committed, you follow the person who debunked you and camp in their replies for months, dropping dead claims under completely unrelated posts like a door-to-door salesman who won’t leave the porch, still pitching a product that was recalled years ago.

Meanwhile, if I get a statistic wrong, quote a paper sloppily, miss contrary evidence, or make an embarrassing typo, it’s screenshotted within the hour.

And here’s the humiliating part: I care. I go back and check. I correct it. I sit there irritated with myself over a decimal point. I couldn’t knowingly repeat a claim after finding out it was false. I’d be embarrassed by it.

Conspiracy addicts have been liberated from all of that. No embarrassment. No recalibration. No learning. No moment where anyone stops and thinks, “maybe I got this one wrong.”

They double down, triple down, invent three new conspiracies to explain why the first one collapsed, and come charging back into the replies like getting dismantled yesterday was a warm-up.

Being wrong isn’t a setback for them. It’s just another day.

God, that must be restful.

link
Click to expand...
I've sort of envied trumpkins, CTers, and others who don't care about the truth or facts, too. Then again CTers appear to be really fragile and temperamental, because their theories mean so much to them. So many of the discussions with them end in meltdowns because they can't handle their theories being shot down, because that in turn means the world is more complex than they imagine (imagine how simple the world is if the same nebulous 'they' is behind everything!), and/or because they aren't really privy to insider information everyone else are too narrow-minded or scared to go find themselves.

Then again, I guess a lot of them don't really get to that part, because as you say, they insulate themselves with CTs about shills, propaganda, paid sources, and whatever so that they can just handwave all the facts you throw at them.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
I've sort of envied trumpkins, CTers, and others who don't care about the truth or facts, too. Then again CTers appear to be really fragile and temperamental, because their theories mean so much to them. So many of the discussions with them end in meltdowns because they can't handle their theories being shot down, because that in turn means the world is more complex than they imagine (imagine how simple the world is if the same nebulous 'they' is behind everything!), and/or because they aren't really privy to insider information everyone else are too narrow-minded or scared to go find themselves.

Then again, I guess a lot of them don't really get to that part, because as you say, they insulate themselves with CTs about shills, propaganda, paid sources, and whatever so that they can just handwave all the facts you throw at them.
Click to expand...
I'm here doing my penance as a reformed CTist. I was a longtime JFK CT-nutjob. In my case this was because my father often said he believed Oswald acted alone. I don't think he bought the second gunman BS, but he was sure there was a deeper level to the event. Dad had served in the US Army from 1961 to 1967, and had seen Kennedy in person when he visited troops in Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And when you're a little kid your dad knows everything, so I started on the wrong foot.

How it works is a CT will come stocked with its own set of facts, with real information threaded into them in spite of being unrelated, and or out of context. These specialized facts are generated by an orchard of pointless questions, which also double as continuations when official answers come forward allowing the CTists to ignore the explanations because they didn't answer those dozens of stupid questions:

  1. Shutter speed gives way to excessive lunar radiation.
  2. Radiation damages film.
  3. Damaged film gives way to Van Allen Belt nonsense.
  4. Van Allen Belt nonsense gives way to Nixon, because Cambodia and Watergate, therefore automatically plausible.
  5. Nixon gives way to perceived anomalies in the lunar footage (astronauts "moving wrong", "rooter tails" from the lunar rover, etc).
  6. Anomalies give way to the lack of com satellites in 1969.
  7. Lack of com sats gives way to perceived body language of the Apollo 11 crew in post mission interviews suggesting they're hiding something.
At each step the CTist just craps in the palm of their hand, holds it out, and says, "Look, an apple". A good CTist will pick their conspiracy with care, and stay away from the crap farm that is the lunar hoax CT. It was stupid from Day-1.
 
Vixen said:
How is that à propos of anything, when the ISS is within Earth's atmosphere?
Click to expand...
Tell us about the atmospheric conditions at the height of the ISS orbit and how it's á propos of anything. Let me do some of your homework for you since you can't even find a photograph using a Google image search. The atmospheric pressure at the ISS's orbit is of the order of a trillionth that at sea level. For the purposes of this discussion, it's effectively a perfect vacuum, would be considered an ultra-high vacuum if it was in a lab. It does not provide any radiation shielding, does not move any heat via convection, does not block, diffract, diffuse any light etc. (at least at any level remotely meaningful to the discussion)

Please explain how this is relevant to the discussion. Keep it relevant please, we all know how you tend to ramble aimlessly and go off on tangents instead of dealing with direct questions.

BTW, you still haven't explain (and I can predict with 100% accuracy that you can't and won't) what you mean by "geopositioned". Please answer that question, it's considered bad form to use your own idiomatic terms without explaining to anyone else what you mean.

edit: Also, please explain how the pressurised environment inside the ISS has something to do with the way the astronaut's hair behaves.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
Tell us about the atmospheric conditions at the height of the ISS orbit and how it's á propos of anything. Let me do some of your homework for you since you can't even find a photograph using a Google image search. The atmospheric pressure at the ISS's orbit is of the order of a trillionth that at sea level. For the purposes of this discussion, it's effectively a perfect vacuum, would be considered an ultra-high vacuum if it was in a lab. It does not provide any radiation shielding, does not move any heat via convection, does not block, diffract, diffuse any light etc. (at least at any level remotely meaningful to the discussion)

Please explain how this is relevant to the discussion. Keep it relevant please, we all know how you tend to ramble aimlessly and go off on tangents instead of dealing with direct questions.

BTW, you still haven't explain (and I can predict with 100% accuracy that you can't and won't) what you mean by "geopositioned". Please answer that question, it's considered bad form to use your own idiomatic terms without explaining to anyone else what you mean.

edit: Also, please explain how the pressurised environment inside the ISS has something to do with the way the astronaut's hair behaves.
Click to expand...
Did you miss where I said it was related to how fast they were orbiting? No, once again you alight on one word or something completely out of context.
 
Vixen said:
Did you miss where I said it was related to how fast they were orbiting? No, once again you alight on one word or something completely out of context.
Click to expand...
Orbital speed has nothing to do with it. Whether you're in LEO at 7.5 km/sec, or at an orbital radius 385,000 km at 1 km/sec, you will be weightless. There will be no discernible difference for someone inside a spacecraft, not even for their hair.

Earth is averaging 29.8 km/sec around the sun, the sun is orbiting the galactic center at ≈ 225 km/sec. How do you think those velocities figure into the behavior of an astronaut's hair?

One word (or a few words, anyway), does so much to demonstrate your ignorance of basic physics.
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
Orbital speed has nothing to do with it. Whether you're in LEO at 7.5 km/sec, or at an orbital radius 385,000 km at 1 km/sec, you will be weightless. There will be no discernible difference for someone inside a spacecraft, not even for their hair.

Earth is averaging 29.8 km/sec around the sun, the sun is orbiting the galactic center at ≈ 225 km/sec. How do you think those velocities figure into the behavior of an astronaut's hair?

One word (or a few words, anyway), does so much to demonstrate your ignorance of basic physics.
Click to expand...
It's what it said on the web. But thanks for the update,
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It's what it said in the web.
Click to expand...
Link, please.

A person of ordinary intelligence understands that going really, really fast doesn't do anything to your hair unless you stick your head out the window. Did no part of that overclocked, Triple-Niner brain stop and think, "Wait, that can't be right?" And a person of ordinary intelligence knows that things don't orbit in the atmosphere, and that as such there is no effect on the visibility of stars by being in orbit above the atmosphere compared to being on the lunar surface.
 
Last edited:
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