Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Andy_Ross]

Were there wheel tappers?

No, nor were there any Shunters.
It was the Territorial Army Social Club. There was no longer a TA unit in Guisborough and hadn't been since the early 70s but the club still existed even though there wasn't a connection.
Same with the Quoits Club, their Quoits pitches have been a car park since the 60s

 

[Vixen]

All your previous sections followed from their predecessors. You wrote, "Kimo Säpi tells you that your coordinates are Latitude N 51° 07.6' 23.2" Longitude W 009° 43' 36.7", give or take a few nautical miles error margin." How did Kimo determine that, if not by the process you tried to describe in previous sections.

We all had a good laugh, not only at your lack of understanding of how precision works, but also your ongoing ineptitude in using primes notation.

OK, so an error crept in. Nice to keep you happy.

Degrees, Minutes, Seconds​

The primary unit in which longitude and latitude are given is degrees (°). There are 360° of longitude (180° E ↔ 180° W) and 180° of latitude (90° N ↔ 90° S). Each degree can be broken into 60 minutes (’). Each minute can be divided into 60 seconds (”). For finer accuracy, fractions of seconds given by a decimal point are used. A base-sixty notation is called a sexagesimal notation.

1° = 60’ = 3600”
For example, a spot of ground in upstate New York can be designated by 43°2’27” N, 77°14’30.60” W. https://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion1/tc_units.html

 

[Reformed Offlian]

This is exactly the problem. The 'trust me' principle because, 'We're the good guys'. You make the same mistake as someone I know: anyone she's in disagreement with has some kind of personality defect. It's a form of self¨defence, rather than addressing the difference of opinion.

It is not a matter of trust, but of drawing the most reasonable conclusion based on available evidence. Just because a jury acquits a defendant does not entitle you to assume that they decided to "trust" the defense.

The evidence for the Apollo landing exists. Any conclusion about what happened must provide a reasonable explanation for that evidence. And we have seen time and again in this thread that you (along with the hoaxers you parrot) cannot do that. In many cases, you do not even seem to know what that evidence is. For instance, you were obviously ignorant of the original audio of the Eagle landing that indicated quite clearly Eagle's altitude when engine shutoff occured.

It is hoaxers like you who must simply trust their sources, and this is in spite of the fact that these repeatedly show themselves undeserving of such trust. You must trust them when they tell you that the surface of the moon is highly radioactive, or that we should expect to see stars in photographs set to daylight exposures, or that the astronauts traversing the Van Allen belts only had a thin layer of aluminum between themselves and a howling maelstrom of searing radiation death, or that tracking stations could plausibly mistake a spacecraft in low earth orbit for one on the moon.

You have, on more than one occasion, and by your own admission, simply posted the first result you found from a Google search and accepted what it appeared to show uncrictically. You are not in a position to criticize your interlocutors for misplaced trust.

 

[JayUtah]

Perhaps he should think back to the analogy with a drone in Exercise 3.

Perhaps you should just quit stalling and explain once and for all lwhat you mean by "geopostioned satellite." As for Exercise 3, I gave you the correct answers, which you agreed were correct. One of those answers is that a satellite is never described as "geopositioned."

Quite stalling. Quite whining. Just give us a plain answer.

 

[Vixen]

It is not a matter of trust, but of drawing the most reasonable conclusion based on available evidence. Just because a jury acquits a defendant does not entitle you to assume that they decided to "trust" the defense.

The evidence for the Apollo landing exists. Any conclusion about what happened must provide a reasonable explanation for that evidence. And we have seen time and again in this thread that you (along with the hoaxers you parrot) cannot do that. In many cases, you do not even seem to know what that evidence is. For instance, you were obviously ignorant of the original audio of the Eagle landing that indicated quite clearly Eagle's altitude when engine shutoff occured.

It is hoaxers like you who must simply trust their sources, and this is in spite of the fact that these repeatedly show themselves undeserving of such trust. You must trust them when they tell you that the surface of the moon is highly radioactive, or that we should expect to see stars in photographs set to daylight exposures, or that the astronauts traversing the Van Allen belts only had a thin layer of aluminum between themselves and a howling maelstrom of searing radiation death, or that tracking stations could plausibly mistake a spacecraft in low earth orbit for one on the moon.

You have, on more than one occasion, and by your own admission, simply posted the first result you found from a Google search and accepted what it appeared to show uncrictically. You are not in a position to criticize your interlocutors for misplaced trust.

That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to Axxman's claims that anyone feeling their lip curl re Apollo11 must be an alcoholic, mentally ill, completely bonkers and probably stark raving mad, whilst we are at it. But don't you see, that is the type of 'debate' one hears in a children's playground. It's just self-defence and self-comfort when we tell ourselves, "My Daddy is bigger than yours, and anyway, you smell of poo!"

 

[JayUtah]

OK, so an error crept in.

No, you still don't understand how primes notation works, even after I gave you an entire thread on the subject.

You're posing these questions to @JesseCuster because you think he was asking you to teach you something he did not know. Instead he was asking you to explain your reasoning to someone you could not assume shared your personal understanding of the subject. The different is very important because the latter exercise is meant to ferret out mistakes such as the ones you're making on a daily basis.

You are the student. You are not the teacher. It's exam time. The examination question is, "Describe thoroughly what you understand the phrase 'non-geopositioned satellite' to mean in the context of Apollo missions."

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps should just quit stalling and explain once and for all lwhat you mean by "geopostioned satellite." As for Exercise 3, I gave you the correct answers, which you agreed were correct. One of those answers is that a satellite is never described as "geopositioned."

Quite stalling. Quite whining. Just give us a plain answer.

You did get one answer wrong. For a geostationary position with Earth you need an orbit of apx 36K km out, not 'any one of those' distances as indicated.

 

[Andy_Ross]

OK, so an error crept in. Nice to keep you happy.

We already knew.
You obviously didn't which is why the "error crept in" as it always does.

 

[JayUtah]

You did get one answer wrong. For a geostationary position with Earth you need an orbit of apx 36K km out, not 'any one of those' distances as indicated.

My answer was that a geostationary orbit was not required. I specifically stated that any of those orbital altitudes would work as an orbit from which to photograph the subject. I made no representations about whether any of them was geostationary. You are the one laboring under the misconception that only a geostationary orbit is compatible with photographing ground features.

Now quit trying to throw shade on everyone else and answer the question.

 

[Vixen]

No, you still don't understand how primes notation works, even after I gave you an entire thread on the subject.

You're posing these questions to @JesseCuster because you think he was asking you to teach you something he did not know. Instead he was asking you to explain your reasoning to someone you could not assume shared your personal understanding of the subject. The different is very important because the latter exercise is meant to ferret out mistakes such as the ones you're making on a daily basis.

You are the student. You are not the teacher. It's exam time. The examination question is, "Describe thoroughly what you understand the phrase 'non-geopositioned satellite' to mean in the context of Apollo missions."

Unfortunately, JesseCuster is still asking about that captain in Tallinn and the freaking Atlantic Lock, despite trillions of pages of explanations.

 

[JayUtah]

One test result is for one social club, pass mark 2%, the other refers to a test for a different one, pass mark >+sd 3.17

Yes, one is obviously the acceptance letter from British Mensa, examples of which can be found by the dozens online.

The other claiming 99.9 percentile is most likely a score on the Cattell III B test, which is claiming a perfect score of 162 for a juvenile. Are you claiming that as a juvenile you scored a perfect score on the Cattell III B test?

 

[JayUtah]

Unfortunately, JesseCuster is still asking about that captain in Tallinn and the freaking Atlantic Lock, despite trillions of pages of explanations.

Irrelevant.

Tell us what you think a "non-geopositioned satellite" is with respect the the Apollo missions. Quit stalling.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Example: WE LANDED ON THE MOON MULTIPLE TIMES. The Apollo program, along with the entire US Space Program, is not only the best documented event and project in human history, it's almost over-documented. Arguing that it didn't happen requires a long list of physics factors to be wrong, simple science to be wrong, and it requires most people to be stupider than the idiot trying to foist this CT. That's why every moon-landing hoax CTist is either an alcoholic, mentally ill, a con artist, a religious fanatic, or a mix of these factors.

This is exactly the problem. The 'trust me' principle because, 'We're the good guys'. You make the same mistake as someone I know: anyone she's in disagreement with has some kind of personality defect. It's a form of self¨defence, rather than addressing the difference of opinion.

It is not a matter of trust,

That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to Axxman's claims that anyone feeling their lip curl re Apollo11 must be an alcoholic, mentally ill, completely bonkers and probably stark raving mad, whilst we are at it. But don't you see, that is the type of 'debate' one hears in a children's playground. It's just self-defence and self-comfort when we tell ourselves, "My Daddy is bigger than yours, and anyway, you smell of poo!"

Your argument would be more convincing if you could name a moon-landing hoax CTist who isn't either an alcoholic, mentally ill, a con artist, a religious fanatic, or a mix of these factors.

So far, you haven't been able to name a single example of such a person.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, one is obviously the acceptance letter from British Mensa, examples of which can be found by the dozens online.

The other claiming 99.9 percentile is most likely a score on the Cattell III B test, which is claiming a perfect score for a juvenile. Are you claiming that as a juvenile you scored a perfect score on the Cattell III B test?

No, I was not a juvenile ATT. As I said, the second one was not a British Mensa test score but for a triple nine club. So whatever your beliefs as to its merits, it is true I am a triple niner. This was a rebuttal to Foster Zygote's persistent claim I made it up.

 

[Vixen]

Your argument would be more convincing if you could name a moon-landing hoax CTist who isn't either an alcoholic, mentally ill, a con artist, a religious fanatic, or a mix of these factors.

So far, you haven't been able to name a single example of such a person.

Allen and Weaver seem perfectly normal and respectable to me.

 

[JayUtah]

This is exactly the problem. The 'trust me' principle because, 'We're the good guys'.

The principle has nothing to do with personalities or who might be "the good guys." The principle is that only one side actually has correct, testable facts on their side.

You make the same mistake as someone I know: anyone she's in disagreement with has some kind of personality defect. It's a form of self¨defence, rather than addressing the difference of opinion.

The opinions you're presenting are uninformed.

 

[JayUtah]

No, I was not a juvenile ATT.

Only someone under 18 can score 162 on the Cattell III B test. Are you claiming that you scored 162 on the Cattell III B test?

 

[JayUtah]

Allen and Weaver seem perfectly normal and respectable to me.

How is this not tantamount to you simply claiming they're "the good guys?"

The question is not whether they are normal or respectable. The question is whether they can demonstrate a suitable mastery of the historical facts and the underlying scientific principles. When you are presented with evidence that they do not have that mastery, you simply ignore it. But to others, their persistence in the face of ignorance qualifies them as con men.

 

[Vixen]

Only someone under 18 can score 162 on the Cattell III B test. Are you claiming that you scored 162 on the Cattell III B test?

That was not Cattell III.

 

[Vixen]

How is this not tantamount to you simply claiming they're "the good guys?"

The question is not whether they are normal or respectable. The question is whether they can demonstrate a suitable mastery of the historical facts and the underlying scientific principles. When you are presented with evidence that they do not have that mastery, you simply ignore it.

I was saying they don't strike me as being alcoholic, mentally ill, conmen, or religious fanatics. They seem eminently reasonable to me. That's not to say they are right but the questions they raise seem quite sensible.