Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

[TheRedWorm]

The thing I don't understand is why all those astronomers, scientists etc who supposedly know it was fake don't tell the world about it after they retire. I mean they're not beholden to NASA any more, and it can't be the mainstream media keeping them off the air since a) Patrick Moore was given national airtime every month until his recent death and b) ignorant cranks have no trouble putting their message out on the internet so why not all these smart scientists and engineers? Perhaps they don't know how to use computers.

It's a mystery, it really is.

Oh, that's easy. We bought them all off with hookers and blow.

 

[threadworm]

They are psychologically constrained to a significant degree. There's the classic PAtrick Moore interview with Neil Armstrong from 1970 in which Armstrong famously said he and the others saw no stars. But then Alan Shepard in his Moon Shot book said stars were easily seen. So a good suspicious journalist and a good suspicious atronomer like Patrick Moore(not) would realize the contradiction there is not trivial. It is a contradiction without resolution or explanation by the pro Apollo camp group and is absolute proof of hoax.

Patrick Moore is marvelous. I love his SKY AT NIGHT mag. But that doesn't mean he wasn't conned . Obviously he was. Armstrong says one thing and Shepard another. They are lying. Apollo was a hoax. Plain as that.

Nonsense. Plain as that.

Do you really need it pointing out to you how many times stars were referred to in the transcripts? Including through the optics while on the lunar surface? How many times does this garbage masquerading as a supposed piece of evidence need trotting out before people finally get it into their heads that it is the single most pointless piece of stupid going?

 

[littleelvira]

Nonsense. Plain as that.

Do you really need it pointing out to you how many times stars were referred to in the transcripts? Including through the optics while on the lunar surface? How many times does this garbage masquerading as a supposed piece of evidence need trotting out before people finally get it into their heads that it is the single most pointless piece of stupid going?

No you are mistaken. Until the Moon Shot book was written, not a one moon walking astronaut had commented that it was easy to see stars from the surface of the moon. Please produce one single reference of an astronaut making such a claim if you believe this to be true. You cannot. So the Shepard comment published on his behalf in 2011 was the first and only such comment.

 

[JayUtah]

They are psychologically constrained to a significant degree.

No, on this point it is the conspiracy theorists whose thinking is constraint. They demand to see the problem only in black and white and demand that all descriptions of seeing conditions must fit their straw-man molds. Any variance in evidence or testimony is attributed to the failure to maintain some hypothetical mandate of consistency. Such a mandate nor physical condition does not exist; it is strictly the pasted-on product of conspiracy theorists -- a particular (banned) one of late.

Conspiracy theorists are forever trying to paste their simplistic notions of the world onto others as new "rules" that must be followed. Vigorously begged questions are still begged.

There's the classic PAtrick Moore interview with Neil Armstrong from 1970 in which Armstrong famously said he and the others saw no stars.

No. Armstrong said he saw no stars except through the spacecraft optics. Contrary to your dishonest cherry-pick of this interview, Armstrong told Sir Patrick that indeed other astronauts had seen stars, and he correctly attributed that difference to differences in seeing conditions, time, opportunity, etc.

Selective quotation, and a straw man. Argument rejected.

But then Alan Shepard in his Moon Shot book said stars were easily seen.

Mentioned now on other forums by three sock puppets in the past 48 hours. Moon Shot had three authors, only one of which was an astronaut. You bear the burden to prove the scope of any statement regarding star visibility came from an appropriate author and that you're representing it here fairly.

I asked both the Apollo 14 surface crew about it, and I was told visibility varied. Mitchell informed me special steps had to be taken to see stars while standing on the surface.

Straw man. Argument rejected.

It is a contradiction without resolution or explanation by the pro Apollo camp group and is absolute proof of hoax.

Utter nonsense.

In fact the position of the Apollo debunkers has been the same, unaltered since the beginning of the debate. The position is that whether or not one sees stars depends on several conditions that varied naturally from observation to observation, and from observer to observer. That answer has never wavered in the slightest.

However, every hoax claimant selectively quotes this or that witness and applies the statements to a silly, simplistic set of expectations that they assume their critics must share. Each and every claimant makes the same inane straw-man argument, ignores the rebuttal, and runs off claiming he has not received a satisfactory answer.

Ignoring the refutation -- argument rejected.

Patrick Moore is marvelous. I love his SKY AT NIGHT mag.

Irrelevant attempt to curry favor.

Armstrong says one thing and Shepard another. They are lying. Apollo was a hoax. Plain as that.

No, you are lying. You blatantly misrepresented Armstrong's statement by leaving out the part where he directly supports the Apollo defenders' claims about varying seeing conditions and directly contradicts your dishonest summary of his interview.

Do you really think we're not familiar with the entire Armstrong interview and not just the part you cherry-pick?

 

[JayUtah]

Until the Moon Shot book was written, not a one moon walking astronaut had commented that it was easy to see stars from the surface of the moon.

You still have not proven the accuracy of that statement or your summary of it. Prove that Shepard made the statement (not one of his two co-authors), and that it applies as you believe it must.

I have shown you (in your other incarnations) examples of how authors help astronauts fill in the mundane details of their books by abstracting them from publicly available sources such as debriefings and other accounts. Given that this occurs, and given that your entire argument hangs on the authority of this statement, it seems the burden of proof is on you.

So the Shepard comment published on his behalf in 2011 was the first and only such comment.

Moon Shot was published in 1994.

 

[littleelvira]

You still have not proven the accuracy of that statement or your summary of it. Prove that Shepard made the statement (not one of his two co-authors), and that it applies as you believe it must.

I have shown you (in your other incarnations) examples of how authors help astronauts fill in the mundane details of their books by abstracting them from publicly available sources such as debriefings and other accounts. Given that this occurs, and given that your entire argument hangs on the authority of this statement, it seems the burden of proof is on you.



Moon Shot was published in 1994.

Of course Shepard did not make the argument . Barbree is a journalist and was never on the surface of the moon. So the coauthor who wrote that in 2011 did it on his or her own. You don't do that sort of thing for no reason. Proves a hoax.

 

[littleelvira]

You still have not proven the accuracy of that statement or your summary of it. Prove that Shepard made the statement (not one of his two co-authors), and that it applies as you believe it must.

I have shown you (in your other incarnations) examples of how authors help astronauts fill in the mundane details of their books by abstracting them from publicly available sources such as debriefings and other accounts. Given that this occurs, and given that your entire argument hangs on the authority of this statement, it seems the burden of proof is on you.



Moon Shot was published in 1994.

The comment about the stars being easily seen does not occur in the earlier publication. There is a small section added in the 2011 publication that addresses the hoax concern. Shepard is dead. So is Slayton. The "hoax wars" have heated up. It is a contrived addition to patch up the previously made not credible claim the stars were not seen. You seem pretty well connected. Have any idea who the bozo was who wrote that? Sure wasn't Shepard.

 

[JayUtah]

Of course Shepard did not make the argument.

Then it is not a contradiction among astronauts. Shepard said seeing conditions varied. Armstrong said seeing conditions varied. You are attempting to set them up against each other by hearsay and selective quotation, so that you can trump up an argument for inconsistency, even where no consistency would be expected.

Barbree is a journalist and was never on the surface of the moon. So the coauthor who wrote that in 2011 did it on his or her own.

Or perhaps was simply mistaken.

You don't do that sort of thing for no reason.

Are you claiming you are able to determine what Barbree's or Benedict's motives were? I'd like to see you prove that.

The null hypothesis is that it's a simple error. If you can prove otherwise, do so.

Proves a hoax.

No, it proves how willing you are to make up nonsense to prove your predetermined belief. You deliberately misquoted one astronaut and carelessly reported another, and now you're pretending you can tell what other people think.

I have caught you in a lie. Now we just have to see how much further you're willing to lie in order to serve your desires.

 

[JayUtah]

The "hoax wars" have heated up.

No. By all measures people have moved on to other conspiracy theories such as 9/11.

You seem pretty well connected.

Do not obsess over me. I've had quite enough of it.

Have any idea who the bozo was who wrote that? Sure wasn't Shepard.

Just a few posts ago you attributed authority for the star visibility statement to Shepard. You specifically claim Armstrong said one thing, but Shepard said another.

Now it seems you've changed horses and you cannot cite an astronaut authority for the statement that stars were "easily visible" from the Moon. Without such authority, you have no contradiction.

You just refuted your own argument.

 

[littleelvira]

wrong quote cited.

 

[littleelvira]

Then it is not a contradiction among astronauts. Shepard said seeing conditions varied. Armstrong said seeing conditions varied. You are attempting to set them up against each other by hearsay and selective quotation, so that you can trump up an argument for inconsistency, even where no consistency would be expected.



Or perhaps was simply mistaken.



Are you claiming you are able to determine what Barbree's or Benedict's motives were? I'd like to see you prove that.

The null hypothesis is that it's a simple error. If you can prove otherwise, do so.



No, it proves how willing you are to make up nonsense to prove your predetermined belief. You deliberately misquoted one astronaut and carelessly reported another, and now you're pretending you can tell what other people think.

I have caught you in a lie. Now we just have to see how much further you're willing to lie in order to serve your desires.

No you are mistaken. Shepard's book says stars were easily seen. So either Shepard made that statement to his coauthors and for whatever reason it wasn't printed until the 2011 edition. In this case Shepard directly contradicts his own fellow moonwalker Mitchell who made no such claim, not to mention contradicts every other moon walker.

The other possibility is Shepard never made this claim. In this case the posthumous addition was made with great intention to let every body know stars really were easily seen , to cover up for the lie previously told.

Either way it proves the hoax. Very compelling piece of evidence. Devastating really because no matter who "wrote" it the conspirators are discovered here. They never should have done that one. Shows how desperate they are becoming.

 

[JayUtah]

No you are mistaken. Shepard's book says stars were easily seen.

Prove Shepard is the authority for that statement.

So either Shepard made that statement to his coauthors and for whatever reason it wasn't printed until the 2011 edition.

Why must that be the case? Why cannot his coauthors have written that based on their own research?

In this case Shepard directly contradicts his own fellow moonwalker Mitchell who made no such claim...

Argument from silence. Again, the statements I have had from both crew members are consistent.

...not to mention contradicts every other moon walker.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

The other possibility is Shepard never made this claim. In this case the posthumous addition was made with great intention to let every body know stars really were easily seen, to cover up for the lie previously told.

No, that is your supposition as to motive. As before, it could be a simple error. If you believe it to be an intentional attempt to mislead, that is your burden of proof.

Either way it proves the hoax.

No, you simply have two silly straw men arguments.

 

[littleelvira]

And you didn't read what I wrote. Try again. I made no reference to things written by astronauts afterwards.

Stars are continually referred to throughout every Apollo mission. One of the first things they did on landing Apollo 11 was use them to try and fix their location. Either you know this and are being deliberately disingenuous, or you don't know this and your research skills are pitiful.

Produce, word for word, what is written in Shephard's biography, and we'll see how genuine your alleged interpretation. Then explain why they should, or should not, be able to see stars and under what circumstances.

Or just return to your poop fixation, you seem to type enough of it.

Neil Armstrong is very clear. He did not see stars from the surface of the moon. He told Patrick Moore in his famous interview and told the world after his return to earth at the press conference. We did not see stars, was Neils report. Now Shepard says stars were easily seen, and he was not refering to using an AOT. Here's the quote from Moon Shot;

"“Where were the stars?” the myth believers then asked. The cameras that NASA sent to the moon had to use short-exposure times to take pictures of the bright lunar surface and the moonwalkers’ white spacesuits. Stars’ images, easily seen by the moonwalkers, were too faint and underexposed to be seen as they are in photographs taken from space shuttles and the International Space Station."

This is from the 2011 edition. Note the reference to the space station. I would say that it is obvious Shepard did not write this. If he did, sure proves a hoax now doesn't it? But on the other hand, proves it just as well if we attribute it to some "coauthor" writing for Shepard now long dead. Patching up that hole so big you could fly a Saturn Five through it.

 

[threadworm]

Buzz Aldrin, "Magnificent Desolation: The Long Journey Home From the Moon"

We performed an intricate series of star-sightings through our telescope, ascertaining our position vis-à-vis several different stars including Rigel, Navi, and Capella, to align our guidance platform prior to liftoff. By averaging our readings, we would know what kind of orbit we needed to rendezvous with Mike again..

 

[littleelvira]

Prove Shepard is the authority for that statement.



Why must that be the case? Why cannot his coauthors have written that based on their own research?



Argument from silence. Again, the statements I have had from both crew members are consistent.



Assumes facts not in evidence.



No, that is your supposition as to motive. As before, it could be a simple error. If you believe it to be an intentional attempt to mislead, that is your burden of proof.



No, you simply have two silly straw men arguments.

You've missed the point, it is all the more devastating if Shepard is NOT the author. Repeating myself, I say he's dead and someone got the bad idea to add this to a "new edition" . You really should take a look at the two books and see what they added there in 2011. Very bad idea. Tisk tisk tisk. Can't trust these guys with our 25,000,000,000 quid now can we?

 

[JayUtah]

Neil Armstrong is very clear. He did not see stars from the surface of the moon.

He is equally clear in saying just a few sentences later that other astronauts did, contrary to your untrue portrayal of the interview on this point. He is further clear in saying that the difference between their experience and his is due to ordinary differences in the conditions of seeing, which is how the Apollo defenders have been answering this question since the 1970s.

You were caught cherry-picking Armstrong's interview. We have thus established your dishonesty. We only have to see how far you're willing to take it.

Now Shepard says stars were easily seen...

Asked and answered. You refuted the authority for this statement yourself.

If he did, sure proves a hoax now doesn't it?

Asked and answered. Straw man.

 

[littleelvira]

Buzz Aldrin, "Magnificent Desolation: The Long Journey Home From the Moon"

That's not relevant. He's using an AOT, and by the way. If you study the issue closely, he didn't readily sight the stars through the AOT. But I digress. Take a look at the Shepard reference above. He's not refering to sighting stars through the AOT. This quote from Moon Shot refers to sighting stars out moonwalking as Armstrong says he could not do.

 

[littleelvira]

He is equally clear in saying just a few sentences later that other astronauts did, contrary to your untrue portrayal of the interview on this point. He is further clear in saying that the difference between their experience and his is due to ordinary differences in the conditions of seeing, which is how the Apollo defenders have been answering this question since the 1970s.

You were caught cherry-picking Armstrong's interview. We have thus established your dishonesty. We only have to see how far you're willing to take it.



Asked and answered. You refuted the authority for this statement yourself.



Asked and answered. Straw man.

No he said other astronauts claimed to have seen planets. Stars no.

 

[JayUtah]

You've missed the point...

No, I simply refused to stipulate your straw man. Now kindly desist with the pointless (and telltale) rhetoric and address the refutation.

You have no authority for the statement you attribute to Shepard. You admitted this. Therefore it is not the testimony of an astronaut from the lunar surface.

You misquoted Armstrong in the Moore interview, leaving out the part where he contradicted not only your summary of the interview but also your claims on this point.

There is no expectation of consistency in all astronaut accounts, due to different seeing conditions.

Your argument is factually incorrect, logically incorrect, and you have been proven dishonest in making it. This point is soundly refuted.

 

[littleelvira]

He is equally clear in saying just a few sentences later that other astronauts did, contrary to your untrue portrayal of the interview on this point. He is further clear in saying that the difference between their experience and his is due to ordinary differences in the conditions of seeing, which is how the Apollo defenders have been answering this question since the 1970s.

You were caught cherry-picking Armstrong's interview. We have thus established your dishonesty. We only have to see how far you're willing to take it.



Asked and answered. You refuted the authority for this statement yourself.



Asked and answered. Straw man.

In 1970 the only other alleged moon walkers were Bean and Conrad. Nowhere do they claim to have seen stars, planets or big foot from the moon's surface.