Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Reformed Offlian]

It's nothing unusual. We refer to 'watts', 'amperes' and 'ohms', all named after various mathematicians/physicists.

So now "hills" are some sort of SI unit?

 

[JesseCuster]

I actually want to thank Vixen for this thread. We rarely have a good Apollo hoax thread anymore. I mean, I couldn't put myself out there as a misinformed goober in front of the whole board just for a the good of the conversation. I guess my ego won't let me denigrate myself in that way. So, good on you Vixen!!!

Is FSTDT still a thing? A sizeable fraction of Vixen’s posts would be worthy of submission.

 

[Mojo]

Nobody is actually this dense.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

So now "hills" are some sort of SI unit?

Yes, it's a unit of beans.

 

[JayUtah]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

There's plenty of facts in evidence to support the proposition that @Vixen knows exactly what she's doing and is purposely just saying nonsense because she knows she'll get a dozen replies.

 

[Smock]

Nobody is actually this dense.

You are underestimating @Vixen, as she is often quick to accuse. This time, her accusation would have merit.

 

[Mojo]

There's plenty of facts in evidence to support the proposition that @Vixen knows exactly what she's doing and is purposely just saying nonsense because she knows she'll get a dozen replies.

Apply Hanlon's Razor. All it requires is the assumption that she's a very stupid person with the attention span and memory of a goldfish.

 

[junkshop]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

I would suggest: Assumes facts in opposition to the evidence.

 

[JesseCuster]

It's nothing unusual. We refer to 'watts', 'amperes' and 'ohms', all named after various mathematicians/physicists.

Ohms, Amperes and and Watts are the official names for SI units. “Hill” is not even used colloquially or casually to refer to a “Hill sphere”. You are the only person trying to defend this usage (and it’s a ham fisted retcon). Lousiest analogy ever.

 

[Vixen]

This thread is not, and has never been, a perfectly ordinary debate.

It began when you posted a video of "deniers, such as Marcus Allen ~vs~ Dr Tony Cook of Aberystwyth University, explaining their arguments re: gravity, photography, shadow, wind, stars, radiation, craters, computers and lasers."

You did not make any meaningful claims until the next day, when you tried to attack the credibility of the USSR (which should have been easy) by saying two newspaper articles you had photographed were "identical", when they were obviously not the same.

Half an hour later, taking care "Not to detract from the the achievements of Armstrong & Aldrin and the third guy who stayed inside the capsule," you were saying "of course, it is undeniably factual it all happened." And then you asked "how did the capsule manage to take off again, and in the right direction? It's pointed out that there is more computer technology in one's smart phone than in the entire banks of computers at NASA at the time."

The following day, you began to talk about photography. You've been revealing remarkable ignorance of photography ever since. Who could forget "Apollo 11 took 123 surface pics in 151 minutes does the maths work?" Your discussion of photography only got worse from there.

You have posted hundreds of similar howlers. You have rarely gotten any facts right, and most of the facts you got right were irrelevant or altogether off-topic attempts to distract attention from your mistakes.

If this has been a debate at all, it has been a ridiculously one-sided debate. You are the only one who has tried to argue that the Apollo 11 moon landings were faked, and the ineptness of your arguments has been a reliable source of amusement ever since the first few days of this thread.


No, they have seen it as a great opportunity to laugh at the deniers and their arguments.

Apart from their comedic value, your efforts here have served only as an extended demonstration of the intellectual and (at times) moral bankruptcy of the deniers' arguments. Except for you, everyone who has read this thread has learned some interesting facts about the moon landings and is now more aware than ever of how ridiculous it is to deny them.


It is to be expected that denying "the achievements of Armstrong & Aldrin and the third guy who stayed inside the capsule" might anger those who honestly recognize their achievements as "undeniably factual", but your own efforts at denying those achievements have been so hilariously ineffectual that being angry at you would be like being angry at Mel Brooks for writing "Don't be stupid, be a smarty; come and join the Nazi party."

Your efforts at "debate" have served only to highlight the foolishness of denying one of the greatest and most inspiring technological feats of the twentieth century.

But if anyone really is angry at your "intellectual" interest in being wrong about almost everything almost all the time, it really does have everything to do with you.

They were well remunerated for it, were they not? Earned a place in the history books. Why would they give a toss if some Brits, such as Allen, Weaver or Percy question whether Apollo11 happened as claimed. After all, Nixon is not famed for integrity and we can see how expedient and imperative to absolutely beat the Soviets to Moon rock was - and nothing quite drives a man to insanity but the prospect of gold precious highly-sought-after minerals - and the competition with the USSR was as intense at the time as taking a last minute penalty before the final whistle.

So, yeah, saying, "Oooh we mustn't discuss this because these guys are 'heroes'", doesn't strike me as an argument that carries much weight.

---

 

[JesseCuster]

So they faked the moon landings to beat the Russians to the precious moon minerals?

This is one of your “jokes”, right? Or is there some point in there you wish to defend?

 

[junkshop]

...So, yeah, saying, "oooh we mustn't discuss this because these guys are 'heroes", doesn't strike me as an argument that carries much weight.

---

I would agree, but as no-one has made that argument in this thread, it seems a somewhat irrelevant observation.

 

[JayUtah]

Why would they give a toss if some Brits, such as Allen, Weaver or Percy question whether Apollo11 happened as claimed.

They don't, but others do. And those others have as much right to set the record straight as anyone else.

After all, Nixon is not famed for integrity...

Your obsession with Nixon doesn't really apply to Apollo history.

So, yeah, saying, "Oooh we mustn't discuss this because these guys are 'heroes'", doesn't strike me as an argument that carries much weight.

That's not the argument.

It might explain why some people are interested in pursuing the discussion, but once the discussion starts the argument isn't at all that the topic is off-limits because of some sacred heroism. The argument is instead that the facts show that the people who claim to have done something remarkable actually did it contrary to ignorant accusations made by self-serving authors.

You're completely unequipped to deal with the actual argument.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You're completely unequipped to deal with the actual argument.

On that, you and I and the evidence are in complete agreement.

 

[Vixen]

Ohms, Amperes and and Watts are the official names for SI units. “Hill” is not even used colloquially or casually to refer to a “Hill sphere”. You are the only person trying to defend this usage (and it’s a ham fisted retcon). Lousiest analogy ever.

The context told you exactly what was meant.

 

[JayUtah]

Ohms, Amperes and and Watts are the official names for SI units.

...with the quibble that when we use the names as SI units they should not be capitalized even when their abbreviations use capitals.

“Hill” is not even used colloquially or casually to refer to a “Hill sphere”.

...or anything regarding gravity or orbits. Just like ″ for minutes, this appears to be a "colloquialism" that exists only in @Vixen's head.

You are the only person trying to defend this usage (and it’s a ham fisted retcon). Lousiest analogy ever.

A smart person would have completely abandoned the notion that "hill" refers to the Hill Sphere and tried to come up with something like a spacecraft climbing to orbit is analogous to hiking up a hill. Instead she's doubling down on the prospect that her "colloquialism" is actually trying to refer to George Hill as a namesake. You "achieve a 'hill'" in the same way you might "achieve an 'ohm'" or "achieve a 'pascal.'" Still makes no sense. A "hill" isn't a unit of anything. It's not shorthand for a unit of anything. "Achieve a 'hill'" is just gibberish.

 

[JayUtah]

The context told you exactly what was meant.

...which, in your words, is _________________?

 

[Mojo]

...which, in your words, is _________________?

She can't say, because she doesn't know. She just thought it sounded good when she posted it.

 

[Vixen]

So they faked the moon landings to beat the Russians to the precious moon minerals?

This is one of your “jokes”, right? Or is there some point in there you wish to defend?

Not a joke. The Soviets were so desperate to be 'first' to get some poxy old Moon rock, their capsule arrived two days before Apollo11 took off, but unfortunately for them, crashed into the Moon surface into smithereens. Apollo11 was very much Nixon's big rabbit out of the bag. Ringing them up live by phone and doing a Hughie Green or Brucie on their return, the guys bounding down the helicopter steps.

 

[JayUtah]

She can't say, because she doesn't know. She just thought it sounded good when she posted it.

Or rather, she thought it sounded smart when she posted it. Other people say smart things. She grabs hold of the smart things and tries to use them to create the illusion that she too is smart and knows what she's talking about. Instead she demonstrates through her misuse of others' smarts that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

The context of "achieve its 'hill'" is the Hill Sphere and the limitation it imposes on lunar orbits. But her statement makes no sense in that context. In fact it's the conflicting context that means she needs to explain what her colloquialism is supposed to mean, if not the Hill Sphere.