Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Reformed Offlian]

The ability to admit one is not an expert goes a long way, too. Nobody cares if one doesn't have expertise, as long as they admit when they are outclassed. I've yet to see @Vixen admit defeat, even in the face of facts given by actual, documented experts like @JayUtah.

Socratic ignorance is for chumps.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I don't think that's true. The big topic back in the day was the nuclear arms race with people genuinely concerned about the threat of a nuclear war. So no, you don't need to be an expert to debate an issue...

You do if you're spreading nonsense about the effectiveness of lying down and putting a paper bag over your head after a nuclear bomb goes off, in direct contradiction to what actual experts are saying.

As much as you try to pretend that your opinions are just as valid as anyone else's, you can't just ignore your ignorance of this subject into invisibility.

 

[catsmate]

I don't think that's true. The big topic back in the day was the nuclear arms race with people genuinely concerned about the threat of a nuclear war. So no, you don't need to be an expert to debate an issue; presumably people would turn up at your CND/Greenham Common/Anti-Cruise missiles debates, heckling, shouting potty-mouthed epithets or just coming along to say they have no interest in the topic. How weird is that? Turning up in this thread to let people know you are not interested in it, or demanding 'Make it stop!'

Surely it's possible to find a thread that does interest you.

Another puerile attempt at distracting attention from you gross is incompetence and inability to answer questions.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This is another standard MO of Vixen's. When properly accused of conspiracy-mongering, she claims that she's merely "interested" in the topic, and falsely accuses her accusers of a) not being interested in the topic themselves, and b) having a problem with her being interested in it.

Funny how so many people without any interest in this subject manage to have dump truck loads more information about it in their heads than she has managed to Google over the last few months.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Here's an interesting old film that has some relevance.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

But as you have been shown many times now, there is direct line of sight between the moon and Earth.

Only in a Vixen thread ...

 

[P.J. Denyer]

But as you have been shown many times now, there is direct line of sight between the moon and Earth.

Yeah, but only at night! [/jk]

 

[Mojo]

But as you have been shown many times now, there is direct line of sight between the moon and Earth. A satellite of any kind unnecessary and wasn't used.

I think she might even have seen this for herself.

 

[Steve]

I think she might even have seen this for herself.

Assuming she is allowed out after dark.

 

[JayUtah]

Every @Vixen thread eventually devolves even further into the predictable sob stories. The first predictable point is—

No-one has turned up to let people know they’re not interested and no-one has demanded you stop taking part in the discussion.

It conflates disinterest in (and justified disapproval of) Vixen's puerile antics with disinterest in the subject at hand. "I have no interest in listening to Vixen pontificate and squirm" is not the same as, "I have no interest in whether Apollo was faked." Vixen seems unwilling to face the prospect of a debate that happens without her pulling the strings to make people dance.

The second predictable point is:

...no one is insisting you need to be an expert or engineer to take part in the discussion (I’m neither).

Nor are most people in the thread, yet as noted—

Funny how so many people without any interest in this subject manage to have dump truck loads more information about it in their heads than she has managed to Google over the last few months.

Every time @Vixen gets in over her head on facts and required knowledge, she retreats to the position that—as a self-proclaimed Triple Niner—she can debate any subject "abstractly" and must be taken at face value. So what if she lacks the understanding that less gravity makes things lighter? That's a pesky detail! Or that turning off the engine of a hovering spaceship will make it crash. Another pesky detail. "Real" debate doesn't wallow in these niches.

But of course this comes after her emphasis on pesky details like stars in photos or how much a backpack weighs that she thinks she got and and will make her look smart.

The same straw-man complaint she brings up in every thread is simply an invitation for us to tolerate—if not outright celebrate—her mediocrity.

Just no.

The conclusions of an abjectly uninformed person have no value in any serious debate on any subject, whether or not there are bona fide experts also involved. Vixen has unwisely chosen a topic on which I am a recognized expert and unwisely presented it in a forum where I am a regular contributor. No, she does not get to suggest that she is the equal of any of us who have bothered to properly inform ourselves about the facts and relevant physical principles.

And if she had only Googled she would have been far better off. Google is actually pretty smart about recognizing when you're suggesting an Apollo hoax topic and will direct you to correct information. Instead—as she always does—she's steeped herself in the lies and ignorance of the standard grifters on this topic. It's one thing to be vastly uninformed on a topic. It's yet another thing to attempt to educate oneself on it from the absolute worst sources.

I've yet to see @Vixen admit defeat, even in the face of facts given by actual, documented experts like @JayUtah.

She did concede that she was wrong about the LM descent engine being turned off 50-100 feet above the surface. But she tried to sneak the concession in amidst some other nonsense and then blamed everyone else for not correcting her soon enough. Even when she admits she's wrong, it's still somehow someone else's fault.

 

[Mojo]

[deleted]

 

[Mojo]

She did concede that she was wrong about the LM descent engine being turned off 50-100 feet above the surface. But she tried to sneak the concession in amidst some other nonsense and then blamed everyone else for not correcting her soon enough. Even when she admits she's wrong, it's still somehow someone else's fault.

She tried to blame Aldrin for saying that the lander was at 100 feet "shortly before" he said that the engine was shut off:

Then how did you manage to "estimate" that it was shut down at that altitude?

Because that is the height Buzz stipulated shortly before.

No it wasn't.

View attachment 74020

4:33

View attachment 74021


5:33.

Despite the fact that between those two screenshots he had said that the lander was at 10 feet, and then, immediately before the second one, that it had touched down. Vixen was certainly aware of the first of those as she had posted a screenshot of it herself, and it's hard to believe that she hadn't seen the comment about the lander touching down, as it immediately preceded the part of the video she posted a screenshot of. Unless, of course, she was sourcing the screenshots from somewhere other than the video.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Well that's all very well but you can't see the moon all the time so how can you be sure it can see us, eh? I mean, if you shut your eyes, maybe the moon can't see you.

 

[JayUtah]

Your source, Allen, is a scam artist. His book was published by a fringe publishing house that has ZERO independent vetting of the content in any off its books. You have jumped in [bed] with a source that sits on the same shelves and bigfoot, fairies, psychics, aliens, ancient aliens, alternative medicine, and ghosties. You can't seriously expect any reasonable person to take Allen's arguments seriously, let alone face value. His claims in his book have been destroyed to badly that Hiroshima feels sorry for him.

Reputation matters. It's that simple. Marcus Allen earned himself a reputation as a teller of tall tales for profit. Specifically, he was proven wrong on points he should have known. When that happens, and repentance is not forthcoming, then Allen loses his authority. Thereafter when someone says, "According to Marcus Allen..." that carries little weight or credibility. And no, assessing the reliability and credibility of people cited as authorities in support of a claim is not a distraction, not an ad hominem argument, and not a departure from the facts.

Yes, Marcus Allen was a professional photographer for a while. But when he says, "As a professional photographer I expect to see stars in Apollo photos," he shoots himself in the foot. Legions of other professional photographers (and loads of knowledgeable amateurs) can prove that the expectation is factually wrong. It's not a matter of differing expert judgment. Photographic exposure is ruthlessly mathematical. It's a matter of Allen flat-out lying under color of expertise. What he's claiming is contradicted by easily discovered, easily proven, easily demonstrated fact. No amount of expertise makes those facts go away.

Allen and his co-author Trevor Weaver ask you to trust them when they teach you things about the Apollo record and the relevant scientific and historical principles. But they lie. They omit pertinent information. They lie about what the evidence objectively shows. And when the lie, they lose the privilege of being cited seriously as authorities. They earned a reputation as dishonest peddlers of falsehoods and half-truths. That matters.

We don't need Allen and Weaver to tell us that a selenostationary orbit falls outside the Moon's Hill Sphere and as such is not physical possible. That's a fact that exists independent of them. But when they weave a fanciful tale based on their omission of pertinent evidence and their ignorance of what the evidence shows, they purport to teach the reader something they think the reader will not already know. And having taught them that thing—a nugget or two of truth wrapped in layers of ignorance, assumption, and nonsense—they can lead the reader to the desired conclusion.

Because this is their reputation in the real world, "According to Allen and Weaver..." does not instill faith that the principles about to be discussed will be the whole truth or an accurate depiction of the available facts. It is not wise to take something at face value on their authority. The conscientious researcher will have learned that their claims need fact-checking. If the claimant wishing to establish something on Allen and Weaver's authority is unwilling to do that fact-checking on their own, then they are likely to face it from someone else who is better informed and more conscientious than the claimant.

 

[JayUtah]

She tried to blame Aldrin for saying that the lander was at 100 feet "shortly before" he said that the engine was shut off...

Yes, she tried. And when that failed—as was inevitable—she conceded that I had "scored a point," and that we should all move on and not dwell on her pig-headedness.

 

[zooterkin]

Assuming she is allowed out after dark.

I wouldn't be surprised if she thought the Moon could only be seen at night, when the sky is black.

 

[Steve]

I wouldn't be surprised if she thought the Moon could only be seen at night, when the sky is black.

Exactly. That pale thing sometimes in the sky during the day is likely one of those geopositioned satellites.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Regarding the subject of Leonov's troubled EVA, and how this supposedly means that Aldrin's subsequent EVA should have been equally as difficult, it's important to note the differences between the two.

Here we see the inflatable airlock deployed from the Voskhod spacecraft as used by Leonov.


Here we see the large hatches of the Gemini spacecraft that Aldrin negotiated for his three Gemini 12 EVAs.



Note I'm assuming that Vixen is comparing Voskhod 2 with Gemini 12, but for all I know she's talking about Apollo 11.

 

[JayUtah]

The Gemini spacecraft could operate with the cabin exposed to vacuum while the Voskhod could not. Its electronics were air-cooled and would overheat if the cabin were vented. Rather than wait for the spacecraft to be made safe to operate in vacuum, allowing for a simple door for egress, the Soviets opted for a jury-rigged airlock that ultimately didn't work as expected and endangered Leonov's life. Yes, they got the record, but they did not advance their technical position in the space race.

A leftover flight-qualified Gemini hatch assembly became the EVA hatch on Skylab. Waste not, want not.

 

[Trebuchet]

Regarding the subject of Leonov's troubled EVA, and how this supposedly means that Aldrin's subsequent EVA should have been equally as difficult, it's important to note the differences between the two.

Here we see the inflatable airlock deployed from the Voskhod spacecraft as used by Leonov.
View attachment 74240

Here we see the large hatches of the Gemini spacecraft that Aldrin negotiated for his three Gemini 12 EVAs.
View attachment 74241


Note I'm assuming that Vixen is comparing Voskhod 2 with Gemini 12, but for all I know she's talking about Apollo 11.

You aren't understanding this at all. Leonov's suit turned into a balloon and almost killed him, therefore all space suits will turn into balloons and kill their occupants if exposed to a vacuum, so the Apollo moon walks can't have happened. QED.