Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

[ClarkMag]

The fake thing I noticed about the Apollo landing, was that when I watched it live in 1969, he said something about the sea of tranquility.

Then on replays, it was the one step for man thing.

 

[turingtest]

The fake thing I noticed about the Apollo landing, was that when I watched it live in 1969, he said something about the sea of tranquility.

Then on replays, it was the one step for man thing.

Wut? What did he say about the Sea Of Tranquility? More importantly, when did he say it (whatever it was)?

 

[Spindrift]

The fake thing I noticed about the Apollo landing, was that when I watched it live in 1969, he said something about the sea of tranquility.

Then on replays, it was the one step for man thing.

Huh? You do realize the landing and the walk were hours apart?

 

[abaddon]

The fake thing I noticed about the Apollo landing, was that when I watched it live in 1969, he said something about the sea of tranquility.

Then on replays, it was the one step for man thing.

No, you seem to be confusing the conversation at touchdown, where Armstrong said:

102:45:58 Armstrong (onboard): Engine arm is off. (Pause) (Now on voice-activated comm) Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.

with first EVA where Armstrong said:

109:24:23 Armstrong: That's one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind. (Long Pause)

almost seven hours later.

 

[JayUtah]

Help me understand how those two statements, taken either together or separately, would indicate a fake.

 

[abaddon]

Help me understand how those two statements, taken either together or separately, would indicate a fake.

At best, faulty memory. Our latest protagonist seems unable to express a cogent position.

 

[Corsair 115]

"We're whalers on the Moon, we carry a harpoon..."

"But there ain't no whales so we tell tall tales and sing a whaling tune."

 

[turingtest]

The fake thing I noticed about the Apollo landing, was that when I watched it live in 1969, he said something about the sea of tranquility.

Then on replays, it was the one step for man thing.

Help me understand how those two statements, taken either together or separately, would indicate a fake.

I think the idea is that one statement (the "one step for man thing" in replays) was substituted for the other ("something about the sea of tranquility"), indicating deception by the media, and, thus, a fake. Of course, this is based on Clark's memory of an event from over 45 years ago- and the memory is infallible, as is indicated by the fact that he remembers "something" being said about the Sea of Tranquility.

 

[jaydeehess]

Then he got it wrong, should have been "a man". Odd they did not do a retake.

 

[JayUtah]

I think the idea is that one statement (the "one step for man thing" in replays) was substituted for the other ("something about the sea of tranquility"), indicating deception by the media, and, thus, a fake. Of course, this is based on Clark's memory of an event from over 45 years ago- and the memory is infallible, as is indicated by the fact that he remembers "something" being said about the Sea of Tranquility.

Perhaps, but how flimsy. The "Tranquility Base here..." line and the "One small step..." line are both so well enshrined in the audio history of our species that I can't imagine how anyone could confuse them who spent more than a few minutes researching the Apollo record.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Perhaps, but how flimsy. The "Tranquility Base here..." line and the "One small step..." line are both so well enshrined in the audio history of our species that I can't imagine how anyone could confuse them who spent more than a few minutes researching the Apollo record.

You have just summarized every hoax claim ever: failure to spend more than a few minutes researching the subject.

 

[jaydeehess]

You have just summarized every hoax claim ever: failure to spend more than a few minutes researching the subject.

,,,and lack of reading comprehension and temporal connections between events.


Why is "this happens, then another thing happens" such a difficult concept?

 

[turingtest]

,,,and lack of reading comprehension and temporal connections between events.


Why is "this happens, then another thing happens" such a difficult concept?

Even when they do recognize the concept, it's almost always twisted in such a way that merely temporal connections automatically become causative ones- contingency is framed as necessarily evidence of agency.

 

[JohnG]

The fake thing I noticed about the Apollo landing, was that when I watched it live in 1969, he said something about the sea of tranquility.

Then on replays, it was the one step for man thing.

You make me sad.

 

[AdMan]

The fake thing I noticed about the Apollo landing, was that when I watched it live in 1969, he said something about the sea of tranquility.

Then on replays, it was the one step for man thing.

You make me sad.

Gotta be a Poe. If not, I'm sad too.

 

[JohnG]

Gotta be a Poe. If not, I'm sad too.

I'm sad either way. Life's too short for this nonsense.

 

[The Atheist]

Life's too short for this nonsense.

A little nonsense, now and then, is relished by the wisest men.

Willy Wonka.

 

[JohnG]

A little nonsense, now and then, is relished by the wisest men.

Willy Wonka.

Well, there's nonsense and then there's non-sense.

 

[JayUtah]

Well, there's nonsense and then there's non-sense.

Exactly. I have a small amount of sympathy and patience for people who just don't understand the science. They may often remain stubborn in their misunderstanding, but some things like integrated radiation exposure across varying flux and energy are legitimately difficult topics to understand.

But I have no patience for flaws in basic comprehension.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Exactly. I have a small amount of sympathy and patience for people who just don't understand the science. They may often remain stubborn in their misunderstanding, but some things like integrated radiation exposure across varying flux and energy are legitimately difficult topics to understand.

But I have no patience for flaws in basic comprehension.

I just replied to someone on YouTube who seems to be confused by the new findings as well. Someone else explained that the newly discovered belt only lasted a few weeks during heavy solar activity and was likely not there during any of the Apollo missions, then I added that EM emissions and charged particles are quite different phenomena despite both being referred to as "radiation", because he had expressed the misapprehension that the new belt should have made it impossible to communicate with anything beyond the belt. I pointed out that radio astronomers have had no difficulty observing quasars that amount to about one quadrillionth of a Watt, so it should be no problem to pick up radio signals many billions of times stronger from Apollo craft. He claims that he never had any doubts about Apollo before, but that these new findings have made him question the truth of the missions. Well see how honest he is when (if) he responds.