ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags apollo hoax , moon landing hoax

Reply
Old 1st February 2013, 11:28 AM   #81
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
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.
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 11:48 AM   #82
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,571
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
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?
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:02 PM   #83
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
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.
littleelvira is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:12 PM   #84
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Patrick Moore is marvelous. I love his SKY AT NIGHT mag.
Irrelevant attempt to curry favor.

Quote:
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:15 PM   #85
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
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.

Quote:
So the Shepard comment published on his behalf in 2011 was the first and only such comment.
Moon Shot was published in 1994.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:17 PM   #86
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:21 PM   #87
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
littleelvira is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:22 PM   #88
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:27 PM   #89
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
The "hoax wars" have heated up.
No. By all measures people have moved on to other conspiracy theories such as 9/11.

Quote:
You seem pretty well connected.
Do not obsess over me. I've had quite enough of it.

Quote:
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.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:27 PM   #90
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
wrong quote cited.

Last edited by littleelvira; 1st February 2013 at 12:32 PM.
littleelvira is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:31 PM   #91
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
littleelvira is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:32 PM   #92
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
No you are mistaken. Shepard's book says stars were easily seen.
Prove Shepard is the authority for that statement.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
...not to mention contradicts every other moon walker.
Assumes facts not in evidence.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Either way it proves the hoax.
No, you simply have two silly straw men arguments.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:39 PM   #93
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
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.
littleelvira is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:40 PM   #94
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,571
Buzz Aldrin, "Magnificent Desolation: The Long Journey Home From the Moon"

Quote:
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..
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:42 PM   #95
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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?
littleelvira is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:44 PM   #96
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
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.

Quote:
Now Shepard says stars were easily seen...
Asked and answered. You refuted the authority for this statement yourself.

Quote:
If he did, sure proves a hoax now doesn't it?
Asked and answered. Straw man.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:44 PM   #97
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:45 PM   #98
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
littleelvira is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:46 PM   #99
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
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.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:47 PM   #100
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
littleelvira is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:51 PM   #101
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
No he said other astronauts claimed to have seen planets. Stars no.
Hair-split. Other astronauts saw things he said he couldn't. How does that support your premise that all astronauts should be seeing the same things?

Your entire argument is built on the assumption that astronauts should always report consistent visibility. Based on that premise, you pit two astronauts against each other and say that because you think they say they saw different things, there must be a hoax.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:53 PM   #102
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
Do tell, now you are saying Armstrong really did say that stars in any sense in any form could be seen from the surface of the moon? Let's have the others take a look and listen and see if they agree.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o

Take a listen and look folks, you'll hear Neil say others claimed to have seen planets. That would be only Conrad and Bean. As you'll recall Apollo 13 never made it.

As far as the stars go, Shepard or his posthumous partner in crime directly contradict Neil. Now ain't that the dangestly potent hoax exposure you ever came across?

If Shepard really said it, claimed it, the thing is fake. If someone made it up on Shepard's behalf after he was DEAD, the thing is fake.

Quite a story. Wonder why a journalist of Moore's ability never called these jerks on this?

Last edited by littleelvira; 1st February 2013 at 12:55 PM. Reason: misspell
littleelvira is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:54 PM   #103
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
Nowhere do they claim to have seen stars, planets or big foot from the moon's surface.
Nowhere you're aware of. But you digress. The point is that Armstrong reports varying seeing conditions, and you omitted that from your summary because it undermined your premise that all astronauts should have been seeing the same things. The question is whether you reported Armstrong correctly, not whether Armstrong is right or wrong about what he reports.

You deliberately misrepresented your witness. You are dishonest.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 12:57 PM   #104
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
Do tell, now you are saying...
Armstrong reported that other astronauts could see things he did not personally see.

Quote:
As far as the stars go, Shepard or his posthumous partner in crime directly contradict Neil.
Asked and answered. You admitted you have no authority for the statement you attribute to Shepard.

Quote:
Wonder why a journalist of Moore's ability never called these jerks on this?
Perhaps because he does not share your preconceptions or your predilection for pointless straw men and rhetoric.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 01:01 PM   #105
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,571
Edit: didn't see the quote for the poop.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked

Last edited by threadworm; 1st February 2013 at 01:02 PM.
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 01:06 PM   #106
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
Well isn't this interesting. A friend of mine just sent me this;


http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...34#post2104034

So it would seem JayUtah here has interrogated Ed Mitchell on this very subject. Jay said, and I quote, "I spoke to Mitchell precisely about this. He said the only way to see stars from the lunar surface was to go into the shadow of the LM, crane one's head upward for as long as possible and hold it there for approximately 30 seconds until one's eyes had dark-adapted."

Gee Jay, did you get to talk to Shepard too before he croaked? Because somebody thinks Al said this; “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."

So if big Al didn't write that, who do tell did? And more importantly why would somebody directly contradict Ed Mitchell on Al Shepard's behalf on a point as important as this, one refuting the hoaxers?

Last edited by littleelvira; 1st February 2013 at 01:07 PM. Reason: corrected spelling, corrected spelling
littleelvira is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 01:12 PM   #107
Erock
Muse
 
Erock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 751
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
Do tell, now you are saying Armstrong really did say that stars in any sense in any form could be seen from the surface of the moon? Let's have the others take a look and listen and see if they agree.
Strawman. How are you aware of what conversations he had with Bean and Conrad. Why should they report such an innocuous thing officially, when it matters not a jott to mission accomplishments and objectives.

It's only since the idiotic HB community ran with the dumbbell that the subject ever came up in the first place

Quote:
Take a listen and look folks, you'll hear Neil say others claimed to have seen planets. That would be only Conrad and Bean. As you'll recall Apollo 13 never made it.
Well let's take a guess. He chatted with Conrad and Bean who told him this. Maybe they did see stars during their Moon walks, maybe they didn't. Maybe he digressed to talking about Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 where they looked out the window long enough with dimmed cabin lights.

Quote:
As far as the stars go, Shepard or his posthumous partner in crime directly contradict Neil. Now ain't that the dangestly potent hoax exposure you ever came across?
It's proof of something, your style is identical to the lunatic sock puppet Tekeli. Armstrong had less time on the surface than the 2 on Apollo 14.

Quote:
If Shepard really said it, claimed it, the thing is fake.
Easy to see stars when you adjust your eyes in shadowed areas and look upwards.

Quote:
If someone made it up on Shepard's behalf after he was DEAD, the thing is fake.
Appeal to ignorance and a false conclusion. It proves someone would have had to have made it up.

Quote:
Quite a story. Wonder why a journalist of Moore's ability never called these jerks on this?
Because they landed on the Moon six times and brought back 842lbs of lunar samples including cores verified by geologists all over the planet, amongst other indisputable proof.

What kind of person registers something like 50 different identities on various forums, making the same claims, bumping dozens of dead threads? Utter lunacy.

The only person I recall doing this, is the other troll around here.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn41RM-x4wA
__________________
The less they know the more they blow.

Last edited by Erock; 1st February 2013 at 01:18 PM. Reason: typo
Erock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 01:24 PM   #108
nomuse
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 779
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
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.
Wait, what?

You are claiming one of the authors of the book totally made up the bit about being able to see stars easily? This is the same claim you are using to make out the astronauts as liars?

So....because someone made up a claim about visibility, the real stars over a real Moon that no-one ever went to would have been used by real astronauts who in reality couldn't see them, so the fake astronauts who already disagreed with the person who made up the claim about stars should have made up a fake story about navigating by those stars?

Are you even reading your own posts?

You don't seem to be able to keep a coherent thought for longer than a comma splice.
nomuse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 01:27 PM   #109
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga Part II

Wow, within seconds you're able to come up with a link to a thread on another forum by the now-banned sock puppet of Patrick Tekeli, also banned here, that makes exactly the same argument 2 days ago that you're making here. That's a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of the topic for someone who's just starting out.

Yes I spoke to Shepard before he died.

If you claim he is the authority for the "easy star" statement then that is your burden if proof. If you cannot connect it to a suitable authority, it has no value.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 02:24 PM   #110
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by Erock View Post
From further up this page



Can you actually read the posts between your repetitious sock puppetry?




That is just stupid. If the quote was from Shepard, or whoever, it clearly refers to the visibility of stars in photographs
No, that is not correct. The statement by "Shepard" in Moon Shot clearly indicates that even though stars were not readily photographed as aperture and shutter were geared to photographing the astronauts and the lunar landscape, they were quite visible. As a matter of fact, the stars were easily visible. Take a look and read again Erock.

“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."

What is being said here? Well several things. First of all and foremost, this is a statement made in defense of the reality of Apollo. The intent of this posthumous statement by "Shepard" is to debunk hoax claims that make reference to star visibility denial as their base. Let us break it down;

1) "Where were the stars?” the myth believers then asked."

Introduces the subject's context. Specifically this context is one dealing with and refuting the hoax. This is not a casual statement about star visibility. It is an arguement for the truth of the landings. It is clearly written as an attempt to debunk the hoax argument. Next line;

2)"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."

"Shepard" tells us here that short exposure times were necessary given the subject matter of the photos. This implies what in fact comes next. Even though the stars were easily seen by the moonwalkers, "Shepard" tells us they were not captured in the photos because the shutter speeds were brief. Longer exposures would have been needed to capture the stars. Here's the line;

3)"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."

And this is in fact the case. The last line(number 3 above) indicates contrary to what Ed Mitchell told JayUtah, star images were EASILY SEEN by Alan Shepard. Easily seen but not captured given the brief exposures.

In conclusion the "Alan Shepard" character of the book is telling us the confusion about star sightings is readily explained. They see the stars no problem, but they are not captured in the photos as the exposure time is too brief for the film to pick up the starlight.

This is all straightforward and would seem to most like a fair statement but for the fact that it contradicts what we have been told prior to 2011 when this statement ostensibly attributed to Shepard was published. And one concludes then this is in fact not a fair statement. It is one half of a contradiction constituting 50% of a larger and rather complex lie.

Ed Mitchell "flew" with Shepard and JayUtah tells us Ed Mitchell did not easily see stars. Ed Mitchell told Jay Utah, "He(Mitchell) said the only way to see stars from the lunar surface was to go into the shadow of the LM, crane one's head upward for as long as possible and hold it there for approximately 30 seconds until one's eyes had dark-adapted."

Neil Armstrong denied star visibility in his interview with Moore;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o

and prior to that in his August 1969 press conference. A nice discussion of that event by youtube's GreaterSapien(Apollo landing believer) ;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnLHEpwQjM

Here you can see and listen to Shepard tell us that his Moon Shot book was the truth and nothing but the truth. The real deal says Al;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XNv6_6x7D0

But the 1994 edition of the book does not contain the quote being discussed here.

“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 was added in 2011. Alan Shepard died in 1998. The book's other principal author was Deke Slayton. He died in 1993 before the book's publication. Armstrong did the introduction. He was plenty alive in 2011. Barbree was the primary coauthor and is still alive. He'll be 80 in November of this year.

Our alternatives are;

1) Shepard said it and told Barbree and/or other coauthors that "stars were easily seen" but this was not published until the 2011 "easily seen stars" explicit statement as above. In this case he directly contradicts claims by Mitchell, Armstrong and the other Astronauts and given this is not a trivial contradiction, hoax is affirmed.

2) Jay Barbree or another unknown coauthor made the addition specifically addressing the hoax issue as above. In such a case Barbree or the unknown coauthor might be instructed to do this as it is difficult to conceive a coauthor never having walked on the moon making this up independent of Shepard's informing the journalist. But in ANY case, Barbree or an unknown coauthor doing this on their own or directed to do so, given the fact that the statement is explicitly directed to debunking the hoax and given the fact that it contradicts everything previous put out there officially by NASA on the subject and given the fact that the 2011 book still carries the imprimatur of Armstrong, Slayton, Shepard, Barbree, one can come to one and only one conclusion, the clearly motivated contradiction equates to hoax.

It's a done deal any way you read it.

(PS, we are as well connected as the other side. We are every bit as effective in the passing of info from one to the other as the pro real Apollo landings side. I would argue we are almost certainly more effective.)
littleelvira is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 02:30 PM   #111
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
No, that is not correct. The statement by "Shepard" in Moon Shot...
No authority for this statement. You admitted it. We're done.

Quote:
Our alternatives are...
...the same straw men you've been peddling for two pages now. You have no authority for that statement. You have no argument.

Quote:
PS, we are as well connected as the other side.
Because you're all the same person, Dr. Socks.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 02:41 PM   #112
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No authority for this statement. You admitted it. We're done.



...the same straw men you've been peddling for two pages now. You have no authority for that statement. You have no argument.



Because you're all the same person, Dr. Socks.
It appears few here have the courage of their convictions. Is anyone brave enough from the pro landings were real side to suggest who wrote this and why?

“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."

Simple enough. Who is the author of the quote above? Why did he or she write this? Do you believe someone simply made this up?

Pretty important book according to Shepard, Slayton, and even Neil Armstrong himself who wrote the introduction.

Shall we simply ignore this and pretend it does not exist?
littleelvira is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 02:47 PM   #113
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,552
Mod WarningSeveral posts moved to AAH. Please, do not make sockpuppet allegations in threads. Instead, just report a post and your suspicions to the Mod Team.
Posted By:LashL
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 02:50 PM   #114
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
Simple enough. Who is the author of the quote above? Why did he or she write this? Do you believe someone simply made this up?
You are the one arguing that it represents an authoritative statement of viewing conditions on the lunar surface. You have the burden to prove that. If you cannot establish that it has no relevant authority, then it is irrelevant to the discussion. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 02:50 PM   #115
Erock
Muse
 
Erock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 751
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
Stars’ images, easily seen by the moonwalkers

"Easily seen", sounds right. Raise the gold visor, stand in the shade and adjust your eyes away from the surface - easy. If you want to waste time seeing stars through a perspex visor that would be no different to a desert on Earth

This is nonsensical strawman rhetoric. Did Armstrong refer to the relative difficulty? No. Did the comment from Shepard's book mention the circumstances for which this was easy? No.

For god's sake .........Next
__________________
The less they know the more they blow.

Last edited by Erock; 1st February 2013 at 02:57 PM.
Erock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 02:54 PM   #116
Erock
Muse
 
Erock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 751
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
No, that is not correct.
OK conceded.
__________________
The less they know the more they blow.
Erock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 03:40 PM   #117
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
It appears few here have the courage of their convictions. Is anyone brave enough from the pro landings were real side to suggest who wrote this and why?

“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."

Simple enough. Who is the author of the quote above? Why did he or she write this? Do you believe someone simply made this up?

Pretty important book according to Shepard, Slayton, and even Neil Armstrong himself who wrote the introduction.

Shall we simply ignore this and pretend it does not exist?
Are you courageous enough to admit there is no proof whatsoever that there was a concerted effort to fake the moon landings? You know, real proof, like signed confessions, money trails, corroborated forensic evidence of tamperings, etc. And spoken "discrepencies" that can also be explained by faulty memory and other human failings do not count, nor does incredulity or lack of understanding of science or engineering on your behalf.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 04:21 PM   #118
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,193
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
It appears few here have the courage of their convictions. Is anyone brave enough from the pro landings were real side to suggest who wrote this and why?
I don't care who wrote it. It's a popular account first written over two decades after the last Apollo landing. It's laughable to claim that, even if a characterization in said book was at odds with earlier reports, that implies, let alone proves, some sort of "hoax".

Such quote-mining and insistence on some sort of sterile perfect narrative consistency, across decades of multimedia discussion regarding an enterprise involving millions of man-years of effort, is an artificial requirement dreamed up by conspiracists with an axe to grind but no real idea what they're talking about. In addition to being no engineer, you're no historian. In fact, you contradicted yourself in this short thread; by your own criterion, you must be lying.

Of course, this whole thing has been rehashed endlessly, for example to Patrick1000 on this forum, to "fattydash" on AH, to "BFischer" on BAUT/CQ. And now it's being rehashed again, with exactly the same cartoon "gotchas", and just as ridiculous as before.

You're also recycling the same idiotic claim that Apollo participants would actually go along with a hoax. Time to put up or shut up on that claim. What exactly is your experience with large aerospace engineering projects? How many Apollo-era engineers and astronauts have you personally known and worked with? I've known and worked with them for over two decades. You have no idea what you are talking about, just like Patrick Tekeli's recently-banned sock-puppet on CQ; you know, the one your friend told you about.

Lest you think I'm actually upset by your hamfisted attempt to slur the folks who landed Americans on the Moon a half-dozen times, instrumented it with robotic laboratories, returned hundreds of pounds of it for analysis, etc., rest assured I'm merely amused. None of this "controversy" exists when the web browser is closed. The claims you keep recycling are good for a giggle, but you and the rest of the Apollo hoax believers are simply irrelevant in the real world.

Last edited by sts60; 1st February 2013 at 04:23 PM.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 04:23 PM   #119
trebor
Thinker
 
trebor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 152
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
But then Alan Shepard in his Moon Shot book said stars were easily seen.
I have actually read that book recently and nowhere in it was this said.
Provide an actual quote next time.

Edit:
Ah, I see from later comments that this was only in the later versions, and not by Shepard anyway.

Last edited by trebor; 1st February 2013 at 04:25 PM.
trebor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2013, 05:28 PM   #120
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,182
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
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.
You quote-mine a source you have not produced in context to spread a lie? Is that logical? WWSD?

Do you have problems with the equations of motion for space flight and orbital mechanics? It would be fantastic if you show with math/physics it is impossible to do space flight? lol, as our earth and solar system speed through the Universe?

Show the math for your claims. Until then the fantasy of not going to the Moon remains a sad commentary for education.

Quote:
“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 moon-walkers, were too faint and underexposed to be seen as they are in photographs taken from space shuttles and the International Space Station."
This explains the photos with no stars, thus debunking your fellow no science, no moon landing lies. You debunk most of the Apollo Hoax nonsense, and, make up another silly claim? It does not make sense. I would go for the math stuff, prove it can't be done with math. Good luck.

Last edited by beachnut; 1st February 2013 at 05:36 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.