Mirror on the Moon

[Pluto]

My point is partly, to hear the reasons why others think we went to the moon, and then to see if those reasons could convince me.

[Hobbes' Choice]

My point is partly, to hear the reasons why others think we went to the moon, and then to see if those reasons could convince me.

How old are you. For people of my generation the truth of the Moon Landings is as plain and simple as the invention of any transistor radio.


Have you ever seen one of these in real life?
It was powered by a PP3 9v battery, and you could get MW, or LW (no FM then). Before the invention of the transistor, there were valves that prevented radios being portable.

I had one when I was 6, in 1966. I'm pretty sure you cannot disprove the truth of that; no more than you can disprove the truth of the Moon Landings.

It's just silly. You might as well try to disprove the holocaust, or even WW2. It is that stupid.

[uwot]

My point is partly, to hear the reasons why others think we went to the moon, and then to see if those reasons could convince me.

Well given that you think:
1. Putin and Obama are in cahoots to maintain some global conspiracy and that to think otherwise betrays an "understanding of the world (is) like that of a child perhaps."
2. The evidence that exists is "at best" empirical and that "Empiricism and its focus are distant bed-fellows at best."
3. There is so much evidence we are overwhelmed by it, and that "When confronted with a tidal wave of empiricist (the best thing we have) evidence we can only sit back and say okay it happened like that, no problem."
The overwhelming evidence suggests that even if you were taken to the moon and shown the footprints, you would explain it in some way that didn't involve human beings walking on the moon.
One of the principles of empiricism is Occam's Razor-do not make the story more complicated than you have to. The simplest explanation for the "overwhelming" evidence that men went to the moon, is that men went to the moon. It's technically difficult, as I said, you need a bloody great rocket, the Saturn V will do nicely, and a suit to protect a human from the harsh conditions of space and the surface of the moon, such as the A7L Apollo space suit. The US had the resources and the will to do it; whatever else we might think of America, the Apollo missions were a brilliant achievement.
Still, if the evidence you are currently familiar with overwhelms you, more is unlikely to un-overwhelm you. You can make up any story you like, but conspiracy theories, like religious stories and pseudo-science are predicated on belief in things for which there is no evidence. If you don't require evidence, you can believe anything.

[Pluto]

1. Putin and Obama are in cahoots to maintain some global conspiracy and that to think otherwise betrays an "understanding of the world (is) like that of a child perhaps."

You've given it the journalistic going-over. This is what I wrote:

Those in power share more in common with each other than with their peoples. It is more like (currently) Putin and Obama (as being the ruling political class) who would be joined in common cause against the potential tryanny of their masses.

It is too easy to speak the language of power when calling those who distrust power's actions as 'nut jobs'. Your understanding of the world is like that of a child perhaps when compared with how power sees the world.

[Hobbes' Choice]

1. Putin and Obama are in cahoots to maintain some global conspiracy and that to think otherwise betrays an "understanding of the world (is) like that of a child perhaps."

You've given it the journalistic going-over. This is what I wrote:

Those in power share more in common with each other than with their peoples. It is more like (currently) Putin and Obama (as being the ruling political class) who would be joined in common cause against the potential tryanny of their masses.

It is too easy to speak the language of power when calling those who distrust power's actions as 'nut jobs'. Your understanding of the world is like that of a child perhaps when compared with how power sees the world.

There is some truth value in the above statement. Sadly you choose to exemplify it with an idiotic claim about Moon Landing Hoaxes.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Jebus christo. You guys are doing a poor job of arguing about the moon hoaxes either way.

I could argue for or against it more compelling in my sleep.

[uwot]

Those in power share more in common with each other than with their peoples. It is more like (currently) Putin and Obama (as being the ruling political class) who would be joined in common cause against the potential tryanny of their masses.

Do you have any reason to think that Putin and Obama are joined in such a common cause? Is there any evidence that this common cause is strengthened by a continued promotion of the story that the USA did put people on the moon, and the USSR failed to do so, despite its being untrue?

[Pluto]

How old are you. For people of my generation the truth of the Moon Landings is as plain and simple as the invention of any transistor radio.

But the transistor radio can be held in your hand, it is material. The moon landing on the other hand is immaterial and thus open to doubt. I think that if you are close to the event, if you live through it, you are surrounded in the overwhelming evidence of it, the narrative is internalised as fact, and you then go forth in the world with this new position begotten. You are a walking, talking, fact of the event.

[Pluto]

Sadly you choose to exemplify it with an idiotic claim about Moon Landing Hoaxes.

Why is it idiotic to doubt the things that come from above, from power?

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

This is not just a rehash, but the original one was incomplete. These are my final thoughts on the matter.




If you can defeat this, you can prove once and for all, that the moon landing is real.

Round 1 If they make a good argument, I award a point.
Hoaxers (People who don't believe) say:

The shadows are *FAKE*! They say that they don't appear "parallel" and diverge inwards. BULLSHIT. The shadows diverging inwards is due to the camera's field of view. The shadows are not warped, but simply go to the natural 3 dimensional vanishing point of the horizon. Also, there is no possible scenario where a light could cast shadows diverging inwards. A single point light can only cast outward shadows. It would require 2 lights, resulting in a double shadow. Therefore, the inward shadows are really just the result of the camera's natural vanishing point. So no points awarded. +0 Points.

The astronauts still appear visible during pitch black shadows! This can be accounted for by radiosity and strange camera aperture contrast settings. But it's still slightly suspicious, because there should be more of a natural gradient effect (The astronauts feet should be very dark, and fade higher to light.) Because I can't run a radiosity light simulation right now I can't test this in detail. So I'll say +1 Points.

Pics show lines and crosses on the ground!Bullshit. The crosses are just a part of the camera lens. If I could award negative points for this, I would. +0 Points.

The window scene!Bullshit. Doesn't prove anything, earth looks farther away than close orbit to me. The reflection on the window is just that, a reflection on a window. The lines on the upper right corner are wires of some sort. In fact, the window argument is so poorly explained I can't make sense of it. +0 Points.

Reluctance to obey paparazzi demandsSimply because he doesn't like being harassed to swear on the bible that he walked on the moon, doesn't prove anything. +0 Points.

The Letter C on a rockOdd. I could explain it away by saying that NASA chiseled the rock with a hand chisel because they were bored while sitting on the moon. Or I could say that NASA marked the photo, but this doesn't make sense, it seems like the rock itself is chiseled, not the photo marked post process. Or, in NASA's defense, I could say the hoaxers photoshopped it in. Suspicious, but not absolute. +2 Points awarded.

The Flag wavingWhile it has been proved that a flag waves in a vacuum (as it should), the inertia sine pattern pattern of the moon flag seems to move in a way indicating wind activity, and not in a balanced, symmetrical, pendulum way that you would see in a vacuum. Suspicious, but not absolute. +2 points awarded.

Space suitsThe temperature of the moon is said to be 123 C (253 F) by day, and -233 C (-387 F) by night. Yet, the modern spacesuit can only sustain a range between 121 C (250 F) and -150 C (-249 F). While this seems absurd let us assume that NASA material can deliver this promise. The promise says
"This space suit is capable of protecting the astronaut from temperatures ranging from 250 F to -249 F." First let us analyze this statement. The statement implies a maximum protection range of 250 F. The statement implies that 250 is not a "comfortable range" but the maximum protected range, and exceeding the range would result in damage or serious bodily injury. Let us also examine the numbers they provided. NASA is an American system. How convenient for them to use -250 to 250 F as bounds. How did they manage to get the insulation rating exactly the same range in the negative as the positive? There are a number of answers. Sheer dumb luck, alien technology, human ingenuity, or bullshit. But let us assume that this is not bullshit. Let us assume that NASA somehow made the suit deliver its promise of -250F to exactly 250 F. Let us assume that NASA never saw lunar night (I assume by night they mean the dark side of the moon? Or by night they mean when the moon is shadowed by earth?) In daytime, the astronauts would be in a steady state of 253 F, exceeding the maximum range of the suit. They would be sweating, if not dead. Surely they would have complained about this? Let us then assume they are super suits, capable of withstaining much more than 250F. Let us also assume the wikipedia link was providing false or misleading information. So I award only +1 Points.

JFK's desperation While it does seem that Americans would be too incompetent to make a moon landing at any length of notice, I am reluctant to award any points for this, although it is suspicious. +0 Points.

Bulky equipmentWhile it does seem ridiculous that they were able to carry a several meter wide radar dish, and a couple of dunebuggies to boot on a tiny little spacecraft, let's just say they had a magician's funnybag. +0 Points.

van allen radiation beltWhile it seems difficult to perform calculations on a radiation belt outside of the Earth's atmosphere, because not much data on it has been gathered, we'll say that it is suspicious. More data is needed, but in the meantime I'm awarding +1 Points. More data is needed, for example it would be helpful to know how many minutes the space shuttle was near the belt before they reported severe radiation distortions. It would be helpful to know if the belt is uniformly intense, and if it changes from day to day based on season.

Not enough rocket fuel needed Some say there would not have been enough rocket fuel to make it past the earth's atmosphere and make it to the moon in 3 days. The moon is over 250,000 miles away, but I never bothered to make the calculations. Due to my own laziness in the matter, I am awarding only +0 Points.

Inconsistent testimonies, nervousness, and altered stories.I could blame the astronauts mixed up stories and lies based on old age senility, but it is suspicious, so I'm awarding +1 Points.

no sun While it is obvious that visors and camera's need exposure shields to prevent sunlight overexposure, one thing is odd. Why do they never take a picture of the sun itself? Perhaps they landed on the moon in a solar eclipse, and the earth is blocking the sun. If so the moon would have no light, and it would be too cold for the space suit to survive and the equipment would freeze. Which means they landed on the moon for 3 days and never bothered to take a single picture of the sun. That's highly lazy and suspicious. Also there are no lens flares, sun rays or solar glares of any kind. +1 points.

no starsIf the camera lens is tinted enough to block out harmful sunlight, but still see crisp images of the moon, why then are there no stars? There is no moon atmosphere, and the star light would still reach the camera. Perhaps it is just super tinted so dark no stars can be seen. Why then did they not bring a second camera for this purpose? The hubble telescope can see stars fine and it is in space without atmospheric shielding. +1 Points.

Equipment freezing and heat. I don't know if you use computers, but computers cannot be in heat in excess of 160 degrees. The moon is 250 degrees. Also, the astronaut claimed they returned home using (if I recall) propane tanks? How did the propane tanks not explode from the temperature? NASA must have used their bag of magic to superinsulate everything I guess. +1 Points.

Jump physics Back before I believed it was a hoax I was always viewing the jump physics as rather odd. I was always let down by the footage. Designing simulations myself I always expected the jump height to be, you know, actually higher. I dunno, like 6 times higher than in the footage? When speed up 2x the effect becomes obvious. Mythbusters tried to disprove this but I am not convinced. Playing games like Halo with gravity mods the jumps are drastically different. In addition, if you change the gravity in any videogame to 1/6ths, the vehicles tend to float and become uncontrollable when you drive them. Does Moonrover float? Does moonrover appear to have 6x times more verticality and "hang-time"? Does moonrover spin around dangerously and uncontrollably while in the air? No, it handles like a normal vehicle in slow motion. +3 Points. By the way the moon suit is only 30 lbs, so that doesn't explain why they can't jump. Are these highly trained astronauts a bunch of weaklings? Or were these fearless record breaking men just camera shy, afraid of showing off on live TV?

Out of body camWhat sealed the deal would have been jump physics but then I noticed something peculiar. There is footage of a camera looking down at the apollo spaceship, from about 100 feet above it? How can this be? I guess we can just explain it a way by saying along with the dune buggies NASA brought along a giant 100 foot pole attached to the shuttle and at the very top of the pole a fixed camera was attached, which was filming in advance for cinematography purposes. Speaking of cinematography...Why not jump? Why not take pics of the sun? Why not throw a rock in the air to...you know, prove gravity. +10 Points.

Defenders arguments.

Defenders arguments have already been analyzed with respect to the above points. I will now list actual proofs stated by defenders that have not been mentioned by hoaxers.


Parallax scrolling. A video shows the rover driving up a hill with a mountain in the background not moving, demonstrating that the mountain is far away. While this appears so careful inspection will show digital flickering of the mountain. It is likely the mountain was spliced in afterwards, a fairly easy film technique to accomplish given that the background color is pitch black. +0 Points.

It's not a model. Well duh, of course not, it's too high resolution to be. Hoaxers who say this are desperate. +0 Points.

[/b]The Laser proves the mirror was placed.[/b] Assuming the scientists are telling the truth, It is possible that no human was ever sent to the moon, but that the mirror was connected to a small unmanned rocket, launched via shuttle bay. Such a mirror, built of the right materials, would glide itself into place over the course of a few years, eventually crashing into the moon at a slow enough velocity to not shatter into pieces, but also lodging itself into place. The mirror's rocket could be radio controlled to make minor stability adjustments. But I award +3 Points anyway, since they have no points.

Round Over. Hoaxers 24, Mooners 3.

The Winner is...?
We are in a split dimension a quantum dimension where both states are true and false, the moon is the portal action and belief in one direction will make the state true or action and belief in the other will make it false.
The moon landing is both true and false your belief and action decides which quantum state and which dimension of earth you want to pop in, the moon is the portal between dimensions

Hypothesis is they faked it using a giant golf dome type building. The ceiling was painted black with a non reflective paint, and fans were installed under the floor at key locations to give the gravity a slight floatiness. They only jumped in "safe areas" where fans were under the ground. This was a large facility, as the rover travelled (although at a slow velocity) for quite a while. Or perhaps the rover footage was shot elsewhere, perhaps on desert terrain which had been altered to look like moon terrain through clever artistic and film techniques.

[Hobbes' Choice]

This is not just a rehash, but the original one was incomplete. These are my final thoughts on the matter.




If you can defeat this, you can prove once and for all, that the moon landing is real.

Round 1 If they make a good argument, I award a point.
Hoaxers (People who don't believe) say:

The shadows are *FAKE*! They say that they don't appear "parallel" and diverge inwards. BULLSHIT. The shadows diverging inwards is due to the camera's field of view. The shadows are not warped, but simply go to the natural 3 dimensional vanishing point of the horizon. Also, there is no possible scenario where a light could cast shadows diverging inwards. A single point light can only cast outward shadows. It would require 2 lights, resulting in a double shadow. Therefore, the inward shadows are really just the result of the camera's natural vanishing point. So no points awarded. +0 Points.

The astronauts still appear visible during pitch black shadows! This can be accounted for by radiosity and strange camera aperture contrast settings. But it's still slightly suspicious, because there should be more of a natural gradient effect (The astronauts feet should be very dark, and fade higher to light.) Because I can't run a radiosity light simulation right now I can't test this in detail. So I'll say +1 Points.


THIS IS A COMPLETE NO BRAINER. WE CAN SEE THE ASTRONAUTS FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON YOU CAN SEE THE MOON: IT IS HIGHLY RELFECTIVE,

Pics show lines and crosses on the ground!Bullshit. The crosses are just a part of the camera lens. If I could award negative points for this, I would. +0 Points.

The window scene!Bullshit. Doesn't prove anything, earth looks farther away than close orbit to me. The reflection on the window is just that, a reflection on a window. The lines on the upper right corner are wires of some sort. In fact, the window argument is so poorly explained I can't make sense of it. +0 Points.

Reluctance to obey paparazzi demandsSimply because he doesn't like being harassed to swear on the bible that he walked on the moon, doesn't prove anything. +0 Points.

The Letter C on a rockOdd. I could explain it away by saying that NASA chiseled the rock with a hand chisel because they were bored while sitting on the moon. Or I could say that NASA marked the photo, but this doesn't make sense, it seems like the rock itself is chiseled, not the photo marked post process. Or, in NASA's defense, I could say the hoaxers photoshopped it in. Suspicious, but not absolute. +2 Points awarded.

THERE IS A "FACE" ON MARS TOO. PEOPLE SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE. THE IDEA THAT 'C' IS WRITTEN ON PROPS AND SOMEONE WAS TOO STUPID TO TURN IT DOWNWARDS IS BEYOND STUPID.

The Flag wavingWhile it has been proved that a flag waves in a vacuum (as it should), the inertia sine pattern pattern of the moon flag seems to move in a way indicating wind activity, and not in a balanced, symmetrical, pendulum way that you would see in a vacuum. Suspicious, but not absolute. +2 points awarded.

MOMENTUM IS PRESERVED IN A VACUUM IN THE ABSENCE OF AIR RESISTANCE. OCCILATIONS POTENTIALLY COULD GO ON FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

Space suitsThe temperature of the moon is said to be 123 C (253 F) by day, and -233 C (-387 F) by night. Yet, the modern spacesuit can only sustain a range between 121 C (250 F) and -150 C (-249 F). While this seems absurd let us assume that NASA material can deliver this promise. The promise says
"This space suit is capable of protecting the astronaut from temperatures ranging from 250 F to -249 F." First let us analyze this statement. The statement implies a maximum protection range of 250 F. The statement implies that 250 is not a "comfortable range" but the maximum protected range, and exceeding the range would result in damage or serious bodily injury. Let us also examine the numbers they provided. NASA is an American system. How convenient for them to use -250 to 250 F as bounds. How did they manage to get the insulation rating exactly the same range in the negative as the positive? There are a number of answers. Sheer dumb luck, alien technology, human ingenuity, or bullshit. But let us assume that this is not bullshit. Let us assume that NASA somehow made the suit deliver its promise of -250F to exactly 250 F. Let us assume that NASA never saw lunar night (I assume by night they mean the dark side of the moon? Or by night they mean when the moon is shadowed by earth?) In daytime, the astronauts would be in a steady state of 253 F, exceeding the maximum range of the suit. They would be sweating, if not dead. Surely they would have complained about this? Let us then assume they are super suits, capable of withstaining much more than 250F. Let us also assume the wikipedia link was providing false or misleading information. So I award only +1 Points.

THIS IS JUST A NO BRAINER. WE KNOW SPACESUITS WORK PERIOD.

JFK's desperation While it does seem that Americans would be too incompetent to make a moon landing at any length of notice, I am reluctant to award any points for this, although it is suspicious. +0 Points.

Bulky equipmentWhile it does seem ridiculous that they were able to carry a several meter wide radar dish, and a couple of dunebuggies to boot on a tiny little spacecraft, let's just say they had a magician's funnybag. +0 Points.

van allen radiation beltWhile it seems difficult to perform calculations on a radiation belt outside of the Earth's atmosphere, because not much data on it has been gathered, we'll say that it is suspicious. More data is needed, but in the meantime I'm awarding +1 Points. More data is needed, for example it would be helpful to know how many minutes the space shuttle was near the belt before they reported severe radiation distortions. It would be helpful to know if the belt is uniformly intense, and if it changes from day to day based on season.

Not enough rocket fuel needed Some say there would not have been enough rocket fuel to make it past the earth's atmosphere and make it to the moon in 3 days. The moon is over 250,000 miles away, but I never bothered to make the calculations. Due to my own laziness in the matter, I am awarding only +0 Points.


ANOTHER NO BRAINER. THE RUSSIANS HAD ALREADY DONE IT AHEAD OF THE US. IF THEY HAD FAKED IT THEN THE US WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TO POINT THE FINGER.

Inconsistent testimonies, nervousness, and altered stories.I could blame the astronauts mixed up stories and lies based on old age senility, but it is suspicious, so I'm awarding +1 Points.

no sun While it is obvious that visors and camera's need exposure shields to prevent sunlight overexposure, one thing is odd. Why do they never take a picture of the sun itself? Perhaps they landed on the moon in a solar eclipse, and the earth is blocking the sun. If so the moon would have no light, and it would be too cold for the space suit to survive and the equipment would freeze. Which means they landed on the moon for 3 days and never bothered to take a single picture of the sun. That's highly lazy and suspicious. +1 points.


CAN'T IMAGINE WHY YOU ARE EVEN CONSIDERING THIS.

no starsIf the camera lens is tinted enough to block out harmful sunlight, but still see crisp images of the moon, why then are there no stars? There is no moon atmosphere, and the star light would still reach the camera. Perhaps it is just super tinted so dark no stars can be seen. Why then did they not bring a second camera for this purpose? The hubble telescope can see stars fine and it is in space without atmospheric shielding. +1 Points.

Equipment freezing and heat. I don't know if you use computers, but computers cannot be in heat in excess of 160 degrees. The moon is 250 degrees. Also, the astronaut claimed they returned home using (if I recall) propane tanks? How did the propane tanks not explode from the temperature? NASA must have used their bag of magic to superinsulate everything I guess. +1 Points.



ANOTHER NO BRAINER. THE RUSSIANS HAD ALREADY DONE IT AHEAD OF THE US. IF THEY HAD FAKED IT THEN THE US WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TO POINT THE FINGER.


Jump physics Back before I believed it was a hoax I was always viewing the jump physics as rather odd. I was always let down by the footage. Designing simulations myself I always expected the jump height to be, you know, actually higher. I dunno, like 6 times higher than in the footage? When speed up 2x the effect becomes obvious. Mythbusters tried to disprove this but I am not convinced. Playing games like Halo with gravity mods the jumps are drastically different. In addition, if you change the gravity in any videogame to 1/6ths, the vehicles tend to float and become uncontrollable when you drive them. Does Moonrover float? Does moonrover appear to have 6x times more verticality and "hang-time"? Does moonrover spin around dangerously and uncontrollably while in the air? No, it handles like a normal vehicle in slow motion. +3 Points. By the way the moon suit is only 30 lbs, so that doesn't explain why they can't jump. Are these highly trained astronauts a bunch of weaklings? Or were these fearless record breaking men just camera shy, afraid of showing off on live TV.

Out of body camWhat sealed the deal would have been jump physics but then I noticed something peculiar. There is footage of a camera looking down at the apollo spaceship, from about 100 feet above it? How can this be? I guess we can just explain it a way by saying along with the dune buggies NASA brought along a giant 100 foot pole attached to the shuttle and at the very top of the pole a fixed camera was attached, which was filming in advance for cinematography purposes. Speaking of cinematography...Why not jump? Why not take pics of the sun? Why not throw a rock in the air to...you know, prove gravity. +10 Points.

I PRESUME YOU KNOW THAT THE STAGES SEPARATED IN LUNAR ORBIT WITH THE LANDER GOING DOWN AND THE THORD MAN IN THE ORBITER?

Defenders arguments.

Defenders arguments have already been analyzed with respect to the above points. I will now list actual proofs stated by defenders that have not been mentioned by hoaxers.


Parallax scrolling. A video shows the rover driving up a hill with a mountain in the background not moving, demonstrating that the mountain is far away. While this appears so careful inspection will show digital flickering of the mountain. It is likely the mountain was spliced in afterwards, a fairly easy film technique to accomplish given that the background color is pitch black. +0 Points.

It's not a model. Well duh, of course not, it's too high resolution to be. Hoaxers who say this are desperate. +0 Points.

[/b]The Laser proves the mirror was placed.[/b] Assuming the scientists are telling the truth, It is possible that no human was ever sent to the moon, but that the mirror was connected to a small unmanned rocket, launched via shuttle bay. Such a mirror, built of the right materials, would glide itself into place over the course of a few years, eventually crashing into the moon at a slow enough velocity to not shatter into pieces, but also lodging itself into place. The mirror's rocket could be radio controlled to make minor stability adjustments. But I award +3 Points anyway, since they have no points.

Round Over. Hoaxers 24, Mooners 3.

The Winner is...?
We are in a split dimension a quantum dimension where both states are true and false, the moon is the portal action and belief in one direction will make the state true or action and belief in the other will make it false.
The moon landing is both true and false your belief and action decides which quantum state and which dimension of earth you want to pop in, the moon is the portal between dimensions

[Pluto]

The above exchange is a perfect example of how not to talk about something. Both participants are like cartoon characters. (No offense meant, just making a point.) It is like they are acting out how they think you are supposed to talk about this. They are like actors acting.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

"THIS IS A COMPLETE NO BRAINER. WE CAN SEE THE ASTRONAUTS FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON YOU CAN SEE THE MOON: IT IS HIGHLY RELFECTIVE,"

It's already been addressed. +2 Points remain unchanged.

"THERE IS A "FACE" ON MARS TOO. PEOPLE SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE. THE IDEA THAT 'C' IS WRITTEN ON PROPS AND SOMEONE WAS TOO STUPID TO TURN IT DOWNWARDS IS BEYOND STUPID."

Low probability one of the rocks they land near has such a formation. However, it is stupid even for American standards to leave a prop in the open. -1 Points awarded to original argument.

"THIS IS JUST A NO BRAINER. WE KNOW SPACESUITS WORK PERIOD."

Not a valid argument with respect to the original argument. +2 Points remain unchanged.

"ANOTHER NO BRAINER. THE RUSSIANS HAD ALREADY DONE IT AHEAD OF THE US. IF THEY HAD FAKED IT THEN THE US WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TO POINT THE FINGER."

Russians are not trustworthy either. Also this only pertains to American Landings. However I will reduce the points to zero for this argument, as I have not performed the calculations myself.

"I PRESUME YOU KNOW THAT THE STAGES SEPARATED IN LUNAR ORBIT WITH THE LANDER GOING DOWN AND THE THORD MAN IN THE ORBITER?"

My mistake. -10 Points removed.

Hoaxers 12, Mooners 3.

The above exchange is a perfect example of how not to talk about something. Both participants are like cartoon characters. (No offense meant, just making a point.) It is like they are acting out how they think you are supposed to talk about this. They are like actors acting.

THERE WILL BE ORDER IN THIS COURT!!!

[Pluto]

At the same time I feel like I want to thank both, especially GreatandWiseTrixie, for all the work they've put into it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

"THIS IS A COMPLETE NO BRAINER. WE CAN SEE THE ASTRONAUTS FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON YOU CAN SEE THE MOON: IT IS HIGHLY RELFECTIVE,"

It's already been addressed. +2 Points remain unchanged.

-5. You have not addressed it. You need a primer in physics. You did go to school didn't you?


"THERE IS A "FACE" ON MARS TOO. PEOPLE SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE. THE IDEA THAT 'C' IS WRITTEN ON PROPS AND SOMEONE WAS TOO STUPID TO TURN IT DOWNWARDS IS BEYOND STUPID."

Low probability one of the rocks they land near has such a formation. However, it is stupid even for American standards to leave a prop in the open. -1 Points awarded to original argument.

"THIS IS JUST A NO BRAINER. WE KNOW SPACESUITS WORK PERIOD."

Not a valid argument with respect to the original argument. +2 Points remain unchanged.

Why not? Spacesuits are basically the same now as they were then. The temperatures in earth's orbit are no different from any where in the terrasphere (which includes the moon). Spacesuits work. THere is nothing here.
-10

"ANOTHER NO BRAINER. THE RUSSIANS HAD ALREADY DONE IT AHEAD OF THE US. IF THEY HAD FAKED IT THEN THE US WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TO POINT THE FINGER."

Russians are not trustworthy either. Also this only pertains to American Landings. However I will reduce the points to zero for this argument, as I have not performed the calculations myself.

It's not relevant that Russia is or is not trustworthy. Two cheating nations would never allow either to get oneover on the other.

"I PRESUME YOU KNOW THAT THE STAGES SEPARATED IN LUNAR ORBIT WITH THE LANDER GOING DOWN AND THE THORD MAN IN THE ORBITER?"

My mistake. -10 Points removed.

You betray a basic ignorance of the mechanics of the Saturn V. You need to learn about something before you criticise it.


Hoaxers 12, Mooners 3.

The above exchange is a perfect example of how not to talk about something. Both participants are like cartoon characters. (No offense meant, just making a point.) It is like they are acting out how they think you are supposed to talk about this. They are like actors acting.

THERE WILL BE ORDER IN THIS COURT!!!

Hoaxers -15. Mooners 100%.