Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

Ok as Im trying to learn here.. which is it astro?

Is it smaller because the LM is eclipsing the sun ?

Or is it smaller because the photo is over exposed...?

Your confusing me.. you wouldnt make a very good teacher.. or are you trying to answer too quickly and not thoughtfully enough and getting yourself confused?

I'm not here to teach you photography. If you think you're in any position to seriously question the moon landing photos based on your own analysis then it's expected that you are not as ignorant as you plainly are.

When I show up to a thread critiquing ballet then you can absolutely feel free to call me out on my complete and total ignorance. Don't hold your breath on that happening though.

So only people with expertise in photography should question the moon landings? is that your position?

This is a REALLY simple concept which you still fail to grasp. Let me spell it out for you as simply as I can. When the sun is over-exposed in a photo like that, its size in the photo only shows you how over-exposed it is, not the sun's physical size. It's smaller in the second photo because now it's partially eclipsed and therefore less over-exposed. That does not mean it is not still over-exposed. You live in the typical apollo hoaxer world of false dilemmas. It can be, and is, still over-exposed in the second photo even though it's now smaller. That only tells you it is LESS over-exposed, not that it is still not over-exposed. It's not an all-or-nothing situation.

I really could not care less what you think of my teaching skills.

I'm not the one who's confused here.

You're questioning the moon landings based on the photography when you've already shown and admitted you don't know the first thing about photography. A wise person would realize their ignorance and first study and learn photography before attempting to make claims about Apollo being a hoax based on photography they do not understand.

No, his position is that he has "subject specific knowledge" that he presumes no one opposing his position can possibly have. I wonder if he allows for the possibility that his analysis is colored by the paradigm which his training comes from and his own personal and professional bias (just like all of our thoughts are). I find science types way more resistant to the idea that their "knowledge" is not actually objective fact but an extrapolation of numerous assumptions and prejudices passed on from teachers to students.

It's worth pointing out that social scientists, lawyers, or other professionals whose work involves critically thinking about new and unexplored situations and ideas may actually do better at finding the important issues and inherent contradictions in play in a complex situation.

I taught myself about astronomy and spaceflight. I am aware of my own assumptions. But hey, if you want to chalk it all up to "conspiracy maths" to maintain your religion you go right on and do that. What you may not realize is that you are talking to a former conspiracy theorist in the GLP sense, if anything my bias is to disbelieve the government.

Your hostility, reliance on ad hominem, and wild assumptions about my, and others, beliefs and motivations reveal more about your character than they do your training; which you'll notice I didn't take issue with. There are more and less effective ways to argue, and through hundreds of pages, you've opted for the later.

Food for thought.

Yes, Im seeing that Astro seems to think that only those with the suitable training can address these issues. He fails to remember however, that alot scientific discoveries and alot of jumps in technology and in life in general, were made by people very much less than the perfect education, training or background.. so many wonderful firsts were mostly made by people who didnt even complete the 12th grade..

Hint: make one point at a time.

Then how do you know you are right? If you taught yourself who critiqued your work? who answered questions? Who steered you right when you were wrong?.. seems to me that self taught in your own opinion is less than qualified to start adressing the issues brought up here..

I really don't care what you think of my character. Want to talk about ad hominem? My character is irrelevant. For that matter, so is yours. And yes, you did take issue with my training. I've long since realized it's impossible to convert a die hard hoax believer, they're not open to evidence. That is not my objective or goal.

Last Edited by Astromut on 03/18/2012 10:11 PM

it doesnt matter if i do that, Ive tried it.. he still cuts off the whole sentance and quotes me out of context, doesnt address the entire post, picks and chooses what he will answer and ignores the rest, as do they all.. Im learning its one of their tactics..

Well im gonna have to call you out on that Astro.. that is just not true.. Many times on this thread I have conceded when shown correctly where I was mistaken.. I am open to the evidence.. from both sides and have displayed this time and again with humility & grattitude when I was shown the mistake I had made

Not to get into the weeds too far, but that was a critique of credentialism and training-as-virtue in our society writ large, not an indictment of your schooling (or self-teaching, which can be just as productive). As for the moon landing hoax, I came to the thread to form an opinion, not to argue for one. Any casual reader will notice fairly quickly, however, that your responses tend to focus on other posters' intelligence, lack of credentials, zealous and unfounded beliefs, etc., and not their arguments. I find that revealing, and I think a lot of other people who are neutral on the issue will too.

yes, that is called being a good employee.

Well said.. and very true..

I know how to check my own work. And check it I do. Since you're not being specific I'll simply say that I've applied my knowledge many times in order to perform tasks and make predictions on my own that turned out to be exactly right. Furthermore...

GLP'ers do try for one, though I must admit I find the efforts to critique my posts generally lackluster.

I'm passionate and motivated, I did my own research till I found the answers I was looking for.

Experience and the ability to do my own research steered me right.

No, I never said any such thing. You are the one who assumes that self-taught means that I can't possibly know that I'm right.

So then you're saying you're a die-hard hoax believer?

So which is it? Are you a die-hard hoax believer, or are you just someone who's asking questions and trying to learn?

When there are already people who 'claim' to have the knowledge, why do i need to go and learn it when I can ask them, that is what the community of human beings is about.. collective learning.. would you suggest that a woman who wants to become a mother not ask her freinds or sisters or relatives who are mothers when her child is teething? or when her child gets sick should she go and learn to be a doctor just so she can heal her child herself..

Or perhaps if i want to buy art for my house I shouldnt go to the art gallery and ask the so called knowlegable ones for advice, i should go learn about art first and then buy art..

Or what about if I want to vote in an election? should I be precluded from voting until and when I become a pollitician so that I 'know' everything about the subject..

Maybe you are suggesting that anyone who wants to have an opinion on something should first go and study it before they comment?..

If that is your position you should be quiet until you become an astrophysicist and know all there is to know about space travel and if its possible, because if all you are is an arm chair hobbiest like most of us.. your words are no more valid or credible than ours..

Don't they have libraries in Australia?
Where they have these things called books?

Bet they have books about photography.

(Why do the English hate the letter f?)
_____________________________________________________________​___________________


IOW, you are getting clobbered so let's throw in another innate insult.

Those work so well.


No.
We would like you to understand the "science and facts".
Until you indicate you actually have a clue about the subject matter why should your opinion be considered of any relevance.


Ah. That famous 'intuition' of yours.
Completely dispels the need for solid verifiable facts and cold hard logic.

Why think, if you can just 'feel'.
Brains are useless if you have a stomach.


Darryl Cunningham Investigates The Moon Hoax [link to darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com]
Moon Base Clavius, for all your debunking needs [link to www.xmission.com]



Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 03/19/2012 06:59 AM

If you say so.

I've heard that song before. But again, if you say so.

Now you jumped the shark. I've debunked their arguments time and time again, exhaustively. I may comment on their ignorance as with LD here and her rather amusing ignorance of the effect of over-exposure on the size of an object, but there again, I addressed the argument in my posts. In fact, I addressed it in detail and with an example to go with it. Ignore that all you like, but it's the truth.

Why are you ignoring the fact that I do actually address their arguments? I find that revealing myself, and it casts doubt in my mind on your neutrality.

You ignored the part about the most public way possible, in a way that invited a congressional investigation and almost shut down the entire project.

Are you implying it does not?

You being ignorant of the incredible evidence for the historicity of Apollo, because, you know, you couldn't be bothered to look at it, does not take away your burden of proof if you claim that all of it was faked.
In 40 years hoaxies haven't been able to proof a single claim they made.
They can't even produce pedestrian evidence.


And another slanderous claim not supported by any evidence.

Yet more confirmation of the Greater Internet Dickwad Theory.


It's not he who sounds desperate.


Very real.
Your argument from incredulity falls rather flat on its face to those who are familiar with the technology.


Who is this 'we' you speak off?
It's rather obvious you couldn't.

So, in YOUR expert opinion as a aerospace engineer 'on the internet' WHY not?


Astro can back up all his statements of fact.
You can back up none.

So guess...

Then go study photography and learn about it.

You are making claims of fakery all the while admitting complete ignorance of the subject. That is not the right way to go about learning the underlying subject.

No, actually I am far more informed on the issue of space travel. You may not personally think my words are more valid or credible... but that doesn't change the fact that I actually do have an informed opinion on the matter, I have studied the subject in detail, and I do know more about Apollo than most here. You may find that arrogant and condescending, but since you're trying to argue that by my own opinion I should be quiet, I need to throw it out there...

Last Edited by Astromut on 03/18/2012 10:35 PM

Great explanation.

Yep, it is. He does that all the time.