Author Topic: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing  (Read 1663 times)

Offline apollo16uvc

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Where no telescope has gone before.
    • Apollo 16 UVC
Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« on: July 19, 2019, 05:39:25 PM »
Conspiracy website Fakeologist is currently hosting a livestream with fellow dutchman Gaia.
He will be talking about his years of research, and making points nobody else made before.

http://cp.usa6.fastcast4u.com:2199/start/abirat01/

It will be included in their website later.
Ultraviolet light photography rules!
Apollo 16
Skylab

Offline apollo16uvc

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Where no telescope has gone before.
    • Apollo 16 UVC
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2019, 05:45:51 PM »
Or not, that may actually be later tonight or tomorrow. Either way will post a link to the full audio stream later.
Ultraviolet light photography rules!
Apollo 16
Skylab

Offline Obviousman

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2019, 08:47:00 PM »
Will it be worth listening to? Whenever people claim "...evidence never seen before..." I have normally found that to mean 'things I believe and that I ignore all evidence to the contrary'.

Offline ChrLz

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2019, 09:25:08 PM »
OP, as you seem to be interested, how's about you take a bullet for the team and come back when they actually post anything 'new'..?

Because I gotta be honest, it seems to me that the only few deniers left are either trolls, moneymakers, or the ludicrously uneducated (or uncaring either way).  I don't really like giving anything, including time or hits, to any folks in any of those categories.

Call me lazy, I'll wear it.  Laziness is just an advanced form of efficiency...

Offline Obviousman

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2019, 10:51:47 PM »
Don't bother. For a start they have no idea what they are doing streaming wise (the guest can't see what they are talking about, etc) and what I have heard so far is the same old stuff: LRV dust trails, astronauts movements, etc.

IMHO - WOFTAM.

Offline apollo16uvc

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Where no telescope has gone before.
    • Apollo 16 UVC
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2019, 02:37:12 AM »
I am not sure if he made these claims in the livestream, but we talked about them a day before:

Gaia is a geologist, and he finds it strange that the geological maps of landing sites made prior to the landing were not updated after the mission concluded.

Gaia is the first person in history to have made a complete 3D geological map of the moon, if they really went this would have been done already.

The photos are too sharp to have been taken while bunnyhopping around, no viewfinder, and attached to their suit.

Not deciding to have the first man on the moon a geologist was a crazy and dangerous decision, it makes no sense.

How were the astronauts allowed to move as they did? The moon is a completely unknown environment, they should have described every single movement in detail. You don't just 'turn around' to make a camera panorama in such a dangerous environment.

Only few photos were released to the press in the 70's, most of the photos were made on a later date in the 90's with digital camera's

The audio, video and photos were all taken on different dates.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2019, 03:11:37 AM by apollo16uvc »
Ultraviolet light photography rules!
Apollo 16
Skylab

Offline Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 847
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2019, 03:11:42 AM »
I am not sure if he made these claims in the livestream, but we talked about them a day before:

Gaia is a geologist, and he finds it strange that the geological maps of landing sites made prior to the landing were not updated after the mission concluded.

Gaia is the first person in history to have made a complete 3D geological map of the moon, if they really went this would have been done already.

The photos are too sharp to have been taken while bunnyhopping around, no viewfinder, and attached to their suit.

Not deciding to have the first man on the moon a geologist was a crazy and dangerous decision, it makes no sense.

How were the astronauts allowed to move as they did? The moon is a completely unknown environment, they should have described every single movement in detail. You don't just 'turn around' to make a camera panorama in such a dangerous environment.

Rather than having us answer these questions now, would you like to invite Fakeologist and Gaia here so we can discuss their points with them?

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2019, 04:01:07 AM »
I am not sure if he made these claims in the livestream, but we talked about them a day before:

Gaia is a geologist, and he finds it strange that the geological maps of landing sites made prior to the landing were not updated after the mission concluded.

Who says they weren't, and what updates does he expect to see and when?

Quote
Gaia is the first person in history to have made a complete 3D geological map of the moon

Proof of that claim is required.

Quote
if they really went this would have been done already.

How would the landings at six sites on one side of the Moon aid in construction of a complete gelogical map of the Moon, rather than, say, detailed information from a number of orbiting probes in the years that followed? That's like asking me to make a complete geological map of Earth based on rocks I picked up in Cornwall, Chile, China, New Zealand, Ethiopia and Antarctica. Does he really think that would be enough information? For one thing the rock I picked up in Cornwall will differ from rocks picked up in Dover or Aberdeen, and that's only a few hundred miles of separation.

Quote
The photos are too sharp to have been taken while bunnyhopping around, no viewfinder, and attached to their suit.

Boring old debunked claim. Why does he think the photos were taken while they were hopping around?
 
Quote
Not deciding to have the first man on the moon a geologist was a crazy and dangerous decision, it makes no sense.

If I ran the zoo, blah, blah, blah... Deciding to have the first man on the Moon a geologist rather than a test pilot for a new spacecraft would be the dangerous decision.

Quote
How were the astronauts allowed to move as they did? The moon is a completely unknown environment, they should have described every single movement in detail. You don't just 'turn around' to make a camera panorama in such a dangerous environment.

The usual 'they were a whisker from disatser at every second' argument. Come on, the designers and engineers knew the environment and buit the suits to cope with it.

Quote
Only few photos were released to the press in the 70's, most of the photos were made on a later date in the 90's with digital camera's

Same old same old. Already disproven.

Quote
The audio, video and photos were all taken on different dates.

Seriously? You can literally see the astronauts taking the pictures and hear them describing it. The video, audio and photos match up perfectly. Where is his evidence for this claim?

Usual disappointing crap we've all heard countless times before, basically.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1378
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2019, 04:02:13 AM »
I am not sure if he made these claims in the livestream, but we talked about them a day before:

Gaia is a geologist, and he finds it strange that the geological maps of landing sites made prior to the landing were not updated after the mission concluded.

If I ran the zoo part 1. Claiming to be a geologist and being one are two different things. If he is one he should know better. You don't get to completely redraw a geological map of an entire sphere based on a sample size of 6.

Other people have tried to update the maps based on the lunar samples, eg

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/pgm2018/pdf/7013.pdf

and local geology was discussed in great detail, eg

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17profpaper.htm

Have a lecture on lunar geology:



Quote
Gaia is the first person in history to have made a complete 3D geological map of the moon, if they really went this would have been done already.

If I ran the zoo part 2. What data did he use? Where did he get it from? Does any of that data contradict Apollo?  When did he do it?

https://scitechdaily.com/moon-data-allows-creation-of-detailed-lunar-3-d-map/

Define '3D'. The Apollo seismic experiments allowed the internal structure of the moon to be defined when it was previously unknown. That's pretty 3D.

Quote
The photos are too sharp to have been taken while bunnyhopping around, no viewfinder, and attached to their suit.

Argument from incredulity part 1, completely ignoring the many badly framed and out of focus images. You don't need a viewfinder to take sharp images, you just need to keep still.

Quote
Not deciding to have the first man on the moon a geologist was a crazy and dangerous decision, it makes no sense.

If I ran the zoo part 3. It makes perfect sense to have the first people on the moon to be trained and experienced pilots who can be trained on how to take samples. When you've done that and worked out how to do it repeatedly, then send a geologist.

Quote
How were the astronauts allowed to move as they did? The moon is a completely unknown environment, they should have described every single movement in detail.

They did. Watch the Apollo 11 EVA with Aldrin performing and describing different ways of getting around.

Quote
You don't just 'turn around' to make a camera panorama in such a dangerous environment.

Argument from incredulity part 2.

Quote
Only few photos were released to the press in the 70's, most of the photos were made on a later date in the 90's with digital camera's

Not true. Not true at all.

Quote
The audio, video and photos were all taken on different dates.

All the audio, video and photos were taken during the missions.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2019, 04:19:47 AM by onebigmonkey »

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1803
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2019, 11:20:32 AM »
What's dangerous about not bringing a geologist?
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3099
    • Clavius
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2019, 11:31:10 AM »
Gaia is the first person in history to have made a complete 3D geological map of the moon, if they really went this would have been done already.

It was done, for the landing sites.  All that was available was analog optical densitometry, but it was done.

Quote
The photos are too sharp to have been taken while bunnyhopping around, no viewfinder, and attached to their suit.

As if a normal human doesn't intuitively know to stop moving while taking a picture.  "Attached to suit" and "no viewfinder" have nothing to do with sharpness.  The cameras were attached to the RCU, which in turn was hung from the PLSS straps.  There was actually quite a lot of freedom of movement to point the camera finely.

Quote
Not deciding to have the first man on the moon a geologist was a crazy and dangerous decision, it makes no sense.

Wow, this guy has an ego the size of Olympus Mons.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline twik

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 594
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2019, 09:46:52 AM »
Not deciding to have the first man on the moon a geologist was a crazy and dangerous decision, it makes no sense.

How were the astronauts allowed to move as they did? The moon is a completely unknown environment, they should have described every single movement in detail. You don't just 'turn around' to make a camera panorama in such a dangerous environment.


I'd love to know what a geologist would have done differently than Armstrong.

And how would "describing every single movement in detail" made things safer?

Typical narcissistic conspiracist.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3099
    • Clavius
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2019, 01:59:37 PM »
I'd love to know what a geologist would have done differently than Armstrong.

Crash the LM.

Quote
And how would "describing every single movement in detail" made things safer?

...or cure the notion that the Moon is "completely unknown."  It's not unknown.  We know, for example, that there's a vacuum.  And the vacuum that's a meter off the surface of the Moon is the same vacuum that's 200 km above the Earth's surface, in which several astronauts by that time had demonstrated the ability to work and for their suits to protect them.  No need to describe in detail verbally what vacuum is like on the lunar surface.  Ditto thermal issues, radiation issues, and so forth.  All those were knowns by the time Apollo 11 flew.  All you can really cite is diminished gravity.  From the engineering standpoint, that's the only thing it's truly hard to simulate exactly in a different environment.  And lo and behold, the crew described in detail what it was like to move in diminished gravity with the full EMU.  The full splendor of the problem wasn't entirely known, but by no means was it entirely unknown.  And let's not forget that Armstrong was initially tethered to the LM, presumably so he could be hauled up in an emergency.  He untethered once it became apparent that mobility wasn't going to present unexpected difficulty.

This is how engineers break down a complex problem like safe mobility on the Moon.  Comments like those from Gaia illustrate why he shouldn't be charged with solving those kinds of problems.

Quote
Typical narcissistic conspiracist.

I'm glad someone broached that.  I'm often sympathetic to "If I Ran the Zoo" arguments.  I reject them, of course, as evidence of a hoax.  But probative value aside, many of them are not especially ill-intentioned, and a few are defensibly reasoned from from a layman's point of view.  Which is to say they aren't always absurdly unreasonable, from a certain point of view.  Keep in mind that television on the lunar surface for Apollo 11 wasn't always a given, for example.  A lot of people at NASA were legitimately trying to run the zoo differently, and for good reasons.  And fairings over the SM RCS isn't an unreasonable expectation, for another example, if you don't know all the engineering details.  In a less contentious context you'd want to reward people for thinking through problems and asking questions, even if it's from an incomplete picture of the facts.  Sadly when they deploy it as a pro-hoax argument in the forum, it has to be rebutted.  And often that takes the form of inviting them to examine their assumptions, which in turn might mean facing up to not being as smart as they thought they were.  That's sometimes hard even for honest people.

The most difficult is when the suggestion is nominally reasonable.  "They should have..."  and yes, doing that was possible -- but it just didn't happen.  They could have, but they just didn't.  Or they didn't have to, but they did anyway.  The logical error here is the non sequitur to the notion of a hoax.  But when the other arguments and rebuttals take the form of, "They should have _____," followed by, "No, here's why it doesn't make sense to _____," then a new rebuttal of the form ,"Okay, they could have _____ but didn't; so what?" seems anticlimactic and unpersuasive.

Then at the other end of the spectrum are the narcissists.  With or without appropriate knowledge and expertise, they are simply unwilling to even consider the notion that what they think ought to have happened or not happened may not be the way it was.  Or the way it should have been.  Or even a particularly smart or possible way to do ti.  It's certainly annoying when they entrench themselves in their expectations.  But it's downright insulting when they come up with such howlers for what they think should have been done.  It rarely bears any rational relationship to exploring space or building a program to do that.  Gaia is a geologist, so "naturally" a geologist should be the first one on the Moon -- not just for scientific value, but because to do otherwise is "crazy and dangerous."  Dangerous?  That presumes quite a lot about what the typical geologist should be expected to know about the lunar environment -- and how to operate the equipment needed to get there.  It's hard to remain civil among those who believe that they and they alone know what to do, and that those others who demonstrated they could and did know what to do should automatically be suspect instead.  That's just straight-up narcissism.

I think it's more human nature than we give it credit for.  I see that particular narcissism as congruent with its milder form of "customers from hell."  I think we've all had them, or heard of them -- people who hire experts to do things they cannot do, and then second-guess and micromanage the subsequent process.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2835
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2019, 02:45:36 PM »
I'd love to know what a geologist would have done differently than Armstrong.

Crash the LM.

Quote
And how would "describing every single movement in detail" made things safer?

...or cure the notion that the Moon is "completely unknown."  It's not unknown.  We know, for example, that there's a vacuum.  And the vacuum that's a meter off the surface of the Moon is the same vacuum that's 200 km above the Earth's surface, in which several astronauts by that time had demonstrated the ability to work and for their suits to protect them.  No need to describe in detail verbally what vacuum is like on the lunar surface.  Ditto thermal issues, radiation issues, and so forth.  All those were knowns by the time Apollo 11 flew.  All you can really cite is diminished gravity.  From the engineering standpoint, that's the only thing it's truly hard to simulate exactly in a different environment.  And lo and behold, the crew described in detail what it was like to move in diminished gravity with the full EMU.  The full splendor of the problem wasn't entirely known, but by no means was it entirely unknown.  And let's not forget that Armstrong was initially tethered to the LM, presumably so he could be hauled up in an emergency.  He untethered once it became apparent that mobility wasn't going to present unexpected difficulty.

This is how engineers break down a complex problem like safe mobility on the Moon.  Comments like those from Gaia illustrate why he shouldn't be charged with solving those kinds of problems.

Quote
Typical narcissistic conspiracist.

I'm glad someone broached that.  I'm often sympathetic to "If I Ran the Zoo" arguments.  I reject them, of course, as evidence of a hoax.  But probative value aside, many of them are not especially ill-intentioned, and a few are defensibly reasoned from from a layman's point of view.  Which is to say they aren't always absurdly unreasonable, from a certain point of view.  Keep in mind that television on the lunar surface for Apollo 11 wasn't always a given, for example.  A lot of people at NASA were legitimately trying to run the zoo differently, and for good reasons.  And fairings over the SM RCS isn't an unreasonable expectation, for another example, if you don't know all the engineering details.  In a less contentious context you'd want to reward people for thinking through problems and asking questions, even if it's from an incomplete picture of the facts.  Sadly when they deploy it as a pro-hoax argument in the forum, it has to be rebutted.  And often that takes the form of inviting them to examine their assumptions, which in turn might mean facing up to not being as smart as they thought they were.  That's sometimes hard even for honest people.

The most difficult is when the suggestion is nominally reasonable.  "They should have..."  and yes, doing that was possible -- but it just didn't happen.  They could have, but they just didn't.  Or they didn't have to, but they did anyway.  The logical error here is the non sequitur to the notion of a hoax.  But when the other arguments and rebuttals take the form of, "They should have _____," followed by, "No, here's why it doesn't make sense to _____," then a new rebuttal of the form ,"Okay, they could have _____ but didn't; so what?" seems anticlimactic and unpersuasive.

Then at the other end of the spectrum are the narcissists.  With or without appropriate knowledge and expertise, they are simply unwilling to even consider the notion that what they think ought to have happened or not happened may not be the way it was.  Or the way it should have been.  Or even a particularly smart or possible way to do ti.  It's certainly annoying when they entrench themselves in their expectations.  But it's downright insulting when they come up with such howlers for what they think should have been done.  It rarely bears any rational relationship to exploring space or building a program to do that.  Gaia is a geologist, so "naturally" a geologist should be the first one on the Moon -- not just for scientific value, but because to do otherwise is "crazy and dangerous."  Dangerous?  That presumes quite a lot about what the typical geologist should be expected to know about the lunar environment -- and how to operate the equipment needed to get there.  It's hard to remain civil among those who believe that they and they alone know what to do, and that those others who demonstrated they could and did know what to do should automatically be suspect instead.  That's just straight-up narcissism.

I think it's more human nature than we give it credit for.  I see that particular narcissism as congruent with its milder form of "customers from hell."  I think we've all had them, or heard of them -- people who hire experts to do things they cannot do, and then second-guess and micromanage the subsequent process.

I thought the tether was used if, there were large soft spots that someone wander into and weren't able to leave(like quicksand on Earth).  But this would be a emergency for sure, hindering the mobility/distance from the LM.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline apollo16uvc

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Where no telescope has gone before.
    • Apollo 16 UVC
Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2019, 03:04:41 PM »
I told him about the lunar orbiters, landers and impactors that landed/photographed/crashed the moon prior to Apollo.

Gaia denies all of them because space travel is a physical impossibility according to him.

 In fact, in his words he 'knowns' space travel, manned or unmanned, is impossible.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2019, 03:06:52 PM by apollo16uvc »
Ultraviolet light photography rules!
Apollo 16
Skylab