A FAIR DEBATE

[DAKDAK]

I have been told by the extremely biased members of this site that I do not reply, to the explanations  given to me regarding what I personally think about THE OFFICIAL APOLLO RECORD,and that I just move on to another APOLLO conspiracy subject,and disregard the posts disputing the uneducated ideas that I originally posted.I have also been called a Seagull Poster. I don't know what a Seagull Poster is,but I don't believe that I am one.
I have also been criticized by members who say that I use poor grammar and punctuation,this is true remember I dropped out of High School in the 9Th grade,and English was my worst subject. I truly don't know about fragmented sentences or where to start a new paragraph.
A few replies said that I should either go away or dig in to the debate,at first I was going to go away,but since I am positive that I am right and the extremely biased members of this site are wrong I have decided to dig in.
I believe that there are LITERALLY THOUSANDS of inconsistencies and even FLAT OUT LIES in the official record of APOLLO 11. I also believe that I can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt if given enough space to fully explain my arguments.
It doesn't seem fair to me to have to limit your responses to a few lines of text and a few attachments with a maximum of
4 per post, maximum total size 192KB, maximum individual size 128KB(which by the way is more than THREE TIMES THE REPORTED TOTAL MEMORY OF THE ONBOARD APOLLO 11 COMPUTER SYSTEM!!
In order to set the record straight and hopefully start a true FAIR debate on the subject of the OFFICIAL RECORD OF APOLLO 11. Here is the topics that I have previously posted

I think to avoid confusion that we should debate only one APOLLO mission at a time. I think that it would be appropriate since APOLLO 11 was supposedly the first time man landed on the moon,and supposedly mans greatest science and technological achievement that APOLLO 11 would be a good mission to  start this debate.

Below are numbered reasons that I have already posted, as to why I believe that the official record of APOLLO 11 is completely untrue. I have many more reasons to believe this, but these are the ones I have mentioned so far in order to the best of my recollection. I will respond in great detail as the extremely biased members of this site do to any reply. REMEMBER ONLY APOLLO 11

1. The APOLLO 11 Command Module was not large enough to fit what the official record says was inside.

2. The APOLLO 11 on-board computer was not sufficient to preform the tasks that the record says it did.

3. The APOLLO 11 trajectories are completely inaccurate(CRAZY EIGHT)

4. The Apollo 11 audio record is also completely inaccurate(HOUSTON WE HAVE A ROLL PROGRAM)

5 The Apollo 11 videos and still pictures are completely inaccurate(FAKED)

6. That the moon emits light and would have blinded the APOLLO 11 astronauts if they went which  I don't believe they did.

7. That the scientific findings of APOLLO 11 are completely innacurate(FALSE)

8. That the APOLLO 11  water cooled SpaceSuits were completly inadequate (THE ASTRONAUTS WOULD FREEZE)


The Apollo 11 record is a complete fairytale from beginning to end told to the American public to steal tax dollars and forever change are since of reality

I set up a 50 gigabyte drobox so that I can put a complete reply to include Print, Pictures, Eyewitness Accounts and Videos without using this sites resources or having to use YOUTUBE links.

I have started many replies already and will answer your rebuttals quickly


LETS DEBATE


[Post restored by LunarOrbit]

[dwight]

Point 5. Pick up a copy of "Live TV From the Moon". It explains every aspect of the TV camera and its development. You can take that as my explanation, as I wrote it. When you believe you have any questions, even going down to who supplied the cable, post here.

[Glom]

I have been told by the extremely biased members of this site that I do not reply, to the explanations  given to me regarding what I personally think about THE OFFICIAL APOLLO RECORD,and that I just move on to another APOLLO conspiracy subject,and disregard the posts disputing the uneducated ideas that I originally posted.I have also been called a Seagull Poster. I don't know what a Seagull Poster is,but I don't believe that I am one.

If you don't know what it is, how can you can say that?  Oh yeah, it is precisely your lack of knowledge that makes you extra qualified to pass judgement, just in the same way that justice is at its best when the jury doesn't hear the evidence.

For information, a seagull poster is one who arrives, dropped an argument, then leaves it and often goes on to repeat with another argument. To be fair to you, while you thrash around a bit, there have been far worse seagull posters in the past.

I have also been criticized by members who say that I use poor grammar and punctuation,this is true remember I dropped out of High School in the 9Th grade,and English was my worst subject.

I don't know.  From what you've demonstrated, science and maths are making a good play for that title.

I believe that there are LITERALLY THOUSANDS of inconsistencies and even FLAT OUT LIES in the official record of APOLLO 11.

Given the "inconsistencies" you presented so far where misunderstandings on your part, which you admitted, don't hold out too much hope for the rest.

I also believe that I can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt if given enough space to fully explain my arguments.
It doesn't seem fair to me to have to limit your responses to a few lines of text and a few attachments with a maximum of
4 per post, maximum total size 192KB, maximum individual size 128KB

You can make multiple posts in a thread.  But in fact, it is probably better not to as it allows the debate to happen in a much more digestible format.

I think to avoid confusion that we should debate only one APOLLO mission at a time.

That's a simplification that doesn't bode well for your understanding of the fundamentals of logic.  Many issues cannot be compartmentalised into a single mission.  That's why Jay has organised his website by category.

I think that it would be appropriate since APOLLO 11 was supposedly the first time man landed on the moon,and supposedly mans greatest science and technological achievement that APOLLO 11 would be a good mission to  start this debate.

I recommend Apollo 8 since most of what you list below what apply equally to that mission.  Tell us what happened on Apollo 8 first.

Below are numbered reasons that I have already posted, as to why I believe that the official record of APOLLO 11 is completely untrue. I have many more reasons to believe this, but these are the ones I have mentioned so far in order to the best of my recollection. I will respond in great detail as the extremely biased members of this site do to any reply. REMEMBER ONLY APOLLO 11

Since what you list below are just hubristic statements without any justification for them, we can't respond at this point.  We're not going to get into a nu-uh, uh-huh style of debate.  If you want to us and anyone else reading this forum to take your statements seriously, you need to explain why you believe them so.

But it is pointless doing that all in one thread as it will make debate hard to follow.  Do a thread for each one, but do it in turn.

So start a thread for one, giving your explanation, then we discuss.  Once that's done, you can move onto the next.

But you don't need the first one, since we've already done that and you even conceded the point.  No backsies!

I have started many replies already and will answer your rebuttals quickly


LETS DEBATE

You need to provide an argument first.  We await that.

[ChrLz]

BEFORE you proceed...

WHICH (if any) of the claims you have already made, have not been sufficiently explained?

IN ORDER OF MERIT, please.

Anything you do not list, we will have to conclude - and you will have to concede - were INCORRECT claims made by you.


I would suggest that no new topics be posted or responded to, UNTIL YOU DO THAT.  But that's just my biased opinion...

[Echnaton]

I think to avoid confusion that we should debate only one APOLLO mission at a time. I think that it would be appropriate since APOLLO 11 was supposedly the first time man landed on the moon,and supposedly mans greatest science and technological achievement that APOLLO 11 would be a good mission to  start this debate.

You may want to talk about one mission at a time but that is not a requirement that makes sense.  The entirety of the Apollo program from its inception to its conclusion is relevant and an artificial imposition of one mission is not reasonable. For instance, which crewed flights before A11 were faked? A7 - A10

[Echnaton]

6. That the moon emits light and would have blinded the APOLLO 11 astronauts if they went which  I don't believe they did.

I do really want to know about this claim.  Can you explain the phases of the moon with respect to your idea of a moon that emits light.

[sts60]

DAKDAK, please first explain why you think anyone is less qualified to discuss this after actually learning about the subject.

Especially when you are typing your posts on a computer designed by people with advanced degrees in solid-state physics (a branch of quantum physics), computer science, metallurgy, chemistry, etc. over a network built by similarly highly-educated people, which uses timing signals from GPS satellites built by similarly-educated people, plus aerospace engineers, and which themselves use general relativity to work right.

Please note, I am not saying that your claims are wrong because you're a 9th-grade dropout and I have degrees in physics and engineering and a couple of decades' work in this field.  Your claims are either right or wrong depending on whether they match reality.  But you're telling me you're better equipped to understand the subject, and I have already asked you to justify that statement, and I will keep on asking you until I get an answer.

Edit to add: I need to point out that I am not by a long shot the most knowledgeable about Apollo on this forum.  I'm just speaking from my direct experience.

[Chew]

It doesn't seem fair to me to have to limit your responses to a few lines of text and a few attachments with a maximum of
4 per post, maximum total size 192KB, maximum individual size 128KB(which by the way is more than THREE TIMES THE REPORTED TOTAL MEMORY OF THE ONBOARD APOLLO 11 COMPUTER SYSTEM!!

The Apollo computers didn't store digital photographs so that line of reasoning fails right out of the gate.

How much memory is required to calculate a spacecraft's position, velocity, and acceleration in 3 axis? Why am I asking you? You can't even figure out the volume of a simple cone.

[Valis]

You need to provide evidence to back up your claims:

1. The APOLLO 11 Command Module was not large enough to fit what the official record says was inside.

How much space was needed? What was inner volume?

2. The APOLLO 11 on-board computer was not sufficient to preform the tasks that the record says it did.

In what way was it not sufficient? What did the computer have to do, and how much computing power and memory was required to do those tasks?

3. The APOLLO 11 trajectories are completely inaccurate(CRAZY EIGHT)

What is the problem with the trajectory?

4. The Apollo 11 audio record is also completely inaccurate(HOUSTON WE HAVE A ROLL PROGRAM)

Is the part in parenthesis an example of the inaccuracy? Please provide context.

5 The Apollo 11 videos and still pictures are completely inaccurate(FAKED)

Again, you need to provide examples of what is inaccurate.

6. That the moon emits light and would have blinded the APOLLO 11 astronauts if they went which  I don't believe they did.

You haven't explained the process of the moon emitting (visible) light.

7. That the scientific findings of APOLLO 11 are completely innacurate(FALSE)

Examples are again required, with your explanations of what is wrong.

8. That the APOLLO 11  water cooled SpaceSuits were completly inadequate (THE ASTRONAUTS WOULD FREEZE)

Why would the astronauts freeze? Isn't water cooling used for the cooling, not heating? What aspects of thermodynamics and heat transfer specifically are dominant on the moon, in the sense that they need to be accounted for when you are planning your thermal control?

I have started many replies already and will answer your rebuttals quickly

Well, as you haven't provided a single piece of evidence yet, there's nothing that isn't rebutted by a single word (try "incorrect") at this point.

[Jason Thompson]

I have also been criticized by members who say that I use poor grammar and punctuation,this is true remember I dropped out of High School in the 9Th grade,and English was my worst subject.

SO tell us again why those of us who did not drop out of school and who went on to obtain qualifications and professional experience should take your claims seriously?

1. The APOLLO 11 Command Module was not large enough to fit what the official record says was inside.

There is a whole thread devoted to just this subject. Why don't you explain to us exactly what it is about the difference between total volume, interior volume and habitable volume you are not getting?

2. The APOLLO 11 on-board computer was not sufficient to preform the tasks that the record says it did.

How do you know?

3. The APOLLO 11 trajectories are completely inaccurate(CRAZY EIGHT)

How do you know? And what about EVERY SINGLE OTHER SHOT TO THE MOON that used the same trajectory? It is only very recently that alternatives for low powered unmanned probes have been used.

4. The Apollo 11 audio record is also completely inaccurate(HOUSTON WE HAVE A ROLL PROGRAM)

How do you know?

5 The Apollo 11 videos and still pictures are completely inaccurate(FAKED)

How do you know?

6. That the moon emits light and would have blinded the APOLLO 11 astronauts if they went which  I don't believe they did.

How do you know? Prove to us the moon emits light rather than reflecting it, and square that with observations of shadows and phases.

7. That the scientific findings of APOLLO 11 are completely innacurate(FALSE)

How do you know? You dropped out of school in the 9th grade, so what makes you qulaified to judge the scientific results of the mission?

8. That the APOLLO 11  water cooled SpaceSuits were completly inadequate (THE ASTRONAUTS WOULD FREEZE)

How do you know? And do you know that the design of the suit was not developed for Apollo but was an existing design adopted for the purpose?

This is not a debate, this is a bunch of unsupported assertions. Back them up or withdraw.

[JayUtah]

I have been told by the extremely biased members of this site...

...says the Fundamentalist Christian.

I believe that there are LITERALLY THOUSANDS of inconsistencies and even FLAT OUT LIES in the official record of APOLLO 11.

But you aren't qualified to judge that record now, are you?  You lack the appropriate knowledge.  Hence what you believe to be "inconsistencies" are more likely to be examples of your ignorance.

In order to set the record straight and hopefully start a true FAIR debate...

There can be no fair debate with you as long as, in the end. you'll just continue to celebrate your colossal ignorance and wave the Bible.

I think to avoid confusion that we should debate only one APOLLO mission at a time.

I don't agree to that.  If you're going to debate the validity of the technology, then it's fair to debate from all the examples of it, not just the ones you cherry-pick.  I reject your application in limine.

...as the extremely biased members of this site do to any reply.

No point in debating someone who starts out the debate in ignorance and merely accuses his opponents of vague bias.

1. The APOLLO 11 Command Module was not large enough to fit what the official record says was inside.

Wrong.  You can't correctly compute the volume of the spacecraft.  You can't even comprehend the difference between interior volume and total volume.  You provide no estimate for the volume of equipment you believe in contains.  And on the contrary, you keep mentioning equipment that was installed outside the crew compartment.  You fail to establish even the slightest factual basis for your belief.

No debate possible on this point until you provide evidence.

2. The APOLLO 11 on-board computer was not sufficient to preform the tasks that the record says it did.

Where's your proof?  I have a degree in computer science and taught the subject at a university.  I have built and operated literally hundreds of computers.  I find absolutely nothing wrong with the design and operation of the Apollo guidance computer.  You are ignorant of the principles of design and operation of computers, hence your belief is unsubstantiated.

No debate possible on this point until you quantify what the computer was expected to do and what its design as stated could reasonably accomplish.

3. The APOLLO 11 trajectories are completely inaccurate(CRAZY EIGHT)

Nonsense.  You are ignorant of orbital mechanics, while others here have correctly and completely explained the design of the orbit and the reason for it.

No debate possible on this point until you describe what exactly about the translunar trajectory made it improper and why.

4. The Apollo 11 audio record is also completely inaccurate(HOUSTON WE HAVE A ROLL PROGRAM)

Asked and answered.  No further debate possible on this point until you address the rebuttal already on the table.

5 The Apollo 11 videos and still pictures are completely inaccurate(FAKED)

What proof do you plan to copy from some other web site?  What is your training and experience in the forensic authentication of photographs?

No debate possible on this point until you substantiate your credentials and provide examples to discuss.

6. That the moon emits light and would have blinded the APOLLO 11 astronauts if they went which  I don't believe they did.

Asked and answered.  You are patently ignorant of the principles of radiometry, despite their having been laboriously explained to you.  The Moon is only a reflector of visible light.

No further debate possible on this point until your ignorance on the basic physical principles has been alleviated.

7. That the scientific findings of APOLLO 11 are completely innacurate(FALSE)

Asked and answered.  You wrongly believe that all scientific findings must accompany the data collection.

No further debate on this topic possible while you remain ignorant of scientific method and practice.

8. That the APOLLO 11  water cooled SpaceSuits were completly inadequate (THE ASTRONAUTS WOULD FREEZE)

You were asked to provide the heat-transfer computations proving this, which you did not do likely because you have no idea what "heat transfer" is and how it is reckoned.  Until you can do something of this ilk, you have no evidence for your claim.

No debate possible on this point until you show evidence.

[LunarOrbit]

I have been told by the extremely biased members of this site...

In what way are we biased? Is it because we let those darn facts get in the way of a good ol' conspiracy theory?

...that I do not reply, to the explanations  given to me

Obviously you don't acknowledge the replies you have been given if you still believe the Command Module is too small or that the Moon emits light. Those have been thoroughly debunked.

I have also been criticized by members who say that I use poor grammar and punctuation,this is true remember I dropped out of High School in the 9Th grade,and English was my worst subject. I truly don't know about fragmented sentences or where to start a new paragraph.

It's never too late to learn. Your problem is that you are proud of your ignorance. You don't want to learn.

A few replies said that I should either go away or dig in to the debate,at first I was going to go away,but since I am positive that I am right and the extremely biased members of this site are wrong I have decided to dig in.

Stubbornly taking as stance that has been overwhelmingly proven wrong is pointless. If you're wrong (and you are) it's better to just admit it (if not to us, at least to yourself) than it is to continue to make a fool of yourself by clinging to your wrong claims.

I believe that there are LITERALLY THOUSANDS of inconsistencies and even FLAT OUT LIES in the official record of APOLLO 11.

You have shown us that you understand very little about the Apollo 11 record, therefore it is more likely that what you believe are inconsistencies and lies are really just the result of your misunderstanding the information.

Does it really sense to you that over the last 42 years millions people from around the world studied Apollo but somehow missed all of these supposed inconsistencies and lies that you discovered? Doesn't it make more sense that you are simply wrong?

I also believe that I can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt if given enough space to fully explain my arguments.

Give it your best shot. Many before you have tried and failed... but good luck anyway.

It doesn't seem fair to me to have to limit your responses to a few lines of text

There is no limit to how long your posts can be. Just keep in mind that people will get bored and stop reading if all you do is post big walls of text. And proper grammar and punctuation might not seem important to you, but it does make it easier to read your posts and understand what you are saying. That should be important to you.

a few attachments with a maximum of
4 per post, maximum total size 192KB, maximum individual size 128KB(which by the way is more than THREE TIMES THE REPORTED TOTAL MEMORY OF THE ONBOARD APOLLO 11 COMPUTER SYSTEM!!

I don't mind you (or anyone else) posting pictures, but I want you to keep in mind that 1) I have a limited amount of web space, and if you fill it up with pictures I will have to pay for more; and 2) the more pictures you post the longer it takes for the forum to load.

All I ask is that you only post pictures if they are absolutely necessary to make your case.

I think to avoid confusion that we should debate only one APOLLO mission at a time. I think that it would be appropriate since APOLLO 11 was supposedly the first time man landed on the moon,and supposedly mans greatest science and technological achievement that APOLLO 11 would be a good mission to  start this debate.

This seems unnecessary. All Apollo missions used the same technology and techniques to achieve going to the Moon.

Below are numbered reasons that I have already posted, as to why I believe that the official record of APOLLO 11 is completely untrue. I have many more reasons to believe this, but these are the ones I have mentioned so far in order to the best of my recollection. I will respond in great detail as the extremely biased members of this site do to any reply. REMEMBER ONLY APOLLO 11

1. The APOLLO 11 Command Module was not large enough to fit what the official record says was inside.

This has been explained to you in great detail here. We aren't going to waste our time repeating ourselves over an over again. Abandoning an argument in one thread because it's been debunked and then repeating the same argument as if it is new in a different thread is not going to work here.

Your problem is that you don't seem to understand the difference between "total volume" and "habitable volume". Habitable volume is what is left of the total volume after you add all of your equipment and food etc.

But since you only seem to understand pictures:

2. The APOLLO 11 on-board computer was not sufficient to preform the tasks that the record says it did.

Just saying it doesn't make it true. Prove it.

What specifically was the Apollo computer required to do that the technology wasn't capable of?

3. The APOLLO 11 trajectories are completely inaccurate(CRAZY EIGHT)

Just saying it doesn't make it true. Prove it.

What trajectory should the spacecraft have followed? How do you explain the fact that people from all around the world were able to track the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon and back?

4. The Apollo 11 audio record is also completely inaccurate(HOUSTON WE HAVE A ROLL PROGRAM)

Just saying it doesn't make it true. Prove it.

Do you even know what the roll program was? Explain it to me.

5 The Apollo 11 videos and still pictures are completely inaccurate(FAKED)

Just saying it doesn't make it true. Prove it.

Show us some examples.

6. That the moon emits light and would have blinded the APOLLO 11 astronauts if they went which  I don't believe they did.

Just saying it doesn't make it true. Prove it.

This is idiotic. It really is. There are shadows on the Moon and that would not be possible if it was emitting light. Why don't you understand that very simple fact?

7. That the scientific findings of APOLLO 11 are completely innacurate(FALSE)

Just saying it doesn't make it true. Prove it.

8. That the APOLLO 11  water cooled SpaceSuits were completly inadequate (THE ASTRONAUTS WOULD FREEZE)

Just saying it doesn't make it true. Prove it.

The Apollo 11 record is a complete fairytale from beginning to end told to the American public to steal tax dollars and forever change are since of reality

Just saying it doesn't make it true. Prove it.

I set up a 50 gigabyte drobox so that I can put a complete reply to include Print, Pictures, Eyewitness Accounts and Videos without using this sites resources or having to use YOUTUBE links.

I will not waste my time reading your arguments if they are made anywhere except in this forum.

I have started many replies already and will answer your rebuttals quickly

All you have done is make baseless claims like "the Moon emits light" without anything to back them up. Just saying it doesn't make it true. Prove it.

[Zakalwe]

Forget the Apollo stuff DAKDAK...you are clearly out of your depth when it comes to discussing basic principles (such as the volume of cones) let alone more complicated subjects such as Lunar trajectories and computers.


The bit that I find interesting is this statement:

I don't know what a Seagull Poster is,but I don't believe that I am one.

If you don't know what one is, then how can you say whether you are one or not? Surely the correct course would be to ask the question "What is a seagull poster?"?
This alone tells me more about you than you would realise.

[Glom]

Wait!  We haven't even asked the important question.

Okay, DakDak, if it was a hoax, then what exactly did happen?

[stutefish]

I think to avoid confusion that we should debate only one APOLLO mission at a time.

I think to avoid confusion we should probably debate only one CLAIM at a time.

How about this one?

1. The APOLLO 11 Command Module was not large enough to fit what the official record says was inside.

I don't see any point in debating anything else until you respond to the explanations already provided about this claim.