And... where is the pilot?

[ka9q]

This does not prove that this module is nowhere, could be in a suspended cable studio behind a black curtain, not proof that someone is driving, only one head is seen behind a window.

And what evidence do you have that this was actually the case?

This is just one of hundreds of still pictures taken during each Apollo mission. There is also 16mm movie film showing the same events from both directions. Many of the pictures and films show the moon below, and some have the earth in the distance. They are correctly lit for when they were taken, and the moon below is correct for the locations where they were taken. These views also match modern photos taken from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

We have recordings and transcripts of the crews during these missions. We have detailed mission reports on the trajectories and performance of the spacecraft involved. We have detailed engineering handbooks describing how the systems worked.

What more do you need besides a graceful way to save face as you admit that you were wrong?

[JayUtah]

This does not prove that this module is nowhere, could be in a suspended cable studio behind a black curtain, not proof that someone is driving, only one head is seen behind a window.

Your goalposts have afterburners.  Do you even listen to yourself?  You were trying to make a point by saying that it was suspicious no photos existed of astronauts at the controls of a spaceship.  No photos existed, was your claim.  If Apollo had been real, you insinuated, they would have taken pictures of astronauts flying spaceships.

Then when the artifact you say doesn't exist is shoved under your nose, you forget all about what it was you thought its conspicuous absence proved.  You lurch frantically from one knee-jerk claim to another without showing any evidence that you've done an iota of research or expended a single neuron's thought.  I echo sts60's question:  does it ever occur to you to change your mind when you're proven egregiously wrong on about the facts?

[gillianren]

What's more, I don't give one good god damn about what "could be." What I care about is what there is evidence to show.  Tarkus, you have never shown evidence, because you're too busy refusing to see the evidence that's in front of you.  Show me how the hoax was done, in as much detail as NASA has shown that the landings took place as described, and we're getting somewhere.  "It could have" doesn't mean a thing.

[bknight]

This does not prove that this module is nowhere, could be in a suspended cable studio behind a black curtain, not proof that someone is driving, only one head is seen behind a window.

If it was fake then how would it have been filmed?  You completely disregard any evidence that we spoon feed you. 

[sts60]

Tarkus, you said such imagery did not exist.  You were wrong.  Please don't try to change the subject before dealing with your error.  And please answer my questions.

[ineluki]

Just to test a personal hypothesis could you tell me the capital of France?

Well, it was offtopic, but it's quite telling that tarkus couldn't even write a simple answer that would have consisted of a single word with mere five letters...

[Luke Pemberton]

Well, it was offtopic, but it's quite telling that tarkus couldn't even write a simple answer that would have consisted of a single word with mere five letters...

When I frequented the wilds of YouTube comments section I tried a similar approach from time to time. I was never expecting an answer, it was more to demonstrate the double standards by which HBs operate, namely Never A Straight Answer.

[Zakalwe]

This does not prove that this module is nowhere

Shifting the burden of proof- a classic hoaxie technique to avoid addressing that what has been claimed not to exist does in fact exist (namely, images of astronauts at the controls).  You need to understand the burden of proof and the obligations that it places on you.

This does not prove that this module is nowhere, could be in a suspended cable studio behind a black curtain, not proof that someone is driving, only one head is seen behind a window.

Indeed it could. However, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim. And any evidence that you would use would have to explain the chain of still frames and video that the image in question forms a part of. After all, that image isn't the only image of the sequence. Nor is it a single piece of evidence on which the whole veracity of the mission relies on.

As an example I could easily claim that you are nothing more than a script running on a machine somewhere that constantly regurgitates long-debunked hoax nonsense. Now, you know that that is not the case*, so it would be up to me to prove it. The burden of proof is mine, and mine alone in this case. You do not have to prove that you are human, it's up to me to prove that you are a script. If I demanded that you prove that you are a human, then you can rightfully wave my claim away as arrant nonsense.

You will (hopefully) notice that that is not what tends to happen here. People here go way above what's required to try and show you the fallacy of your ways and even to try an educate some sense into you. Do not interpret this as weakness or as an acknowledgement that the burden of proof does not sit with you. However when you continue to wilfully ignore those attempts, shift the goalpost or go off on a gish-gallop, then you will understand that it's human nature for people to reserve the right to offer you further politeness.





*That you are a human, not a script running on a machine. The bit about regurgitating long-debunked hoax nonsense is all too plain to see! 

[Ishkabibble]

Even watching footage of a pilot flying aerobatics is dull - it's someone sitting there moving some controls (even the famous GIF of the topless woman doing rolls just gets dull after a few repetitions).

I'd have to personally test the hypothesis that such a GIF would get dull after a few repetitions...  Link? 

[bknight]

Well, it was offtopic, but it's quite telling that tarkus couldn't even write a simple answer that would have consisted of a single word with mere five letters...

When I frequented the wilds of YouTube comments section I tried a similar approach from time to time. I was never expecting an answer, it was more to demonstrate the double standards by which HBs operate, namely Never A Straight Answer.
Indeed a double  standard OR change the subject I personally tell them to stick to the subject, unsuccessfully  at times

[nomuse]

Well, to be fair, there are two entirely different conversations being had, and thus two meta-levels to any question as well. When we ask "What is the capital of France?" or "Tell us something you are enthused about and expert on" or some other attempt to elicit the kind of communication (and the thought behind it) that we find substantive, the hoax believer from their background can only interpret such questions as some kind of attack.

We're largely in the business of teaching, and learning, and one of our frequent questions is, "How DO we know what we know?" They are in the business of convincing, and everything is either emotional currency or a debating tactic. Words are only to be used for their connotations, never for their literal meaning.

Thus such questions as "What is the capital of France?" get ignored.

[ka9q]

The Socratic Method isn't always appreciated.

I drive a Nissan Leaf EV, and I frequently encounter other drivers at public charging sites. Recently I met two guys who were not regular drivers; they had been hired to deliver the car. They didn't have a fast charge port so they were wondering how long they had to stay connected to the slow charger. They were taking the (estimated) range indicator a little too seriously, so I pointed out that it'd be a good idea to allow a safety margin.

"Which way?" one of them asked, in all apparent seriousness. He couldn't tell if I meant that he should get a little more range -- or less.

"What do you think safety margin means?" I said.

"Leave it up to an engineer, they can never give you a straight answer!"

[JayUtah]

"Leave it up to an engineer, they can never give you a straight answer!"

Reminds me of sitting with the producer of the unaired History Channel pilot.  "So how powerful are the Van Allen belts really?" he asked.  Through my mind went the variables that go into the AP8 and AE8 models, their geometry, and the vast array of possible departure orbits.  "It really depends on quite a number of factors."  Keep in mind this guy is a friend, and completely sympathetic to my cause.  "Well, you know, just on average."  I debated trying to sketch them and showing how the differences in zones are exponential.  I debated throwing out a straw man.  In the end the latter is what I did.  "For a typical interplanetary departure,..."  Still I'm firmly convinced that this producer -- an intelligent and conscientious man -- will cite my figure (which I do not even recall) as that established by the aerospace engineering community.

These days I ask in advance:  "Do you want the real answer or the simple answer?"

[Ishkabibble]

Bravo, Jay... That's the question I ask my students on a daily basis.

Do you want the real answer or the simple one.

They don't yet know how complicated their intended field of study is.

[bknight]

"Leave it up to an engineer, they can never give you a straight answer!"

Reminds me of sitting with the producer of the unaired History Channel pilot.  "So how powerful are the Van Allen belts really?" he asked.  Through my mind went the variables that go into the AP8 and AE8 models, their geometry, and the vast array of possible departure orbits.  "It really depends on quite a number of factors."  Keep in mind this guy is a friend, and completely sympathetic to my cause.  "Well, you know, just on average."  I debated trying to sketch them and showing how the differences in zones are exponential.  I debated throwing out a straw man.  In the end the latter is what I did.  "For a typical interplanetary departure,..."  Still I'm firmly convinced that this producer -- an intelligent and conscientious man -- will cite my figure (which I do not even recall) as that established by the aerospace engineering community.

These days I ask in advance:  "Do you want the real answer or the simple answer?"

Or what does your audience consist of?