An abject void of discourse

Anyone who asks is handed a bunch of debunks about shadows, from a bunch of wankers. A joke

I commented recently under a post that was simply a share of an interesting photo of the moon and earth, from beyond the moon, from a camera on a probe. I got interested in some remarks there about the spin of the moon and continued the thought in my blog here:

Does the moon spin?

That’s just musing about frames of reference, and concepts of orbital and angular momentum and what they mean to us in ordinary perception, and in physical reality per se. I was neither bunking nor debunking anything. Just talking about whether a carousel horse spins on its own pole or not (some insist that it does).

But since this is about the moon, here is my now standard answer:

It’s odd that you conflate LEM descent to moon surface, manned, relaunch from moon to lunar orbit for rendezvous/docking, and return to earth … with all other rocket missions and payload deliveries.

It’s odd but surprisingly common. You seem unable to differentiate. As many are.

Typically it’s the immediate response every time the issue is raised. It’s yet another symptom of the impoverished discourse available anywhere about the manned moon landings.

I’ve read nearly every hoax theory about this and every debunk, and every criticism of debunks, and criticism of those criticisms.

The entire narrative is piss poor low quality.

But more importantly, the storytelling by those who did the moon walks and return to earth, is a case-study lesson in abject poverty of storytelling. That’s to me inexplicable. No explanation of it makes sense. You can even say that men of exceptionally low charisma were selected for the missions, and still it makes no sense

I post this now, again, because recently I gave up completely giving 2 shits what anyone thinks of me. And because, abject poverty of discourse is overwhelmingly the primary feature of “reality” today. It’s not just poor performance at one press conference. It’s the total absence of memorable story, for the entire time since 1969.

Piss poor quality discourse is what we see with everything now:

“These vaccines are shit”

“Oh, so you don’t believe in medicine?”

Total inability to differentiate.

So back to the moon landings.

Take the most amazing thing that’s ever been done by anyone, anywhere, ever, and multiply that tremendous feat by some number, like 10X, or 1000X, or a 1,000,000X. Maybe then you’re in the ballpark of what these 12 moon walkers “did”.

Yet, would someone please produce just one person, anywhere, who remembers even a single story told by any of these 12 moon visitors?

One person, who remembers one story, from any one of these 12 moon walking astronauts, one single little story that’s at least memorable, at least interesting, in at least some small way. Anything. Any memory whatsoever, of any of these astronauts talking about their EPIC mission and what it was like to do it.

But we get nothing.

Talk about poverty of discourse. It’s a TOTAL void.

Tom Hanks, in a movie, doesn’t count.

There is only one reasonable explanation for this.

The same total void characterizes discourse around the technology, the machinery, the equipment needed to do the job. It’s a void.

The engineers, the scientists, the designers who solved enormous problems…

Where is the discourse about:

a) the complexity of the problems solved

b) how the problems were solved, the technical solutions built into the equipment

c) story telling by the engineers who solved the problems

No doubt their insights must be captivating. And their personalities, one would think, memorable. Certainly their historic achievements should be celebrated.

But instead we’re given an absolute void of discourse.

A zero.

Anyone who asks is handed a bunch of debunks about shadows, from a bunch of wankers.

A joke