Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

Yep. You could I think spot the actual believers versus the scammers by how they reacted to suggestions.

Just a couple of months ago I was telling some other musicians about the guy with the $10,000 (?) speaker cables who refused to do a double blind test against a $100 set of cables.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Just a couple of months ago I was telling some other musicians about the guy with the $10,000 (?) speaker cables who refused to do a double blind test against a $100 set of cables.

Hell, I'd like to see them double blinded against my speaker cable, when ever garden equipment dies I cut the power cable off to make extension leads etc so the lead for my guitar speaker cabinet is the power cable from an old Flymo with a 6.35mm Jack soldered on each end. Obviously the signal from an amplifier is so much greater than any interference (which wouldn't drive the speaker anyway) that shielding is unnecessary and my cabinet is an Orange© cab in their traditional subtle and discrete colour so the cable matches. Plus it's really long so I can have my amp nearby to adjust the settings and the speaker a bit further away.

 

[Vixen]

I was looking for another post and came across this one I'd missed.

How could you possibly forget that they're in lunar gravity? The PLSS and OPS (the emergency backup system) weighed a combined 125 lbs. on earth (not 180). That's only 21 lbs. on the moon. That's like me carrying my biggest house cat on my shoulders, but standing in a pool so that the buoyancy cancels out all but 60 lbs. of our combined weight. Even the combined weight of the astronaut, A7L suit and life support system was only about 60 lbs. on the moon.


No, they don't. There are plenty of photos from the side showing astronauts on the moon standing with a slight forward lean. Maybe you shouldn't claim that all the photos, (thousands of them) show everyone perfectly upright until you've actually, you know, looked at them.
AS11-40-5875
View attachment 71679

Well, we've already seen that Allen is either an idiot or deliberately lying. The problem is that the images he's talking about are almost entirely from the television cameras, especially the RCA cameras attached to the LRVs. So they don't have separate shots. It's not edited like a TV show, there are long, continuous shots. They don't cut from a long shot to a close up. And I've seen Percy's lie about slow motion video exposed by showing unedited shots. Only grifters selling CT videos selectively edit those shots.

Can you please provide a citation for this? The lasers used for ranging with the retroreflectors spread out to cover an area like six kilometers across on the surface of the moon, but that's not enough to pick up multiple retroreflectors. I've seen videos of these lasers being used in real time, and the return from the reflectors is virtually immediate. And the moon's surface isn't reflective enough for them to get any usable signal back from it, it's just background noise because the receiver is looking for the highly specific wavelength of the laser.


The 1962 MIT experiment didn't use a retroreflector. It wasn't until Apollo 11 placed the first one that such ranging measurement became usefully precise.

Lasers don't emit protons. The most sensitive detectors can register as little as a few photons. Again, please provide a citation.


Radio signals? Surely not without a geopositioned satellite they weren't!

And your point?

Was it, now? Can you provide a citation for that? What about all the other facilities around the world using the lunar retroreflectors?

But, again, what about the world's engineering and physics communities, and that pesky overwhelming scientific consensus of theirs? Are they all just impressionable primary school children?

Do you genuinely not see how funny your arguments become once you start pretending to be a world authority who knows more than the actual world's authorities?

Dearie me. The Moon being 1/6th gravity of Earth does not mean a weight on your back is any less lighter. The weight of 180lbs to your 180lbs on your back would still be in the same ratio even on the Moon and still as arduous to carry on your back. Buoyancy is NOT the same as gravity, as you claim. One force pushes you up, the other weighs you down. Walking on the Moon in no way is the same as being immersed in a pool, as you claim.

 

[GlennB]

Oh dear

You're confusing mass and weight.

 

[Vixen]

I'll bet Amy Shira Teitel didn't actually say that. Please post a link to the video in which you think she did.



Again, please link to any "debunker" who suggests any such thing.




In the very hottest section of the inner belts near the magnetic equator. Elsewhere in the belts, the flux and ETA particle energies are orders magnitude lower.


Even if it were true that there was zero confirmation, what reason is there to think they didn't actually take such a route? (ETA, by which I mean: a route inclined to the magnetic equator, not "via the poles") What obstacle is there to their actually having done so?


The spacecraft *did* go through the belts rapidly, because of how the TLI burn worked: they generated all of the speed they needed towards the moon while still in low earth orbit, then gradually lost speed as they climbed towards the moon. They did this mainly because it is efficient to do it this way, using something known as the "Oberth effect". Getting the astronauts through the radiation belts as quickly as possible was a useful side effect of something it made sense for them to do, anyway.

Low earth orbit (LEO) is nowhere near the Van Allen belts. As a comparison, the space stations are only apx 250 miles above earth, well within the Earth's protective atmosphere. The Van Allen belts start at apx. 1,000 miles out continuing for up to 30,000 miles. Even speeding up rapidly would still have taken Apollo 11 at least two to four hours to get through it in a relatively thin-walled aluminium capsule. (Ever been to the dentist and they stick a lead apron on you and leave the room whilst your teeth are being X-rayed?) Please don't pretend this cannot have an adverse effect on 1960's camera film which was NOT kept in a pressurized unit. There is no 'safe route'.

 

[JayUtah]

Dearie me. The Moon being 1/6th gravity of Earth does not mean a weight on your back is any less lighter.

That's literally what it means. As if we need any more proof that you and physics have never been friends.

Low earth orbit (LEO) is nowhere near the Van Allen belts.

It's quite near the Van Allen belts.

South Atlantic Anomaly - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Are you jealous that someone else is getting all the attention lately?

 

[Vixen]

The radio signals Apollo sent back from the moon were received at one of 3 large ground stations, in the US, Spain or Australia depending on the earth's rotation.

Which planet do you propose is the "relevant planet" for your "geopositioned" satellite and where did you get the term geopositioned from anyway?

Given this is 1960's technology - land lines, no software, and all the banks of screens you see in 'Houston' are tv monitors, NOT computers, everything was done to a pre-prepared script. Precision was absolutely key. For example, in docking and undocking. Think about it, Collins orbiting the Moon whilst the guys were 'collecting rocks' needed to be in exactly the right place at the right time for when the capsule took off from the Moon, etc. So, ditto, the "live" tv broadcast. Had there been a satellite geopositioned (=at the same speed of orbit as the Moon so that in effect, it is stationary to it, per position) nil problemo. But it had to ensure a localised satellite was ready in place at the right time - how incredibly logistically efficient would one need to be to have it there just when you need it?

And then Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon ringing Apollo by landline and chatting to the astronauts in person...yes, radio technology was absolutely marvellous: signals bouncing from one station to another to make this possible... Yes, mate! It's possible if we all just think hard enough.

 

[JayUtah]

Given this is 1960's technology - land lines, no software...

The software is on GitHub.

...and all the banks of screens you see in 'Houston' are tv monitors, NOT computers...

Not exactly. The monitors are TV screens only so certain elements can be composed from the computer readout.

...everything was done to a pre-prepared script.

It's called a "flight plan."

Think about it, Collins orbiting the Moon whilst the guys were 'collecting rocks' needed to be in exactly the right place at the right time for when the capsule took off from the Moon, etc.

Yes, there was a countdown and everything. Also, look up "phasing orbit."

Had there been a satellite geopositioned (=at the same speed of orbit as the Moon so that in effect, it is stationery to it, per position) nil problemo.

Let's add orbital mechanics to the very, very long list of things you're ignorant about. What altitude would such a satellite have to be at inn order to orbit "at the same speed of orbit as the Moon?"

Edited by jimbob: 

rule 12 removed

 

[Vixen]

Never mind that, how could they have been "whizzing around on Land Rovers" on the Moon, several decades before electric-powered Land Rovers were introduced?

Indeed, where are all the amazing fold-away Lunar Rovers? GM could have made a killing on the general market. Knocks Clive Sinclair's C5 into a cocked hat.

 

[Mojo]

Had there been a satellite geopositioned (=at the same speed of orbit as the Moon so that in effect, it is stationery to it, per position) nil problemo.

Are you talking about a geostationary satellite here, or one stationary wrt the Moon's surface?

ETA: or one orbiting the Earth at the same distance as the Moon?

 

[Vixen]

<snip>

If it was hoax, considering the level of detail and effort they went to to hoax every last detail, it might have just been easier to go to the moon. That I agree with. A very impressive hoax if it was one.

This has to be the worst 'debunk' of them all. It is so incredibly terrible, it doesn't auger well for the OP video at all, in which this is put as the no.1 and also the final 'debunk'. It runs: 'Oh, 400,000 people were employed by NASA; were it a hoax there would have been a whistle blower!"

Think about it. It's like saying the UK's 550,000 Civil Service employees would/could/should/must have known about Peter Mandelsson's MI6 vetting as US Ambassador (when Starmer's own cabinet were in the dark!).

In addition, of course a 'hoax' is far easier than the real thing. So NASA has 'lost' the entire Apollo telemetry and '700 boxes of original material' has now gone missing. How convenient. Luckily, we still have our faith. We know Russia and China lie to their people all the time but we know the USA never would. As we have been inculcated from an early age, the US are the 'good guys'.

A very impressive hoax if it was one. So herein lies your entire case.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I saw a post from a guy who said he KNEW the landings were fake because he had been in that area at that time and didn't see Eleven anywhere.

I nominated him for the Chutzpah Award.

 

[zooterkin]

Indeed, where are all the amazing fold-away Lunar Rovers? GM could have made a killing on the general market. Knocks Clive Sinclair's C5 into a cocked hat.

Have you completely lost your ability to reason?

 

[Vixen]

That's literally what it means. As if we need any more proof that you and physics have never been friends.


It's quite near the Van Allen belts.

South Atlantic Anomaly - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Are you jealous that someone else is getting all the attention lately?

If you go to the Moon carrying say, one half of your weight on the Moon, that proportion remains exactly the same on the Moon. Or are you claiming it's suddenly not half your weight, whether on the Moon or Mars.

In addition, suddenly the Moon has buoyancy instead of gravity, according to FosterZygote.

 

[zooterkin]

If you go to the Moon carrying say, one half of your weight on the Moon, that proportion remains exactly the same on the Moon. Or are you claiming it's suddenly not half your weight, whether on the Moon or Mars.

In addition, suddenly the Moon has buoyancy instead of gravity, according to FosterZygote.

Do you think your muscles lose strength because they weigh less?

 

[GlennB]

If you go to the Moon carrying say, one half of your weight on the Moon, that proportion remains exactly the same on the Moon. Or are you claiming it's suddenly not half your weight, whether on the Moon or Mars.

In addition, suddenly the Moon has buoyancy instead of gravity, according to FosterZygote.

It isn't your weight that lifts or carries things. An earthly 10kg weight is lighter on the moon and easier to lift because your muscles are just as strong up there as they are down here.

eta: ninja'd by zooterkin

 

[Vixen]

Do you think your muscles lose strength because they weigh less?

We are not talking about muscles. Here's a poser for you: Two men are on the Moon. One man weighs 200lbs on Earth. Would he still be twice as heavy as the one who weighs100lbs on Earth? Yes or no will suffice.

 

[Steve]

Have you completely lost your ability to reason?

That ship sailed some time back.

 

[Vixen]

It isn't your weight that lifts or carries things. An earthly 10kg weight is lighter on the moon and easier to lift because your muscles are just as strong up there as they are down here.

eta: ninja'd by zooterkin

A 10kg weight is also subject to the same 1/6th gravity.

 

[GlennB]

A 10kg weight is also subject to the same 1/6th gravity.

Exactly, so it's easier to lift as your muscular strength is not reduced on the Moon.

What were you trying to say?