Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

Given this is 1960's technology - land lines,

They had satellite communications in the '60s.

no software,

They had software in the '60s.

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

That's because the computers were in another room. You do understand the difference between the monitor on a laptop and the CPU, right?

Right?

everything was done to a pre-prepared script.

Everything was done according to a carefully planned mission profile. You think that a "real" mission would have just winged it?

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.

If you'd watched that video I posted about Lunar Orbit Rendezvous you'd have known how they did exactly that. But you don't actually want to learn anything, just assert that you are here to generously share your brilliance with others. The above actually reminds me of a time when a flat earther said, "If the earth really orbited the sun, we'd see different constellations in the sky every six months".

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?

Jesus Christ! You're arguments are just getting dumber and dumber.

Communications satellites, geostationary or otherwise, are used to relay transmissions between transmitters and receivers that are not in line of sight with each other. Like, if you're in London, and you want to broadcast a TV signal to New York, you can send the signal to a transmitter that sends it to a comm satellite, which amplifies it and sends it back to earth. An antenna in or near New York can then receive the signal from the cam satellite and send it to a TV transmitter there.

But, if you physically lift London out of the ground and put it in the sky above New York, you don't need the satellite. Communications satellites are like a mirror that lets two people wave at one another around the corner of a wall. If the two people are standing in the open and can directly see one another, they don't need the mirror.

The spacecraft and the DSTN antennas were in direct line of sight when they communicated. Do you understand that?

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.

Vixen, you aren't thinking at all. A landline is just a wire. If you're staffing a radio telescope receiving a transmission from space and you plug a set of headphones into a jack to listen to it, that's a wire, too. You can route the signal to another wire that can travel through land lines to anyone where that network reaches, including the White House.

At this rate you're going to ask how the Apollo crews were able to take photographs without their souls being stolen.

 

[jimbob]

Remember Rule 12 and attack the arguement not the arguer

I will probably clean up some posts when I get time

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

Or if you work smart enough. Did you know that the U.S. Navy once had a telephone connection between D.C. and Pearl Harbor that worked by bouncing signals directly off the moon without a single satellite? And that was in the '50s.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Vixen's previous point about ratios of weights being the same in moon gravity was in support of the claim that a 180lb astronaut wearing a 180lb backpack should not have stood with a perfectly upright posture. And that would also be true if the weights were divided by six.

It went quiet when she was shown photographic evidence that the astronauts did in fact stand leaning appreciably forwards.

Now she's back repeating the weight ratios claim but without any mention of why that might be significant. Because it isn't.

 

[JayUtah]

Now she's back repeating the weight ratios claim but without any mention of why that might be significant. Because it isn't.

It seems she’s back with all her old claims as if nothing else has been said in this thread. The answers are right there.

 

[JayUtah]

It went quiet when she was shown photographic evidence that the astronauts did in fact stand leaning appreciably forwards.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. The unchanged weight ratio has nothing to do with the tipping moment. The geometry of the problem remains unchanged but the weight values change. The astronaut’s own weight is irrelevant because it’s squarely over his feet—no tipping moment. The weight of the backpack is 1/6 the Earth weight. The length of the moment arm doesn’t change. So the moment is 1/6 what it would be on Earth. It’s equivalent to carrying a small dog in a backpack, not 180 pounds of equipment and supplies.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

She's just aping for attention. No one is actually this stupid.

I believe she is perfectly sincere. When she insistently insists that a person who weighs 180 pounds on earth and can easily carry 30 pounds cannot possibly carry 30 pounds on the moon, because he himself weighs only 30 pounds on the moon and what matters is the ratio of the weight of the thing being carried to the weight of the carrier, I take her at her word that she really, truly, genuinely, honestly believes that nonsense.

But that's just my opinion. To settle the matter, we'd have to look into whether she has ever insistently insisted that she really, truly, genuinely, honestly believes any other obvious nonsense.

We have touched on this in other threads. The mods frown on us providing our actual opinion, even if backed by copious evidence as provided by Vixen.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Oh good grief. You might want to learn the difference between weight and mass before you make further such embarrassingly stupid statements.

 

[catsmate]

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'.

Idiocy on so many levels.
To start with the lowest point of the Van Allen belts is at 200km.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I'm off out to get some biscuits, as this thread has taken care of the stuff in the cupboard.

Any requests? But if anyone says bourbons or jaffa cakes, I may kill...

 

[JayUtah]

I take her at her word that she really, truly, genuinely, honestly believes that nonsense.

I take her vague, physicksy-sounding arguments at the face value that she understands neither the argument nor its rebuttal. It’s pure cargo-cult.

But this whole thread has now become nothing more than mindless fringe resets.

 

[grmcdorman]

This gave rise to hoax claimants interpreting video glitches as lights glinting off the wires from which the Apollo astronauts were supposedly suspended

I've often heard debunkers saying it's the flat aerial on top of the PLSS.

 

[Steve]

I believe she is perfectly sincere. When she insistently insists that a person who weighs 180 pounds on earth and can easily carry 30 pounds cannot possibly carry 30 pounds on the moon, because he himself weighs only 30 pounds on the moon and what matters is the ratio of the weight of the thing being carried to the weight of the carrier, I take her at her word that she really, truly, genuinely, honestly believes that nonsense.

But that's just my opinion. To settle the matter, we'd have to look into whether she has ever insistently insisted that she really, truly, genuinely, honestly believes any other obvious nonsense.

I too believe that her interesting thought processes lead her to these quite sincere statements. Nobody could intentionally troll so consistently for so long across so many threads on so many diverse topics.

Some people have no aptitude for science. I have been married to such a person for 42 years. But my dear wife freely acknowledges that and does not offer opinions on topics she finds hard to understand.

 

[JayUtah]

I've often heard debunkers saying it's the flat aerial on top of the PLSS.

Which it sometimes is.

 

[Mojo]

The plasmasphere isn't really a part of earth's atmosphere. It's part of the magnetosphere, which is caused by the interaction of earth's magnetic field with solar charged particles. It's not enough to make an argument, then go and find a paragraph or two that you hope will support it. You're constant mistakes regarding science betray how little you actually care about it.

Actually they start ~400 miles altitude. Again, details.

There was more than just aluminum. The inner pressure hull was an aluminum honeycomb sandwich, the outer hull was a stainless steel honeycomb sandwich. There was also quite a bit of glass fiber insulation as well. You continue to unintentionally show us how much you actually know about this subject as you tell us all the experts are wrong.

And, again, they didn't travel through the highest flux regions of the belts. Look at this again:
View attachment 72034
The VARB doesn't have uniform intensity. The density of the dots in that diagram indicates the particle density. They avoided the more active parts of the belts during transit. They also flew during times of lower solar activity. But even if they'd flown straight through it wouldn't have been enough to cause them serious harm. They would have had to orbit within the core of the inner belt constantly for at least several days to have received a lethal dose within the shielding of the Command Module.

So going to the dentist grants you greater scientific authority than the world's physics community. You still betray your ignorance by comparing X-rays to high energy particles. They aren't the same. You still haven't answered challenges to produce the levels of radiation encountered and their effects on film shielded within its own magazines and the hull of the Command Module. You still ignore the fact that film doesn't need to be stored in a "pressurized unit", as well as the even more inconvenient fact that for the vast majority of the missions, it was in a pressurized environment. At this point, "pressurized unit" is just another one of those "sciencey noises" you like making because you think it makes you sound knowledgeable.

And you still haven't explained how we have photographs of the Elephant's Foot under the Chernobyl reactor.

She still hasn't said what film/shutter/aperture settings she used to photograph stars in the night sky.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Yeah, GM can't make folding cars for the masses because the technology behind hinges and lock pins hasn't been cracked yet.

Who wouldn't want to commute to work every day on a flat pan with no windscreen, roof, doors, impact energy absorbing structures... Be fun in the rain, wouldn't it? And when you get to your destination and fold it up, it still weighs at least close to 500 lbs. Surely there's a massive market for such a product. If only hinges and lock pins weren't such esoteric, sci-fi speculative technology.

 

[Helen]

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. The unchanged weight ratio has nothing to do with the tipping moment. The geometry of the problem remains unchanged but the weight values change. The astronaut’s own weight is irrelevant because it’s squarely over his feet—no tipping moment. The weight of the backpack is 1/6 the Earth weight. The length of the moment arm doesn’t change. So the moment is 1/6 what it would be on Earth. It’s equivalent to carrying a small dog in a backpack, not 180 pounds of equipment and supplies.

I like arguments that involve small dogs. I understand small dogs.

But I am so grateful for this thread, I know more now - my dad and I used to discuss the moon mission all the time when I was a kid, he was fascinated by it, and taught me what he knew. He died in 1967, when i was 10, so he didn't get to see the moon landing. I still remember watching it with him, though, and i can't shake the memory, even if I know it's false. I'm fine with that, the moon landning was between the two of us

I'm still fascinated by it (and by space more generally), and this thread has filled in some of the gaps for me. And it has reminded me of dad, and I enjoy being reminded of him. So thank you!

 

[Foster Zygote]

So NASA has 'lost' the entire Apollo telemetry and '700 boxes of original material' has now gone missing.

No, as already explained and subsequently petulantly ignored by you, NASA knows exactly what happened to those telemetry tapes. And, as was also explained to you, thousands of hours of instrument readings confirming that everything was within normal operational parameters is of no real cultural or historical value. Everything else has been meticulously documented and preserved, and in the case of scientific samples and data, has generated thousands of scientific papers by researchers all over the world.

 

[turingtest]

JFC. I don't think I've ever seen anybody so completely ignorant on a subject be so utterly dogmatic in defense of that ignorance.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

JFC. I don't think I've ever seen anybody so completely ignorant on a subject be so utterly dogmatic in defense of that ignorance.

I invite you to our new Christian's evolution threads, he doesn't win yet, but for someone who's only been here a month he's mounting an impressive challenge.