Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Radios receive old-fashioned radio signals. TVs receive TV signals. Satellites use satellite signals. It's quite technical.

Try not to cross-thread them.

 

[Mojo]

I'm now beginning to think I may have to revisit Adam Duritz's lyrics to Recovering The Satellites, as he may have been trying to tell us something.

Not to mention investigating why the Mad Professor called his Protection version Radiation Ruling The Nation.

This is going deeper and deeper. Were Duritz and the Professor on to something?

I wonder if Herman Blount had anything to say about it, given that he was from Saturn.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I wonder if Herman Blount had anything to say about it, given that he was from Saturn.

Aaaah, now, you might be on to something here.

This could be big.

 

[steenkh]

But the Kodak/Ektachrome bods knew in advance where the photography was to take place

Your logic is rather like saying a bunch of soldiers were unable to reverse their tank because it didn't have a 'reverse' gear.

So, whose is responsible for that?

The important part here is that nobody expected the astronauts to waste time photographing the stars, which could be done much better by a telescope on the Earth. You and the other conspiracy theorists think that the astronauts should photograph the stars simply to "prove" to the CT'ers that they were on the Moon. But the whole idea that the astronauts were not on the Moon is so laughable, and easy to show otherwise that everybody with a brain know it for what it is.

And in any case, photographs of stars taken from the Moon would not have convinced your lot anyway. You would have said that it was suspicious that the astronauts wasted time showing the stars from the Moon, and it is easily faked in a studio, so your logic fails in every direction.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Try not to cross-thread them.

So long as you uplink on metric wavelengths and downlink on imperial, you won't get crosstalk.

 

[JayUtah]

Military helicopter crews do this as their rotorblades kick up dust, and an extra pair of eyes comes in handy.

In the case of the lunar module, the command pilot was looking out of the window in order to visually fly—to select the landing site and avoid obstacles. The altimeter and rate indicators were inside the cockpit. Rather than having to constantly look between them, most of the lunar module commanders had their LMP stay focused on the instruments and read out the vital measurements. Each crew developed their own feel for what numbers were appropriate when.

Coincidentally, the lunar surface kicks up dust from the rocket engine of the LM during landing, the ALL the Apollo crews trained to do this.

Correct, but unlike a helicopter, the dust thrown out by the DPS exhaust tends to fly away as a flat sheet hugging the ground. It still obscures your view of the ground, but it does not billow upward.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So long as you uplink on metric wavelengths and downlink on imperial, you won't get crosstalk.

I'd rather go with cubits.

 

[catsmate]

You mean TETRA the police radio system they started using in the '90s? No. NASA did not use that.

Who knows what @Vixen means when she starts spouting....

 

[steenkh]

??

You do know that satellites communicate using radio waves, right?

That's today. In those days they still used cables …

 

[Andy_Ross]

That's today. In those days they still used cables …

I see what you did there.

 

[Mojo]

Her own, of course.

Yes, but which one?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The important part here is that nobody expected the astronauts to waste time photographing the stars,

Actually, that is but one small part of the important part.

For quite some time now, the most important part of the important part is @Vixen's inability to do arithmetic.

Her argument is so stupid that it would fall completely apart if she were able to perform even the simplest of arithmetic calculations, such as:

How much longer, as a percentage, is 10/1.3 seconds than 1/250 of a second?

@Vixen opened this thread on 9 May. On the very next day, she wrote:

Please! I've taken pics of the night sky. No problem in catching the stars.

And on the day after that, she wrote:

The moon's surface is actually very bright so simply taking a camera designed for earthly parameters - depth of field, focal point, contrast, etc., - is going to be extremely tricky on the moon, especially with thick gloves, limited head movement, resulting in limited field of vision - seems rather optimistic in 1969. Who remembers compact cameras? Awful! Absolutely awful. At least with single lens reflex (SLR) photography, one had some control over the quality but then ... problems with film...developing...keeping slides and negatives in good condition.

Finally, on 21 June, she admitted she had to use exposures on the order of 10 to 25 seconds when taking pictures of stars in the night sky from earth.

I honestly can't remember the camera settings used X years ago. Each photo would demand its own individual merits, depending what you want to achieve. But I'd say between 10 - 25 seconds for a decent night sky shot with my old SLR. Black and white 200.

That was almost a month ago. She spent most of that month saying the problem of photographing stars from the moon's surface was completely different from photographing stars from the earth's surface. When everyone laughed at that and explained why she was wrong, she wrote all sorts of foolish things as distractions from the fact that stars could not be photographed using the camera and film that were used to photograph the famous pictures of astronauts on the moon. Because that fact was quite obviously fatal to her claim that those photographs must have been faked, because they didn't show any stars.

Despite her best efforts, she was unable to run away from the facts. She is no longer even trying. As of late, she is simply running away from questions such as

How much longer, as a percentage, is 10/1.3 seconds than 1/250 of a second?

To be fair, she has provided a great deal of evidence that she is simply incapable of doing the arithmetic.

And in any case, photographs of stars taken from the Moon would not have convinced your lot anyway. You would have said that it was suspicious that the astronauts wasted time showing the stars from the Moon, and it is easily faked in a studio, so your logic fails in every direction.

And yes, that too.

 

[JayUtah]

If you compare two measurements and say one has a 30% greater magnitude, that very clearly implies you are talking about a linear measurement.

Undoubtedly. A percentage is a fraction, a ratio. It is by definition linear.

Any set of values can be expressed on a linear scale. That same set of values can be expressed on a logarithmic or any other kind of scale. The underlying physical phenomena doesn't change, just the numbers we use to represent the values and the arithmetic we used to compare or scale them.

@Vixen consulted her source and got back an attenuation factor expressed as a percent. Therefore the correct way to solve the problem is by a linear adjustment, which we did. She confirmed this with her AI. A percentage scale is just a linear scale with the raw data rescaled to make 100 a special place in the raw data. "Thirty percent more" is just the difference between 100% and 130%. It's still just a ratio.

We could also have done the arithmetic on a logarithmic magnitude scale. @Vixen could have asked for, and received, an expression of atmospheric attenuation as an astronomical magnitude. It still would have been the expression of a ratio, but in the logarithmic world ratios apply via addition or subtraction. Similarly we would recast the two shutter speeds—one known and the other unknown—as a ratio and subtract the magnitude difference caused by attenuation from the known shutter speed. The magnitude-based measurement of attenuation is just the log of the (linear) ratio between the high value and the low value.

We could have, but we didn't. We didn't because the data we were handed is expressed on a linear scale. This is an important part of what numbers mean, irrespective of what quantities they represent. It's the essence of being a "numbers person."

For all her claimed acumen, @Vixen has failed at every mode of quantitative reasoning required by the topic of this thread. That's not just unfamiliarity with the subject matter. It's a fundamental failure to understand how numbers work for anything.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Undoubtedly. A percentage is a fraction, a ratio. It is by definition linear.

Any set of values can be expressed on a linear scale. That same set of values can be expressed on a logarithmic or any other kind of scale. The underlying physical phenomena doesn't change, just the numbers we use to represent the values and the arithmetic we used to compare or scale them.

@Vixen consulted her source and got back an attenuation factor expressed as a percent. Therefore the correct way to solve the problem is by a linear adjustment, which we did. She confirmed this with her AI. A percentage scale is just a linear scale with the raw data rescaled to make 100 a special place in the raw data. It's still just a ratio.

We could also have done the arithmetic on a logarithmic magnitude scale. @Vixen could have asked for, and received, an expression of atmospheric attenuation as an astronomical magnitude. It still would have been the expression of a ratio, but in the logarithmic world ratios apply via addition or subtraction. Similarly we would recast the two shutter speeds—one known and the other unknown—as a ratio and subtract the magnitude difference caused by attenuation from the known shutter speed. The magnitude-based measurement of attenuation is just the log of the (linear) ratio between the high value and the low value.

We could have, but we didn't. We didn't because the data we were handed is expressed on a linear scale. This is an important part of what numbers mean, irrespective of what quantities they represent. It's the essence of being a "numbers person."

For all her claimed acumen, @Vixen has failed at every mode of quantitative reasoning required by the topic of this thread. That's not just unfamiliarity with the subject matter. It's a fundamental failure to understand how numbers work for anything.

But aside from all that...

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So long as you uplink on metric wavelengths and downlink on imperial, you won't get crosstalk.

Yeah? Explain Chixulub!

 

[JayUtah]

...to avoid landing in a crater, the engine having been switched off...

Second time you've made this mistake and ignored the correction. The engine was running as Armstrong was flying. Otherwise he wouldn't have been flying.

 

[JayUtah]

If TETRA was not used to transmit TV from the Moon, then it follows those images weren't coming from the Moon.

I simply can't believe the sheer amount of error and ignorance you've managed to pack into one sentence. This has to be a record.

 

[JayUtah]

JFC. Absolutely hopeless...

At this point it's obviously a put-on. No one is accidentally that clueless.

 

[Steve]

I simply can't believe the sheer amount of error and ignorance you've managed to pack into one sentence. This has to be a record.

I think you may be missing what Vixen actually meant. To be perfectly clear, she was referring to a communication system reliant on any of numerous small often brightly colored South American characin fishes often bred in tropical aquariums.

 

[JayUtah]

So, now that we are all on the same page...

Your page is not even in the right book. Or library. You simply have no apparent clue how radio communications work.

...tell us which satellite was used to beam TV images to earth...

None.

None was needed. None would have helped. There is an antenna on the Moon. It's pointing at Earth. There is an antenna on Earth. It's pointing at the Moon. Radio waves go between these two antennas because they are pointed at each other.

It really is that simple.