Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[wollery]

Read back to threadworm on this topic who reproduced several videos of what Allen and Weaver were trying to say about the near impossibility ATT to get a stationary image.

What point were YOU trying to make?

What is the point of the "geopositioning"?

Why does it matter.

Say it in your own words.

 

[JayUtah]

Read back to threadworm on this topic who reproduced several videos of what Allen and Weaver were trying to say about the near impossibility ATT to get a stationary image.

But you conflated that with using a satellite as a radio relay.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Stop telling lies. The point being made was to do with geopositioning, but I am guessing that went right over head.

Well, let's imagine your point about 'geopositioning' did indeed go right over a few heads. Would you please now describe what point you were making there, and for what task you thought a satellite would be necessary?

Thanks

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Don't forget when he implemented rasputitsa, as well.

Powerful guy...

 

[Foster Zygote]

From the blurb Ayrey is revelling in the fact it was made in Delaware ('What did... <fx deep voice: "Don't go, there!">. These local history stories are nice for the enthusiast. Good on Ayrey.

Oh, now do the Victorian voice!

Seriously, your brilliant reposte is to histrionically mock a mere mention of the location of the contractor as "revelling"? Do you harbor some bigotry toward the state of Delaware, now?

 

[Vixen]

Oh, now do the Victorian voice!

Seriously, your brilliant reposte is to histrionically mock a mere mention of the location of the contractor as "revelling"? Do you harbor some bigotry toward the state of Delaware, now?

Don't be silly. I read a lot of historical and individual achievement books myself. It's an inspiring genre. Why shouldn't Ayrey be proud of this Delaware firm made famous by Apollo?

 

[JayUtah]

Well, let's imagine your point about 'geopositioning' did indeed go right over a few heads…

I worked on converting the Hughes 601HP chassis to become the Boeing 701. I promise you there is very little about geostationary spacecraft that goes over my head. But no experience can prepare one for someone waffling incoherently about “geopositioned” spacecraft being needed to transmit images from the lunar surface.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Perhaps. As usual, your grasp of the subject is so poor that you can’t make a cogent argument about it. Being so very uninformed that your critics can’t make head or tail out of what you’re trying to say is not a flex.

You’re not arguing “abstract ideas.” You argue specific details that you clearly don’t understand.

I suppose abstract ideas are a fallback for someone who can't argue facts.

 

[JayUtah]

I suppose abstract ideas are a fallback for someone who can't argue facts.

She doesn’t get abstract debate concepts right either. But yes, when you can’t master the facts being debated, wave your hands dramatically.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I worked on converting the Hughes 601HP chassis to become the Boeing 701. I promise you there is very little about geostationary spacecraft that goes over my head. But no experience can prepare one for someone waffling incoherently about “geopositioned” spacecraft being needed to transmit images from the lunar surface.

Wouldn't a geostationary spacecraft, by definition be over your head? (or somewhere between that and under your feet depending on your location and what point on Earth it was geostationary above)

 

[Vixen]

I worked on converting the Hughes 601HP chassis to become the Boeing 701. I promise you there is very little about geostationary spacecraft that goes over my head. But no experience can prepare one for someone waffling incoherently about “geopositioned” spacecraft being needed to transmit images from the lunar surface.

No it wouldn't be the stationary space craft being geopositioned as that would mean being in orbit.

As was explained the Moon is so close to Earth, if its 'hill' were to be achieved theoretically it would be sucked into Earth's gravitational force.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Powerful guy...

I hear he was Russia's greatest love machine. That must piss the hell out of Putin.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Stop telling lies.

Not a lie. You demanded to know what satellite the Apollo missions used to beam TV back to earth, with the clear implication that such beaming would not be possible without such a satellite. You were wrong to think that. You have repeatedly ignored and failed to acknowledge the numerous corrections you have received to that misconception.

The point being made was to do with geopositioning, but I am guessing that went right over head.

Your use of the term "geopositioning" makes no sense. I can be forgiven for not understanding what you mean by it or what relevance it has to anything.

Likewise, you lied about my being a Bolin or Björkman follower.

I stand by what I have said about your reliance on Bolin and Bjorkman, and will put my characterization of that up against yours any day. That is my last word on the matter for this thread.

So, in effect, you show a profound inability to grasp that "reading other people's abstract ideas means 'you must believe whatever they say'" is absolute rubbish.

I show a profound inability to understand what you are talking about here. I am content to let the audience draw their own conclusions about whether this suggests an insufficient comprehension of abstract ideas on my part.

You can't ban people from reading and discussing abstract ideas.

No one has tried. However, whether the moon landings are real is an issue of historical fact, not an abstract question, nor, like many of the technical and historical topics brought up in this discussion, can it be meaningfully queried through purely abstract ideas.

If you are afraid of abstract principles that's a problem that lies with you.

I don't understand your obsession with what you imagine to be other posters' fears.

I will say one thing, Bolin seemed to know his stuff - from what I read - about the Middle East and 9/11 which did give me food for thought.

That's the one thing you wanted to say, huh?

 

[JayUtah]

No it wouldn't be the stationary space craft being geopositioned as that would mean being in orbit.

As was explained the Moon is so close to Earth, if its 'hill' were to be achieved theoretically it would be sucked into Earth's gravitational force.

Gibberish.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I hear he was Russia's greatest love machine. That must piss the hell out of Putin.

It was a shame how he carried on.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Stop telling lies. The point being made was to do with geopositioning...

You have yet to clarify your* "point".

You're being asked to explain clearly why you think a "geopositioned" satellite is necessary for communications between the earth and the moon. It seems quite clear that you can't do that because you have no idea. You're just repeating a claim by someone else who also can't explain it.


* Someone else's

 

[Vixen]

Not a lie. You demanded to know what satellite the Apollo missions used to beam TV back to earth, with the clear implication that such beaming would not be possible without such a satellite. You were wrong to think that. You have repeatedly ignored and failed to acknowledge the numerous corrections you have received to that misconception.



Your use of the term "geopositioning" makes no sense. I can be forgiven for not understanding what you mean by it or what relevance it has to anything.



I stand by what I have said about your reliance on Bolin and Bjorkman, and will put my characterization of that up against yours any day. That is my last word on the matter for this thread.



I show a profound inability to understand what you are talking about here. I am content to let the audience draw their own conclusions about whether this suggests an insufficient comprehension of abstract ideas on my part.



No one has tried. However, whether the moon landings are real is an issue of historical fact, not an abstract question, nor, like many of the technical and historical topics brought up in this discussion, can it be meaningfully queried through purely abstract ideas.



I don't understand your obsession with what you imagine to be other posters' fears.



That's the one thing you wanted to say, huh?

What I was trying to convey is dismissal of an argument based on the person behind it, or whom you believe can have an argument disregarded on your say so, based on the name of the person, or claiming 'a loony' is behind any argument that does not coincide with your opinion. In other words it only needs you to declare a person is personna non grata and that's the matter settled. Do you see why that is a logical fallacy?

 

[Mojo]

What I was trying to convey is dismissal of an argument based on the person behind it, or whom you believe can have an argument disregarded on your say so, based on the name of the person, or claiming 'a loony' is behind any argument that does not coincide with your opinion. In other words it only needs you to declare a person is personna non grata and that's the matter settled. Do you see why that is a logical fallacy?

Your arguments are dismissed because they are demonstrably wrong or nonsensical, not because of who has posted them.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Read back to threadworm on this topic who reproduced several videos of what Allen and Weaver were trying to say about the near impossibility ATT to get a stationary image.

And they lied. They lied by omission, in this case, choosing to omit the existence of the much longer video that showed their progress over the lunar surface.

But what has this to do with your even earlier claim that a "geopositioned" satellite was necessary for communications between earth and the moon?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No it wouldn't be the stationary space craft being geopositioned as that would mean being in orbit.

As was explained the Moon is so close to Earth, if its 'hill' were to be achieved theoretically it would be sucked into Earth's gravitational force.

(Leaving aside the idiosynchratic Stanley Unwin style language) are you trying to tell us Apollo ought to have used a satellite, positioned between the Earth and moon, in order to relay a TV signal back to Earth, and you have concluded that such a satellite would be impossible?

I think the truth is the opposite on both counts.

Firstly , there was no need for a mid-point relay, as the landing site always had a clear line of sight to the Earth so they could beam a signal directly to Earth. Secondly I suggest you look up the concept of "Lagrange points". There is indeed a point in space between the Earth and moon where a satellite can be placed and will be balanced between the attraction of both bodies' gravity. It's about 85% of the way to the moon, due to the moon being so much smaller.