Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[SpitfireIX]

Thank you for confirming the context re *near* eidetic was all about music and a defence against misogynistic guys claiming women whom they disagree with must be demented by Alzheimer's, a really shocking comparison to a horrendous illness that can affect a large percentage of people, and which should never be used as a term of abuse. So my challenging the wholly untrue claim I suffer from a terminal illness is now used as an alternative insult. I am glad you have made it clear it was not a boast but a perfectly reasonable correction on my part.

. No one ever said anything like that. That's just another of your false claims of sexism and misogyny, part of a lame attempt to conflate criticism of you with criticism of women in general, in order to shame your detractors into muting that criticism. This is of a piece with your false claims of racism in the Amanda Knox threads.^*
_______________
^*For anyone unfamiliar, Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend, who are white, were wrongly convicted of the murder of Knox's roommate due to, inter alia, official misconduct, tunnel vision, and shoddy forensics. The pair's convictions were eventually overturned by the Italian Supreme Court. The actual killer, against whom the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible, is black. So Vixen likes to toss around false accusations of racism against those who don't agree with her guilter fantasies.

 

[Mojo]

Geopositioning refers to finding ones location on the surface of the Earth. Once you have done that you would be "geopositioned", although I don't think that it is a word that would be ever required.

A geopositioning satellite is a satellite that is used (in conjunction with other geopositioning satellites) to triangulate your position on the Earth.

No such satellite system existed in the 1960s (and wouldn't for many decades), so what exactly are you referring to when you talk about a "geopositioned" satellite in regards to the Moon landings?

She hasn't the faintest idea.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

She hasn't the faintest idea.

A helpful guide to whether you understand a concept is whether you can explain it to someone else.

Something something satellite, and it needs to be stationary because.

I hope that clears the matter up.

 

[bknight]

Another point is Allen's claim that it takes 50 seconds for the camera to take an image and roll the film for the next image. Jay has used a similar camera to debunk many of the image analysis errors made by HBs in the desert.

Jay is 50 seconds accurate?

 

[SteveAitch]

I notice that Vixen is now invoking the prescientific concept of the firmament. Is she planning a move into Flat Earthism, or possibly YEC?

Or maybe the effect of the aether on radio signals is why they needed a geo-positioned satellite?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Another point is Allen's claim that it takes 50 seconds for the camera to take an image and roll the film for the next image...

Good grief. Does he really claim that? I wonder how on earth(!) anyone could come up with a number like that and expect it to be taken seriously.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Good grief. Does he really claim that? I wonder how on earth(!) anyone could come up with a number like that and expect it to be taken seriously.

Pulled out of an orifice.

ETA: I had a physics professor who, when presented with a similarly dubious value, would write "P.O.O.A." on the blackboard.

 

[Smock]

I think if one is planning a once-in-a-lifetime visit to another planet, then you would want film that is optimal for the condtions, not film that would look good in a glossy magazine. But then, maybe....just maybe...the glossy mags were the aim after all.

Another planet?

 

[lionking]

Another planet?

A contextual planet……….

 

[Reformed Offlian]

This is the difference between you and me. You: personal opinion based, me; based on sources.

I think HJP "Doug" Arnold, who worked for Kodak knows better than you.

Apparently, however, Bennet and Percy do not, as they beg to differ with Arnold in the last few sentences of your excerpt. Shall I take it that you agree with Arnold's actual quoted words, and not with Bennet and Percy's counter?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Another planet?

Planet, schmanet, Janet!

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Meanwhile, in Moomin Valley Snufkin is becoming very annoyed about all the questions folk are asking him...

 

[Reformed Offlian]

As for the radioactivity issue, I merely remarked that instead of spraying the returning capsule with antiseptic for 'Moon Germs' they might have been better employed partaking in standard decontamination procedures - and I quipped they would be better off running a Geiger counter over

...which only makes sense if you suspect the astronauts themselves of being radioactive. Which in turn only makes sense if you think that their previous exposure to radiation would have made them radioactive somehow.

it, rather than worrying about a non-existent ecosystem, any remainders of which would have been destroyed on reentry, and in any case, meteorites and rocks hit the earth all the time from outer space - because the astronauts HAD been in a highly hazardous environment, once on the Moon surface and secondly, the two to four hours passing through the highly hazardous Van Allen belts.

What "ecosystem" are you talking about? As Eliza would say: "Come, come! Elucidate your thoughts!"

Finally, your other point: you saw how quickly the solar eclipse passed yesterday. This si due to both the Earth and the Moon being in constant orbit. That should give you a clue why you need logistics to ensure the 'live broadcast' - especially in 1969 from 250,000 miles away is geostationary. Vague guff about 'radio waves' doesn't cut the mustard.

We can add geometry, etc. etc. For there to be an eclipse, the sun's and moon's positions must coincide to within less than one degree of arc. To maintain radio communications, the moon only has to be overhead, within line of sight, and NASA had stations around the world to ensure that the moon would be over at least one of them pretty much 24/7.

 

[JayUtah]

I understood the issue immediately.

You misunderstood the issue immediately. You thought there had to be some sort of communication relay.

If you do not understand it you can find stuff at your library or online that explains it all.

No, you are not the teacher. The point of the question is to test your knowledge.

Allen and Weaver wrongly describe the television images taken from lunar orbit as stationary. They are not. A. and W. omitted the commentary that would have said so to the viewer. Then they said that the only way to have taken those images would have been from a selenocentric orbit, which is impossible in the case of Earth's moon because such an orbit lies outside the Hill sphere for the Moon, which you also wrongly interpreted to be some kind of actual "hill." You never mentioned any of this until someone properly explained your authors' reasoning to you.

You are the only one using "non-geopositioned" to mean some kind of orbit for some purpose you can't seem to explain.

 

[JayUtah]

Gimme a break. NASA sent up spacecraft especially to get close up shots of various parameters in respect of yesterday's solar eclipse. Don't try to sell the line astrophysics experts aren't interested in what can be seen in the firmament from the Moon's surface.

Why didn't they just use a Hasselblad with color film, as you claim would be suitable?

NASA uses the right tool for the right job. A handheld camera with ISO 160 film is a poor tool for astrophotography, for the reasons that have been explained to you at length. Just as in the case of the solar eclipse, NASA provided specialized equipment for photographing stars on Apollo missions.

But all this is just as irrelevant as it was when you brought it up four hundred pages ago. Marcus Allen claims as a professional photographer that you should be seeing stars incidentally in the photos taken on the lunar surface.

Marcus Allen is lying.

But you claim him as a reliable source, despite all the reasons not to.

 

[Vixen]

...which only makes sense if you suspect the astronauts themselves of being radioactive. Which in turn only makes sense if you think that their previous exposure to radiation would have made them radioactive somehow.



What "ecosystem" are you talking about? As Eliza would say: "Come, come! Elucidate your thoughts!"



We can add geometry, etc. etc. For there to be an eclipse, the sun's and moon's positions must coincide to within less than one degree of arc. To maintain radio communications, the moon only has to be overhead, within line of sight, and NASA had stations around the world to ensure that the moon would be over at least one of them pretty much 24/7.

No, it doesn't. As I said, people I know who worked with radioactive substances went through decontamination procedures after every shift. One died very young of bone cancer.

 

[Vixen]

You misunderstood the issue immediately. You thought there had to be some sort of communication relay.


No, you are not the teacher. The point of the question is to test your knowledge.

Allen and Weaver wrongly describe the television images taken from lunar orbit as stationary. They are not. A. and W. omitted the commentary that would have said so to the viewer. Then they said that the only way to have taken those images would have been from a selenocentric orbit, which is impossible in the case of Earth's moon because such an orbit lies outside the Hill sphere for the Moon, which you also wrongly interpreted to be some kind of actual "hill." You never mentioned any of this until someone properly explained your authors' reasoning to you.

You are the only one using "non-geopositioned" to mean some kind of orbit for some purpose you can't seem to explain.

Don't be silly: as if there are tangible hills in space.

 

[JayUtah]

Somewhere along the way in the thread, these two separate issues became conflated leading to some confusion.

Yes, you were confused about what electrolysis is. You said it was a method of producing water. In fact it is a method that can split water into hydrogen and oxygen. You were also confused about space stations being used for refueling, and thought the ISS was one of those and SpaceX was another.

As for the radioactivity issue, I merely remarked that instead of spraying the returning capsule with antiseptic for 'Moon Germs' they might have been better employed partaking in standard decontamination procedures...

Yes, your misunderstanding of radiation led you wrongly to think the spaceship needed to be radiologically decontaminated. That's our point. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to radiation.

Finally, your other point: you saw how quickly the solar eclipse passed yesterday. This si due to both the Earth and the Moon being in constant orbit. That should give you a clue why you need logistics to ensure the 'live broadcast' - especially in 1969 from 250,000 miles away is geostationary. Vague guff about 'radio waves' doesn't cut the mustard.

Just more bluff and bluster. You can't seem to explain what part of the process, exactly, needs something to be "geostationary." Vague guff about "in constant orbit" doesn't cut the mustard. Not how people photographing the eclipse didn't need to wildly slew their cameras to follow the action. It was just there in the same place in the sky as seen from Earth for those few minutes.

A spacecraft near or on the Moon is already at a reasonably fixed place (i.e., moving slow enough to track) in the sky as seen from Earth, and there was famously a network of Earth tracking stations set up to receive the signals. Those are the logistics you mention.

As I explained at length previously, you seem to be confusing the operation of the Deep Space Network with the claims your authors made about one television broadcast from lunar orbit that they claim shows images taken from some camera platform that had to have been fixed in place over sites on the surface. They are simply wrong. Your conflation is even more wrong.

 

[Vixen]

...which only makes sense if you suspect the astronauts themselves of being radioactive. Which in turn only makes sense if you think that their previous exposure to radiation would have made them radioactive somehow.



What "ecosystem" are you talking about? As Eliza would say: "Come, come! Elucidate your thoughts!"



We can add geometry, etc. etc. For there to be an eclipse, the sun's and moon's positions must coincide to within less than one degree of arc. To maintain radio communications, the moon only has to be overhead, within line of sight, and NASA had stations around the world to ensure that the moon would be over at least one of them pretty much 24/7.

We were talking about Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins logistics in having to arrange a live TV broadcast from a specific location at a specific time from 250,000 miles away, as well as all the other stuff they had to coordinate via a crib sheet.

So NASA 'explains' it as their having to point the actual TV cameras at a monitor that only NASA had access to. Those images could have come from anywhere.

 

[JayUtah]

If this film was so great, how come it has never been released for public sale...

It was.

Kodak Ektachrome is one of Eastman Kodak's most successful product lines. It was successful before Apollo.

Stars viewed from space are nowhere near as 'faint' as seen on earth.

Asked and answered.

You were shown how to compute atmospheric attenuation of visible light. I computed it for you and expressed it in terms of adjusted camera settings. Why have you ignored that completely? I'm sure you've already asked the AI who told you that it takes tens of seconds to expose stars on ISO 160 film, and I'm sure it showed you that if it takes 10 seconds from underneath atmosphere, it will still take 7-8 seconds outside the atmosphere.