Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[bknight]

View attachment 74536
Is that what this image is? I came across it when browsing the Apollo 11 images, it's at the end/start of the Apollo 11 magazine 40.

I know--I know.

 

[Vixen]

The proper response is, "Thank you for the information; I didn't know that."

Bluff and bluster don't work here. You're trying to bluster past the very obvious conclusion that when you say things like "achieving a hill" and "non-geopositioned" with respect to Apollo television or orbits, you don't have the faintest clue what they mean or what the argument is that you're ham-fistedly borrowing.


No.

As everyone else has pointed out, you brought up your prior experience with decontamination procedures as an example of what you think should have been done to the returning spaceship. You repeated that error just today:


Throwing tantrums because you're so very wrong all the time and get caught every time is not any sort of "complex idea" in debate. It's just you being wrong and childishly refusing to admit it.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me or making corrections but falsely claiming I said ppl become radioactive or irradiated from being in a radiation-heavy atmosphere or that the Moon's hill is a real one, are deliberate acts of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[wollery]

If you don't understand the reasons for health & safety checks it's not for me to explain it further.

But this article might help:

Why would the astronauts need decontamination?

How would they have got contaminated?

Please explain this in your own words.

 

[JayUtah]

Just exactly how does a body "theoretically achieve its Hill sphere"? I'm convinced that a lot of this stuff that Vixen says isn't even wrong, I don't think there's even a coherent idea behind these kind of posts, especially when she tries to be technical and talks about Hill spheres and geopositioning, etc. which is why we got non-responses when she's asked for clarification.

I know what she's trying to say because I know the argument she's trying to copy.

The Hill Sphere of a moon is the approximately-defined sphere inside which the moon itself has a dominant gravitational influence. Since dominance is an approximate concept, the mathematical formulation of the Hill Sphere is an approximation. Outside the Hill Sphere, the moon's primary has a dominant gravitational influence. For space science, we use this as the rough boundary for which gravitational body model we use for guidance calculations. Inside the Hill Sphere, we consider the moon's gravity with low-order perturbations from the primary. Outside, the opposite.

This is not the same as a sphere of influence.

Separately, a selenostationary orbit is for the Moon what a geostationary orbit is for Earth. A geostationary orbit has a period of 24 hours (or more properly, the exact sidereal rotational period of the Earth). It therefore can remain constantly over the same fixed point (geodetically speaking) on Earth's surface. Similarly a selenostationary orbit must have a period of about 27 days around the Moon. As such, it would remain over a fixed point on the Moon's surface.

This is what Allen and Weaver say must have had to happen in order to produce what they falsely claim are stationary television images taken from lunar orbit.

However, the radius of such an orbit would be on the order of 88,000 km. Since that lies outside the Moon's Hill Sphere of roughly 66,000 km, no such orbit can practically occur. A selenostationary orbit around Earth's moon exists only as a mathematical exercise. It can never be "achieved."

And since it cannot, Allen and Weaver say that the orbital television images cannot possibly have been taken from any lunar orbit because the orbit they imagine had to have been used is physically impossible, although mathematically computable.

"Achieving its 'hill'" could mean arriving at the orbital radius of the Hill Sphere (~66,000 km), but that doesn't have anything to do with selenosynchronicity. An object could do so theoretically or practically, although in practice the orbit would be highly unstable. Far beyond the Hill Sphere, at a selenosynchronous altitude of ~88,000 km, the object would simply be captured by Earth's gravity and leave the lunar region altogether.

So while I understand the claim Allen and Weaver are trying to make, and why it's wrong, you're correct to say that @Vixen's attempt to restate the argument in her own words results in this sort of gibberish. No, I don't say that her gibberish equates to her claiming there's a 66,000 kilometer high hill on the Moon. The Hill Sphere is simply a mathematical property of a planet-moon system. It's meaningless to say it's something that is, must be, or can be "achieved."

 

[wollery]

I don't mind people disagreeing with me or making corrections but falsely claiming I said ppl become radioactive or irradiated from being in a radiation-heavy atmosphere or that the Moon's hill is a real one, are deliberate acts of intellectual dishonesty.

They would be irradiated.

That isn’t what you said.

You said they should be decontaminated.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The non sequitur logical fallacy.

Would you say he has a plethora of fallacies?

 

[JayUtah]

...falsely claiming I said ppl become radioactive or irradiated from being in a radiation-heavy atmosphere...

You have been repeatedly asked why then you believe that decontamination procedures would have been appropriate for the returning spacecraft and cited to your own decontamination experience as the "standard." You have repeatedly been shown your own comments that show you think it should have been done.

...or that the Moon's hill is a real one, are deliberate acts of intellectual dishonesty.

No one has said that's what you claimed. Your constant straw-man misrepresentations of others' actual arguments are the intellectual dishonesty of which you speak.

I have reproduced the conversation you seem to have misunderstood, so now you may refresh your poor memory and offer the appropriate apologies.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If you don't understand the reasons for health & safety checks it's not for me to explain it further.

But this article might help:

I note that helpful article describes three sources of irradiation and zero sources of radioactive contamination.

I note your unhelpful twisting of words has substituted "health & safety checks" in place of decontamination, which was the point in contention because there was no reason to do it and it made no sense.

It's instructive to see you backing off even if you won't admit your mistake.

 

[zooterkin]

I know his film credits. He has shot on film, but not anything that anyone here would have easily seen. He claims to be a member of the Royal Photographic Society. He was a cameraman on three or four film shorts made in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and I recall he may also have directed one. Most of his work appears to be as a cameraman in local television and on the art (not photography) side of VFX.

He really wants to be known as a sort commentator on the mystical and unknown. He wants to be in front of the camera, not behind it. He made a big splash as the "discoverer" of connections between Cydonia (on Mars) and places on Earth. That's the sort of stuff he wants to talk about. As is obvious, he doesn't really know much about Apollo or actual space science or space history, so he categorically refuses any one-on-one interaction with actual experts.

Re. the highlighted; not an extraordinary claim, you don't need to do more than pay a subscription to be a member of the RPS. I believe he claims to be an ARPS (Associate of the RPS), which does need some validation, but even that doesn't mean he's particularly qualified to judge the veracity of photos from the Moon (I can speak with authority on that since I am an ARPS).

 

[JayUtah]

The non sequitur logical fallacy.

Nonsense. If something is popular in 1959 when it is first made available, it follows that it cannot be considered "bespoke" in 1969 when it was selected for a particular purpose.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

If you don't understand the reasons for health & safety checks it's not for me to explain it further.

Oh, so now the Navy frogmen are supposed to be doing health and safety checks in the middle of recovery?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... but falsely claiming I said ppl become radioactive or irradiated from being in a radiation-heavy atmosphere

It appears you still do not grasp the difference between contamination and irradiation. And what an atmosphere has to do with it... Probably a waste of time even to try to ask.

 

[JayUtah]

If you don't understand the reasons for health & safety checks it's not for me to explain it further.

Straw man. You are not being asked about general "health and safety checks." You are being asked why you think radiological decontamination procedures specifically should have been applied to the returning spaceship.

But this article might help:

Indeed, it explains—to the informed reader—that the astronauts would be irradiated by several possible sources, but not contaminated.

 

[catsmate]

I am not at all 'confused'.

Then you're being deliberately deceptive.

 

[Pixel42]

Bored now.

 

[JayUtah]

I believe he claims to be an ARPS (Associate of the RPS), which does need some validation, but even that doesn't mean he's particularly qualified to judge the veracity of photos from the Moon (I can speak with authority on that since I am an ARPS).

Photographic analysis overlaps somewhat with photography, but employs many other skills that photographers do not typically learn or practice.

 

[zooterkin]

The non sequitur logical fallacy.

Your favourite, indeed.

 

[JayUtah]

Bored now.

Indeed, at this point it's just obvious [the practice than cannot be named].

 

[bknight]

Jay you may have missed my question in all the numerous pages since I asked, but is the 50 sec number that Allen indicates it took the camera to take an image and roll the film for the next image?

 

[catsmate]

Now you are sounding like a Press Officer.

While you still sound like you're distracting.....