Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[JayUtah]

Apollo 11 was very much Nixon's big rabbit out of the bag.

Again, you obsess over Nixon. Apollo was Johnson's thing. It wasn't even really Kennedy's.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Vixen, please explain what this AI slop is supposed to prove? This image isn't "a satellite digitally enhanced" photo, it isn't taken from a satellite, and isn't a photo at all. It's an entirely AI generated image which was immediately obviously to everyone. Only after being told multiple times did you then go back and edit you post to say it was AI generated.

Are you willing to admit that an obviously AI generated image of the moon (as taken from the moon's surface!) cannot prove anything about stars, shadows, etc.?

Can you please explain in plain English what this AI slop is supposed to prove? (watch: you can't and won't, and will weasel your way out somehow, perhaps with a stupid analogy about 16th century priests or something)

Also, that's obviously the Moon rising over... The Moon. How could anyone think that was real?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Or rather, she thought it sounded smart when she posted it. Other people say smart things. She grabs hold of the smart things and tries to use them to create the illusion that she too is smart and knows what she's talking about.

Oh yes, the Donald Drumpf method for public speaking.

 

[JayUtah]

Apply Hanlon's Razor. All it requires is the assumption that she's a very stupid person with the attention span and memory of a goldfish.

Even very stupid people who nevertheless mean well will still try to explain something as best they can. Instead, people who don't mean well will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid having to give any explanation and deploy a myriad of unconvincing excuses. I agree that evidence of deficiency shouldn't be taken as evidence of deception. But evidence of deception is simply what it is.

 

[Mojo]

Even very stupid people who nevertheless mean well will still try to explain something as best they can. People who don't mean well will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid having to give any explanation. I agree that evidence of deficiency shouldn't be taken as evidence of deception. But evidence of deception is simply what it is.

Attempting such blatant evasion is itself evidence of stupidity.

 

[JayUtah]

Attempting such blatant evasion is itself evidence of stupidity.

Okay, I see your point. I would classify that as a different kind of stupidity but there's no point in quibbling over it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I wish this series would get more traction. My friend, the photographer 'Lijah Hanley, has completed a photo set for which he used the same space suits we used in the OP video, which in turn were made for this series by Global Effects.

"Buzzed"

"Buzzed" - Edition of 35 This image is almost completely sold out! We are down to our last few 40x40s available in the edition of 35. This is the image that launched our entire space series. We wanted to play off the words “Buzz Aldrin” and "happy hour,” and so Buzzed was born. We rented an...

hanleyfineart.com

When I talked to him last weekend, he was completely unaware that the series existed and has put it on his watch list.

I must admit I was unaware it existed until a couple of years ago when an Apollo-obsessive friend lent me the DVD box set.

Even then, I hadn't appreciated how old the series was and became slightly fixated on the idea that young Tom Hanks would grow into that broad shouldered suit eventually.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

They were well remunerated for it, were they not? Earned a place in the history books. Why would they give a toss if some Brits, such as Allen, Weaver or Percy question whether Apollo11 happened as claimed. After all, Nixon is not famed for integrity and we can see how expedient and imperative to absolutely beat the Soviets to Moon rock was - and nothing quite drives a man to insanity but the prospect of gold precious highly-sought-after minerals - and the competition with the USSR was as intense at the time as taking a last minute penalty before the final whistle.

So, yeah, saying, "Oooh we mustn't discuss this because these guys are 'heroes'", doesn't strike me as an argument that carries much weight.

---

Openly struggling to understand why anyone would value their integrity or moral reputation is not the flex you think it is.

 

[Vixen]

schematic (not to scale) of Hill spheres (as 2D radii) and Roche limits of each body of the Sun-Earth-Moon system. The actual Hill radius for the Moon is on the order of 60,000 km (i.e., extending less than one-sixth the distance of the 378,000 km between the Moon and the Earth).[9]

Orbit of the Moon - Wikipedia https://share.google/2ztDaKzm0GaYwzkDK

 

[JesseCuster]

The context told you exactly what was meant.

People shouldn't have to decipher your sloppy use of idiomatic terminology peculiar to you, especially from a self-declared author, scientist, etc. You should be far more careful with your choice of words.

Now, can you explain what you mean by "geopositioned" or "geopositioning", because that most definitely is not clear from the context. No-one knows what you mean (most of all, you).

 

[JesseCuster]

Not a joke. The Soviets were so desperate to be 'first' to get some poxy old Moon rock, their capsule arrived two days before Apollo11 took off, but unfortunately for them, crashed into the Moon surface into smithereens. Apollo11 was very much Nixon's big rabbit out of the bag. Ringing them up live by phone and doing a Hughie Green or Brucie on their return, the guys bounding down the helicopter steps.

I'm confused. What does this have to do with precious moon minerals? What moon minerals are you referring to? How does or did faking the moon landings allow the US to get access to precious moon minerals ahead of the Russians?

I think your best defense would be to declare it a joke right now, before you start to defend this attempt at an argument.

 

[JayUtah]

schematic (not to scale) of Hill spheres...

Yes, everyone already knows what a Hill Sphere is. You're not the teacher.

You were asked to explain what you meant by your colloquial phrase "achieved its 'hill.'" Please explain that, and only that.

 

[JesseCuster]

View attachment 74569

schematic (not to scale) of Hill spheres (as 2D radii) and Roche limits of each body of the Sun-Earth-Moon system. The actual Hill radius for the Moon is on the order of 60,000 km (i.e., extending less than one-sixth the distance of the 378,000 km between the Moon and the Earth).[9]

Orbit of the Moon - Wikipedia https://share.google/2ztDaKzm0GaYwzkDK

Nobody was asking you to regurgitate what a Hill sphere is from Google or Wiki, we all (or most of us I hope) either knew what it was, or Googled it ourselves and came to our own understanding earlier in the thread.

So, in this context, what does it mean for the moon to theoretically achieve its Hill sphere? I genuinely don't know what that means, but you mentioned it, so Im asking.

To clarify, youre being asked to explain in your own words for the moon to "achieve" its Hill sphere. (you can't and won't). No-one knows what you mean and no-one can figure out what you mean. I don't think you have anything coherent you can actually explain, hence the refusal to answer and endless excuses.

 

[JayUtah]

So, in this context, what does it mean for the moon to theoretically achieve its Hill sphere?

Specifically, "achieve its 'hill.'" She hasn't even gone so far as to establish that "hill" was a colloquial reference to the Hill Sphere.

 

[JesseCuster]

Specifically, "achieve its 'hill.'" She hasn't even gone so far as to establish that "hill" was a colloquial reference to the Hill Sphere.

I'm sure Vixen will be along with a clear concise disambiguation...

 

[Vixen]

People shouldn't have to decipher your sloppy use of idiomatic terminology peculiar to you, especially from a self-declared author, scientist, etc. You should be far more careful with your choice of words.

Now, can you explain what you mean by "geopositioned" or "geopositioning", because that most definitely is not clear from the context. No-one knows what you mean (most of all, you).

A good answer here:

"A more careful calculation, including the effects of the Sun is slightly more optimistic and provides a Hill radius of r=58,050km. In either case though, hopefully you can see that the radius for a selenostationary orbit is much farther than the Hill radius, meaning that no stable orbit can be achieved as it would be too much perturbed by the Earth and/or the Sun.

One final, semi-related point. It turns out almost no orbits around the Moon are stable, even if they're inside the Hill radius. This is primarily to do with mass concentrations (or mascons) in the Moon's crust and mantle which make the gravitational field non-uniform and act to degrade orbits. There are only a handful of "stable" orbits and these are only achieved by orbiting in such a way as to miss passing over these mascons."

Astronomy Stack Exchange

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well, HJP 'Doug' Arnold claims to have a second copy of this film. If it is any old Ektachrome one can buy in a shop, why would he say that?

Copies of the Apollo film rolls were made.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, everyone already knows what a Hill Sphere is. You're not the teacher.

You were asked to explain what you meant by your colloquial phrase "achieved its 'hill.'" Please explain that, and only that.

As I already explained, this would cause such a hypothetical satellite to be sucked into Earth's gravitational field.

 

[Vixen]

Copies of the Apollo film rolls were made.

Limited

 

[Reformed Offlian]

As I already explained, this would cause such a hypothetical satellite to be sucked into Earth's gravitational field.

No one excluding you is hypothesizing such a satellite. Nobody including you has made any sort of case that it would be useful for anything.