• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

threadworm said:
As an aside, for those who don't keep up with postings on Apollohoax, I've been using AI to turn all the xml files from their LUTI image files into a usable database. The images relating to Apollo (and other anthropogenic feautures) are all on here:

Probed

Modern unmanned probes imaging Apollo sites
onebigmonkey.com

Vixen might want to look at the images on there and perhaps offer explanations as to how they can show evidence of human activity if there was no human activity there.
Click to expand...
I think that at some point Vixen might have posted something that implied that it was only Apollo 11 that was a hoax, and later missions were genuine.
 
Mojo said:
I think that at some point Vixen might have posted something that implied that it was only Apollo 11 that was a hoax, and later missions were genuine.
Click to expand...
She also posted at one point to say that the missions were obviously genuine. And then at another time, she took David Percy's position and said only that the photography was fake but the missions were real. What she says she believes one day has no bearing on what she has said or will say she believes on any other day.
 
JayUtah said:
The problem with receiving signals from the TETR satellites as a hoaxy stand-in for the actual spaceships is that LEO satellites are very much moving targets. The antennas on the ground are directional. They have to be pointed finely at the source of the signal in order to receive any of it. TETR tracking and handoffs used the 9-meter dishes that can slew fast enough to track. But the TV signals etc. were received on the large dishes that move too slowly to be able to track LEO spacecraft. You can’t fool the ground operators with an LEO satellite. They know where their dish is pointed.

The TETR-as-decoy argument also has the problem that the uplink station would need to be in the same ground track vicinity as the receiver. Line of sight restrictions apply.

As everyone can see, using an LEO satellite as a relay for a spaceship actually on or orbiting the Moon is monumentally stupid. The lunar transceiver would have line of sight to the satellite for only 45 of every 90 minutes, as opposed to line of sight to the ground stations for 8-10 hours out of every 24. It’s more like wanting to ring up your brother in Stroud by ringing up your sister who’s on an international flight to Australia and asking her to ring up your brother.
Click to expand...

Mkay, but the denier argument is that it was simply beamed from the same place the guys did their training in the desert
 
Vixen said:
Some guy at Houston said he couldn't tell the difference.
Click to expand...

Yet the "some guys" at any tracking station could. Houston didn't generally get its signals directly from space, but Goldstone did, as did Honeysuckle Creek, Jodrell Bank, and every other tracking station around the world.

ETA, by "from space", I mean from the spacecraft itself. It did get signals from other tracking stations via satellite.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom