Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

Link, please.

A person of ordinary intelligence understands that going really, really fast doesn't do anything to your hair unless you stick your head out the window. Did no part of that overclocked, Triple-Niner brain stop and think, "Wait, that can't be right?" And a person of ordinary intelligence knows that things don't orbit in the atmosphere, and that as such there is no effect on the visibility of stars by being in orbit above the atmosphere compared to being on the lunar surface.

I said, together with being in a low-pressured environment IIRC.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Did you miss where I said it was related to how fast they were orbiting? No, once again you alight on one word or something completely out of context.

You presented the orbital speed bit to explain weightless behavior seen on the ISS. Nothing to do with imaging stars on film or video. And that point was just as ridiculously wrong as your current one.

The post to which JesseCuster was responding read, in its entirety:

"How is that à propos of anything, when the ISS is within Earth's atmosphere?"

Nothing about orbital speed. You obviously intended the mere fact that the ISS is inside the thermosphere to be a sufficient rebuttal to the notion that we should expect to see stars in video footage.

Also, you never said "low-pressurized", just "pressurized". Other posters, myself, took that to mean *highly* pressurized, and you never corrected us.

You can't even correctly characterize your own past posts.

 

[JayUtah]

I said, together with being in a low-pressured environment IIRC.

The ISS has sea-level air pressure.

 

[Vixen]

You presented the orbital speed bit to explain weightless behavior seen on the ISS. Nothing to do with imaging stars on film or video. And that point was just as ridiculously wrong as your current one.

The post to which JesseCuster was responding read, in its entirety:

"How is that à propos of anything, when the ISS is within Earth's atmosphere?"

Nothing about orbital speed. You obviously intended the mere fact that the ISS is inside the thermosphere to be a sufficient rebuttal to the notion that we should expect to see stars in video footage.

Also, you never said "low-pressurized", just "pressurized". Other posters, myself, took that to mean *highly* pressurized, and you never corrected us.

You can't even correctly characterize your own past posts.

Imaging stars has nothing to do with the weightlessness of the ISS incumbents-

 

[JayUtah]

Imaging stars has nothing to do with the weightlessness of the ISS incumbents-

The common thread is your ignorance.

You're too ignorant of physics to know why astronauts' hair stands up in microgravity on the ISS. And you're too ignorant of physics to know why photographing stars from the ISS is the same exposure solution as photographing stars from the lunar surface.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Imaging stars has nothing to do with the weightlessness of the ISS incumbents-

I agree. Neither do orbital speed and cabin pressure.

Why, then, did you bring the former up in response to JesseCuster's post, which was talking about whether we should expect to see stars in the video from the recent EVA? What does orbital speed have to do with anything here?

 

[Foster Zygote]

It's what it said in the web. But thanks for the update,

So "the Web" said that the orbital velocity made their hair move that way.

This is the same misconception of physics, by the way, that so many flat earthers have - that somehow you can feel speed. They think that the earth can't be spinning on its axis, or moving through space, or they'd feel it. And they say things like "astronauts should be plastered against the wall if they're doing 17,000 mph!!1!!!1".

 

[Vixen]

The ISS has sea-level air pressure.

I was asked for a link by a poster. Herewith:

An astronaut's hair stands on end in space due to microgravity (zero-G), which removes the downward pull of gravity, combined with the lack of atmospheric buoyancy and the natural stiffness of hair strands. Without gravity pulling hair downward, individual strands float and push away from each other. [1, 2, 3]

How do we achieve microgravity?

The International Space Station (ISS) achieves microgravity through continuous free fall. It orbits Earth at about 28,000 km/h (17,500 mph). Earth's gravity pulls it down, but its high forward speed makes it fall around the curve of the Earth instead of crashing, creating a permanent weightless state inside. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Clear now?

 

[Vixen]

I agree. Neither do orbital speed and cabin pressure.

Why, then, did you bring the former up in response to JesseCuster's post, which was talking about whether we should expect to see stars in the video from the recent EVA? What does orbital speed have to do with anything here?

Jesse Custer asked about 'geopositioning'. If he had paid attention, he would have understood the correct term for 'geostationary' re the Moon is 'selenostationary' and any selenostationary positioning is correctly termed 'selenopositioning', which follows the same principles as geopositioning ceteris paribus.

Let's hope this is now settled.

 

[Steve]

It's what it said on the web. But thanks for the update,

Many things are posted on "the web". Some few are even true, or accurate. It requires normal intelligence to consider what one reads on "the web" and determine accuracy. Those who blindly repeat what they read on "the web" without considering or investigating accuracy are displaying somewhat lower than normal intelligence.

 

[JayUtah]

I was asked for a link by a poster.

You proposed that the astronauts' hair stood on end first because of the extreme speed that they were moving at, and then because of the supposed low air pressure on the ISS. Neither of those explanations was correct.

Yes, orbiting at a very fast speed in low Earth orbit is one way to achieve microgravity. You also get microgravity at very high orbits, but with far less speed necessary. The Artemis II astronauts were moving only slightly faster than a fighter jet when they entered orbit around the Moon. They experienced microgravity and stand-up hair. Speed is relevant only insofar as it puts you in a ballistic trajectory along with your enclosing environment.

Clear now?

Yes, the other posters explained your errors clearly. As usual, you're trying to pretend you never made them.

 

[JayUtah]

Jesse Custer asked about 'geopositioning'. If he had paid attention, he would have understood the correct term for 'geostationary' re the Moon is 'selenostationary'

No.

First, I am the one who taught you that word. Until I did, you were using "geopositioned," which means something entirely different than what you intended. @JesseCuster —along with many other people—have been trying to get you to explain what you mean by "geopositioned." It's not a matter of paying attention. Only you know what you were trying to say when you misused the word.

and any selenostationary positioning is correctly termed 'selenopositioning', which follows the same principles as geopositioning...

No.

Geopositioning means to locate a place on the Earth. Selenostationing means to locate a place on the Moon. Neither one has the slightest to do with orbits.

Let's hope this is now settled.

It will be settled when you admit that "geopositioned" was the wrong word, which you used constantly until corrected. But of course that will never happen because you never admit your mistakes. You just gaslight everyone into thinking you never made them in the first place.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Imaging stars has nothing to do with the weightlessness of the ISS incumbents-

It has nothing to do with them being in the thermosphere, either.

It was pointed out that images of the recent spacewalk didn't show stars, and you claimed that it had something to do with them being in "the atmosphere".

 

[Steve]

Jesse Custer asked about 'geopositioning'. If he had paid attention, he would have understood the correct term for 'geostationary' re the Moon is 'selenostationary' and any selenostationary positioning is correctly termed 'selenopositioning', which follows the same principles as geopositioning ceteris paribus.

Let's hope this is now settled.

I have no doubt that Jesse Custer understood exactly the correct terms. It appears that after weeks of gibberish, googling, and commentary here by others you now also recognize the correct term. Your understanding, I fear, is still to come

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Jesse Custer asked about 'geopositioning'.

He asked about your usage of the term "geopositioned". Not "geopositioning".

If he had paid attention, he would have understood the correct term for 'geostationary' re the Moon is 'selenostationary' and any selenostationary positioning is correctly termed 'selenopositioning', which follows the same principles as geopositioning ceteris paribus.

As Jay pointed out, geopositioning and selenopositioning have nothing to do with orbits fax mentis incendium gloria cultum.

 

[JayUtah]

I have no doubt that Jesse Custer understood exactly the correct terms. It appears that after weeks of gibberish, googling, and commentary here by others you now also recognize the correct term. Your understanding, I fear, is still to come

You don't get it, yet. @Vixen has been right all along, and she's been desperately trying to correct the misconceptions others keep bringing to the table.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Imaging stars has nothing to do with the weightlessness of the ISS incumbents-

What does speed have to do with imaging them?

 

[wollery]

Jesse Custer asked about 'geopositioning'. If he had paid attention, he would have understood the correct term for 'geostationary' re the Moon is 'selenostationary' and any selenostationary positioning is correctly termed 'selenopositioning', which follows the same principles as geopositioning ceteris paribus.

Let's hope this is now settled.

YOU introduced the term “geopositioned”.

YOU were the one who demonstrated a lack of understanding.

And YOU are still showing that same lack of understanding.

A satellite is never referred to as “geopositioned”, or “selenopositioned”.

I’ll lay odds you have no idea why not.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Jesse Custer asked about 'geopositioning'. If he had paid attention, he would have understood the correct term for 'geostationary' re the Moon is 'selenostationary' and any selenostationary positioning is correctly termed 'selenopositioning', which follows the same principles as geopositioning ceteris paribus.

Let's hope this is now settled.

He asked because he wanted you to explain your misuse of the term 'geopositioned', bot because he thought it was the correct term.

 

[Andy_Ross]

He asked about your usage of the term "geopositioned". Not "geopositioning".



As Jay pointed out, geopositioning and selenopositioning have nothing to do with orbits fax mentis incendium gloria cultum.

fax machinis obsoletum