Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

Does anyone watch Professor Dave?

He's got a two part debunk of Bart.

First part age restricted because of sweary words so won't embed.
Strange because the second part is also sweary in places.

I managed half of the first one but it got just too excruciating.

 

[JesseCuster]

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.

I didn’t miss the part where you said this (emphasis mine):

OK so on the ISS space station we see the astronauts floating around, hair standing on end, but this is because they are in a pressurised environment. They have near zero gravity because they are literally orbiting at very fast speed Lower Earth Orbit (LEO).

Do you not remember saying this? Did you mean to say something else?

Edit: Also the reason for being in microgravity is because theyre in orbit, but it isn’t because theyre in “very fast speed LEO” (is there such a thing as low speed LEO?). If they were in orbit 10,000km up they’d also experience the same microgravity/weightlessness.

 

[Steve]

I didn’t miss the part where you said this (emphasis mine):

Do you not remember saying this? Did you mean to say something else?

Vixen always means something else. Never on these forums has she made a straightforward claim that she has backed up and stuck with.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Vixen always means something else.

The point being made was <something else>. Keep it vague. Keep the subject drifting.

 

[JayUtah]

The ISS in "Lower" Earth Orbit argument came up in four contexts. One is orbital refueling, which isn't happening at the ISS. Let's omit that one for now. The other three have to do with whether the ISS orbits "well within the Earth's protective atmosphere," as @Vixen claims.

One remaining context is whether a magazine publisher and a software project manager should be considered experts on how astronauts should walk. Addressing that, the claim tried to contrast their expectation with the near-zero gravity environment on the ISS, which is achieved by high velocity in "Lower" Earth orbit. That part is correct; low Earth orbits require substantial orbital velocity, and you experience a sensation of microgravity. Astronaut hair standing on end, however, is apparently because of low atmospheric pressure, not the absence of gravity. That's neither true factually—the ISS has sea-level air pressure—nor true physically; lower air pressure doesn't make your hair stand up.

Another context is the notion that the atmosphere protects the ISS from radiation.

And the final context is that because the ISS is "well within" the atmosphere, photography of stars obeys the same rules as on Earth's surface where stars have to be photographed through a layer of air.

Of course the ISS is not "well within" the atmosphere. It is effectively in hard vacuum. It requires annual orbital boosts because what little gas there is there has an outsized effect because of the enormous sail area of the station's solar array.

 

[HawksFan]

Where “in the web” did it say that?

Probably SciencyStuffforTripleNiners.com

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Vixen always means something else. Never on these forums has she made a straightforward claim that she has backed up and stuck with.

She claimed to be a triple-niner. She is has stuck with that claim, using it to explain why she has so much trouble communicating with the other 99.9%, and has backed that up at every opportunity.

 

[Trebuchet]

The ISS in "Lower" Earth Orbit argument came up in four contexts. One is orbital refueling, which isn't happening at the ISS. Let's omit that one for now. The other three have to do with whether the ISS orbits "well within the Earth's protective atmosphere," as @Vixen claims.

Have nit, must pick. Orbital refueling DOES happen at the ISS: The ISS itself is refueled by Progress spacecraft! Jay, of course, knows that and was referring to a previous idiocy by Vixen.

 

[Steve]

She claimed to be a triple-niner. She is has stuck with that claim, using it to explain why she has so much trouble communicating with the other 99.9%, and has backed that up at every opportunity.

True. I stand (sit) corrected.

 

[JesseCuster]

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

What “low-pressured environment” on the ISS are you referring to?

 

[Steve]

What “low-pressured environment” on the ISS are you referring to?

Well you know how the occupants are always struggling so hard to breathe.

 

[JesseCuster]

photos taken without view finders and directly transmitted to Earth via a non -Geopositioned satellite (really? Look it up!)

For reference, this is the first use of the phrase “geopositioned” or “geopositioning” in this thread.

It was Vixen who introduced the phrase, and it was Vixen who continued to use the terminology after being told it was nonsense in context, and after being repeatedly asked to explain exactly what she meant.

 

[junkshop]

For reference, this is the first use of the phrase “geopositioned” or “geopositioning” in this thread.

It was Vixen who introduced the phrase, and it was Vixen who continued to use the terminology after being told it was nonsense in context, and after being repeatedly asked to explain exactly what she meant.

By this point there are two things that can be taken as read:

1. Vixen has not the faintest glimmer of an idea what they're talking about, and
B. Everyone else is fully aware of this, and that
iii. Vixen is really, really, really bad at gaslighting.

Three. There are three things that can be taken as read. The number of the things is three, for that is the number that the things add up to. No more and no less, never fewer, never greater.


Well, maybe a couple more. By 'maybe' I mean certainly (it's an old Kentish colloquialism), and by 'couple' I mean a non-defined quantity somewhat north of half way to infinity sorry, The Infinite ^{The Infinite... The Infinite... _{The Infinite... The ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊...from a different thread. Sorry, probably OT...}}

 

[Foster Zygote]

By this point there are two things that can be taken as read:

1. Vixen has not the faintest glimmer of an idea what they're talking about, and
B. Everyone else is fully aware of this, and that
iii. Vixen is really, really, really bad at gaslighting.

Three. There are three things that can be taken as read. The number of the things is three, for that is the number that the thing add up to. No more and no less, never fewer, never greater.


Well, maybe a couple more. By 'maybe' I mean certainly (it's an old Kentish colloquialism), and by 'couple' I mean a non-defined quantity somewhat north of half way to infinity sorry, The Infinite ^{The Infinite... The Infinite... _{The Infinite... The ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊...from a different thread. Sorry, probably OT...}}

I think you're spot on about the five things.

 

[junkshop]

What use is a boundary if you don't give it prod every once in a while? Why else would we still have toes?

 

[JesseCuster]

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 can find exactly zero references online to the terms “selenopositioning” or “selenopositioned”. I’ve no doubt you’ll invent some ad hoc excuse for why these “correct terms” don’t seem to have any online presence but the obvious answer is that they are not “correct terms”. It’s gibberish you’re making up as you go along.

Exactly what are the “principles of geopositioning”? We don’t even know what you mean by “geopositioning” as you point blank refuse to explain what you mean by the phrase. You *might* mean geostationary/selenostationary, but you won’t commit to an answer, as that would put you on the spot.

 

[JayUtah]

I can find exactly zero references online to the terms “selenopositioning” or “selenopositioned”.

They're technically correct insofar as they are composed correctly from their constituent parts. But in practice we don't use such frilly terms.

It’s gibberish you’re making up as you go along.

Part of the gaslighting strategy is to overcompensate and pretend she's teaching the kiddies new words that she knew but they didn't. Apparently you weren't paying attention when we all learned about "selenostationary" orbits and how that's really the correct term. And with a wave of her hand she dispels every single time she tried to make "geopositioned" mean something.

 

[threadworm]

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've changed the ingredients in your word salad, but you still don't understand the premise of Allen & Weaver's strawman.

 

[Mojo]

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?

It's clear that you didn't understand it.

 

[Mojo]

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

You seem to have forgotten to include the link in your post.