• 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

I want to see where Vixen is heading with this. She’s clearly trying to change her argument to something along the lines of what Weaver and Allen were actually trying to argue about the TV footage requiring a stationary platform to shoot it, but her actual originally argument had something to do with the logistics of transmitting photos taken without viewfinders TV footage via a geopositioned or non-geopositioned satellite and how the spinning Earth makes that difficult.

I don’t think she has or had any coherent argument as to why geopositioned/geostationary/selenostationary (still no clear idea what she means by geopositioned) satellites were necessarily (or might have been, or whatever) involved in the logistics of transmitting the footage or how the rotation of the Earth factors into it.

But I’m willing to let her show me the next baby steps. I’ve answered her most recent post on the topic.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
I want to see where Vixen is heading with this.
Click to expand...
As near as I can tell, just toward 100 more pages.

JesseCuster said:
She’s clearly trying to change her argument to something along the lines of what Weaver and Allen were actually trying to argue about the TV footage requiring a stationary platform to shoot it, but her actual originally argument had something to do with the logistics of transmitting TV footage via a geopositioned or non-geopositioned satellite and how the spinning Earth makes that difficult.
Click to expand...
At this point it's clear that she is misusing "geopositioned" to mean a synchronous orbit. Around what, for what purpose, has been a tantalizing journey. I know what Allen and Weaver are talking about, but I've already addressed their argument several times. Waiting for @Vixen to catch up to everyone else is...tedious.

I think calling the CSM a "satellite" is definitely misleading. Yes, technically anything that orbits another thing can be called a satellite. But without context, the word conjures up a small, special-purpose spacecraft not, say, the Moon or the ISS—both satellites of Earth. Specifically when you add the context of "geopositioned" (which we all figured was her naïve way of saying "geostationary") it sounds like she's talking about a communications relay satellite. And when she says television was sent "via" this spacecraft (implying a waypoint, not an origin), it's not clear she really knew what she was trying to say.

JesseCuster said:
But I’m willing to let her show me the next baby steps. I’ve answered her most recent post on the topic.
Click to expand...
The problem is that her first "baby step" includes a hidden premise that she simply refuses to let go of. Her first step is not in a direction that's consistent with the facts.

@Vixen's baby-step question presumes that you're tracking linear motion, a "truck" in camera motion terminology. If you want something that's moving at 50 mph to remain stationary in the frame, you have to move alongside it at 50 mph, as you said. But that's not what the Apollo data show is happening. Yes, the Apollo surface targets don't move left, right, up, or down with respect to the frame, but it's not because the camera is moving linearly at the same speed as the subject. So wherever she goes from here is going to carry that false premise.

I know where Allen and Weaver go from her first baby step and why it's wrong, but I agree it might be entertaining to watch her flail the rest of the way through this problem.
 
Last edited:
Helen said:
Well, she's failing, if that's what she's doing; not even I am stupid enough to fall for her nonsense, and i am definitely the stupidest person in this room. So there!
QED. Et tu, Quoque whoever he was.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t he some guy that also tilted at windmills?
 
Just to show a bit of the engineering that went into faking the moon landings, here's the inside of the LOX tank of an S-IC, the first stage of the Saturn V launch vehicle. At the bottom are liquid helium cylinders that provide helium gas to fill the top of the tank as the five F-1 engines drain 13 tones of propellant every second, so it doesn't collapse like a two liter soda bottle being sucked on by Jesse Watters. The five openings (center one hidden) at the far end (bottom) are the ends of the feed tubes providing LOX to the engines, that pass through the RP-1 tank below the LOX tank.

img_1_1787623187114.jpg
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
Was that the bad quality, completely inaccurate AI animation clip you most recently shared?

Vixen, whether you address the actual erroneous argument, or your erroneous interpretation of it, they're both wrong.

A&W claimed that the TV images of the lunar surface from the CSM in lunar orbit were shot from a stationary position relative to the moon. Their claim is wrong, because an examination of the full recording shows that they are progressing over the surface at a rate consistent with their orbital velocity. A&W edited the video in such a way that it's made clear that they knew they were being deceptive. Like Sibrel and Percy, they were deliberately fooling people who want to think they're too brilliant to be fooled. They were, in effect, selling ◊◊◊◊ sandwiches by labeling them "for smart people only".

But you misinterpreted their argument to mean that the Apollo missions required a communications satellite in a fixed position between the earth and moon. This is also false. There is no need for an intermediary receiver/transmitter when there is clear line of sight between the earth and moon. You've since attempted to modify your argument by making vague noises about "spinning", without further elaboration. But the relative motions of the earth and moon are easily solved with a tracking technology that has existed for two centuries, and by having multiple earth-based radio telescopes arranged so that at least one is always in line of sight with the moon and all are linked via a global communications network.

There, I've walked you all the way to the mailbox and back. I'm curious to see what form your next alternative to admitting error will take.
Click to expand...

Personalities aren't relevant. It doesn't matter if Sibrel is a twit and Aldrin a lovely chap. Dr. David Groves was important because he stamped his professional authority onto his study. Otherwise, I don't believe A&W or Percy have any intent to fake anything. Sure, they might be wrong but they are in good faith, albeit they have literature to sell.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
There could be a disconnect between 'knowing' it as a bullet point on a crib sheet and understanding what that means in practical terms.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there's a difference between being in possession of a fact and having a head full of the consequences that seem naturally to flow from it.

It reminds me of the technical drawing class where fellow students would ask me for help and I gained an appreciation that clever people could be clever in different ways and some could really struggle to see something I found obvious.

When we see the moon, we always see the same side. The inference, that if we were on the moon looking back the earth would just seem to hang there forever in the same patch of sky, goes without saying for some, while other perfectly bright people struggle to convince themselves that's true.
 
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