• 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:
By and large the conspiracy mindset isn't questioning anything. It's framing its conclusions in the form of a question. The actual answer to the question they ask is of no interest, they're merely framing their prejudice in a way that tries to make them appear clever. They fail at that. You fail at that. Questioning something is admirable, provided you are prepared to listen to the answers. You are not interested in answers.

I have asked you the same queation repeatedly because you made a claim, but have refused to back up that claim with specifics. Trying to hold you to to account isn't bullying, and resorting to whining about mistreatment as a way of avoiding answering questions is just cowardice.

How was it possible for Apollo imagery to contain details not not known about in advance?
Click to expand...

Please remind us all which details would those be?
 
Vixen said:
Please remind us all which details would those be?
Click to expand...
You may note that the post you quoted does bot contain the word details. The word is specifics. As it says right in the post you quoted - "but have refused to back up that claim with specifics.". Those specifics. The ones that support your claim. The English language is mostly beyond your comprehension, isn't it?
 
Mojo said:
The TV signals were relayed to Earth via a geopositioned car?
Click to expand...
I'm picturing a couple bored cops in the back of a crew van crammed with electronic surveillance equipment, waiting for the moon to rise, while arguing about whether Quinn Ewers has what it takes to make it in the NFL.

ETA, I guess in 1969 they'd be arguing about O.J. Simpson?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Okay, quickly moving onto Exercise 4.

Going back to Exercise no.2., consider the following:

1. You are fed up of Go-Pro-ing alongside your friend's test drive of a new car. So, you invest in an arial drone that takes videos. You find you still need to 'be' there, despite being remote, in order to keep track of this one car so that it appears as a still image, against the moving background <(i.e., geo-'stationary').

2. Your youtube channel is so successful, you become wealthy enough to launch your own satellite which means no more hands-on close tracking of your friend's car. So, for this satellite to keep up with your friend's car, hands-free it needs to be (indicate one, some, all or none of the following):

  • (a) immediately above the area your friend is driving
  • (b) for it to be 'hands-free' it needs to travel at the same speed as the Earth's orbit
  • (c) the car needs to be red
  • (d) it will go into orbit at the same speed as Earth* at:
    • (i) 250km high
    • (ii) 1,000km high
    • (iii) 3,000km
    • (iv) 36,000km high
  • (e) at this point your friend's car, driving along the motorway below, is said to be
    • (i) geostationary
    • (ii) geopositioned
  • (f) at this point the satellite is said to be
    • (i) geostationary
    • (ii) geopositioned.
Here endeth lesson no. 4.

For bonus marks: (g) what year was the first live satellite tv broadcast?

*see baby step no. 1
Click to expand...
Is this still meant to be an explanation of the logistics of transmitting TV footage from the moon to earth? Your objection had nothing to do with backgrounds whizzing by or any of that guff, I know this because you never mentioned it until you decided to play this silly Socratic questioning game.

You’re meant to be explaining the logistics and how the rotation of the earth factors into it. Your original objection had nothing to do with filming objects with backgrounds whizzing by, fixing your positions on the earth using a sextant and a pocket watch, etc.

You’re trying to change arguments mid-stream, as I and others have already noted, to what Weaver and Allen were actually arguing, i.e. that the TV footage required a stationary platform.

Can you just explain, in layman’s language, without multiple choice answers (even the answers have their own sub multiple choice answers!), exactly what are the difficulties you envision with transmitting photos taken without viewfinders via a non-geopositioned satellite?

And please clarify a couple of things.

1. When you originally referred to “photos taken without viewfinders” being transmitted via satellite, were you actually referring to photos or TV footage? It’s genuinely hard to know when you make casual errors due to being sloppy or careless, or when you’re just truly clueless.
2. What do you mean by “geopositioned”? Do you mean geostationary? You still haven’t any clear definition or meaning.
3. When you said transmitting via a non-geopositioned satellite, the word via implies that the CSM was used as a relay. Is that what you mean? (You really should choose your words more carefully.)

Just lay out your argument in plain language for everyone to read. All you’re doing here is obfuscating whatever argument you think you might have about transmitting TV footage from the earth to the moon via a non-geopositioned 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