Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Mojo]

But, as @Vixen continues to remind us, it is not something a person whose intelligence lies three standard deviations away from the mean would know.

Or that they would be able to figure out from the fact that the Moon always presents the same face to the Earth.

 

[JayUtah]

"Telemetry film"? Do you think they got the Ektachrome bods to take photographs of the data?

After slow-scan conversion, parts of the Apollo 11 moonwalk were recorded on kinescope. But that's not "telemetry film." As usual, @Vixen just makes stuff up.

 

[JesseCuster]

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').

Vixen, is this really what you think the stationary in geostationary means? The stationary refers to the fact that from the earth, the satellite appears in a fixed position in the sky, i.e. it appears stationary. This is why you can simply point an antenna like a typical satellite TV dish at a fixed point in the sky where the satellite is and constantly receive a signal from the satellite.

You truly are clueless.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Correct. We'll wait for JesseCuster to catch up before moving on.

I'm quite certain he's not behind you. He's simply so far ahead of you you that you can turn around and wave to him.

 

[Myriad]

The bigger problem is exactly size. Because the spacecraft antenna are small and provide only a minimal transmission gain, it takes an antenna the size of a radiotelescope to pick up the signal at the receiving end. That would be the case whether the antenna were on Earth or in geostationary orbit.

Fortunately, even large radiotelescopes can rotate, which avoids the problem of the television broadcast being received sideways or upside down.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Vixen, is this really what you think the stationary in geostationary means? The stationary refers to the fact that from the earth, the satellite appears in a fixed position in the sky, i.e. it appears stationary. This is why you can simply point an antenna like a typical satellite TV dish at a fixed point in the sky where the satellite is and constantly receive a signal from the satellite.

You truly are clueless.

Which is why Sky TV viewers in the UKhave dishes pointed towards the southern horizon.

 

[bknight]

I am asking the questions this time. But as JayUtah has answered for you, here's a couple more:

1. If the first satellite-tv broadcast (to the general public) was via Telstar in 1962 (well done, Reformed_Offlian!), then why didn't NASA use a satellite (for example, its Explorer range) for Apollo11?

Statement in support: filming was done by a handheld Westinghaus Short Scan TV (SSTV) camera. It relayed images of 10 frames per second, which were picked up - it is claimed - by two receivers in Australia and one in California, due to Canberra being most accessible to where Apollo11 was situated on the Moon, then decoded by an SSTV decoder (all not dissimilar to Logie Baird-s 1926 television system) into images then refined by NASA to send out to tv stations.

NASA claims this Apollo11 telemetry film tape was erased and the original no longer exists.

Fixed that for you triple 9er.

ETA: Jay you beat me to it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

1. If the first satellite-tv broadcast (to the general public) was via Telstar in 1962 (well done, Reformed_Offlian!), then why didn't NASA use a satellite (for example, its Explorer range) for Apollo11?

Because they didn't need a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ satellite to communicate between the earth and moon.

Statement in support: filming was done by a handheld Westinghaus Short Scan TV (SSTV) camera.

No. Westinghouse Slow Scan TV.

It relayed images of 10 frames per second, which were picked up - it is claimed - by two receivers in Australia and one in California, due to Canberra being most accessible to where Apollo11 was situated on the Moon.

Anywhere on the earth where you can see the moon is accessible to where Apollo 11, or any of the other missions, were situated. The important part is that you have enough antennae on earth that you can get continuous coverage throughout the day. Between Goldstone, Madrid and the one Australian antenna in Canberra, there was always at least one antenna with a direct line of sight to the moon.

NASA claims this Apollo11 telemetry film was erased and the original no longer exists.

TV broadcasts aren't telemetry.

I don't know which is sadder, the possibility that you really are this arrogantly delusional about your belief in your own brilliance, even as you comically demonstrate how ignorant you are, or the possibility that you're just pretending to be this spectacularly wrong about damn near everything for the sole purpose of getting attention, because you can't otherwise earn it by having anything genuinely interesting to say.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's right. You could put up a stick to try to estimate the sun at its highest point (at the Equator, it will be 90° overhead). Obviously, the Earth, being a globe, means it won't be so high further away from this, which is why you can estimate time by what time the sun, here, by your pocket watch, compared to GMT, if you know it.

Is Vixen always this confused?

 

[Trebuchet]

That's something you can look up.

I think I know the answer. Do you? Please go ahead and look it up. I shall do the same.
Here is Google's answer which to my complete lack of surprise is the same as mine.

If you stand on the side of the Moon that faces Earth, the Earth does not transit (move across) the sky at all; instead, it stays in nearly the exact same spot.

 

[JayUtah]

Is Vixen always this confused?

Sometimes she's said as many as six confused things before breakfast.

 

[JesseCuster]

Is Vixen always this confused?

Yes. For example, she’s getting TV footage and telemetry tapes confused in the following:

filming was done by a handheld Westinghaus Short Scan TV (SSTV) camera. It relayed images of 10 frames per second, which were picked up - it is claimed - by two receivers in Australia and one in California, due to Canberra being most accessible to where Apollo11 was situated on the Moon, then decoded by an SSTV decoder (all not dissimilar to Logie Baird-s 1926 television system) into images then refined by NASA to send out to tv stations.

NASA claims this Apollo11 telemetry film was erased and the original no longer exists.

What do you mean “this telemetry film was erased”? What was erased were telemetry tapes. Also, “short scan TV”?

You’re hopelessly confused about everything.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, is “geopositioning” to do with a satellite in orbit around the moon, a satellite in orbit around the earth or is it something to do with figuring out your coordinates when you’re actually on the Earth? In your half-baked attempt at explaining whatever your argument is, you’ve been vacillating between discussing a satellite (i.e the CSM in orbit around the moon) capturing the footage in some way that doesn’t involve the background whizzing by, the CSM relaying or transmitting the footage, a satellite in Earth orbit receiving and relaying the footage, and someone trying to fix their position on the Earth.

What exactly do you think you’re getting at?

We will get there. I am proud of you. Never be afraid to ask questions. (But please not for years on end...)

 

[Steve]

We will get there. I am proud of you. Never be afraid to ask questions. (But please not for years on end...)

 

[Smock]

We will get there. I am proud of you. Never be afraid to ask questions. (But please not for years on end...)

You aren't fooling anyone. I really hope you know that, otherwise your life is far sadder than I thought.

 

[JayUtah]

We will get there. I am proud of you. Never be afraid to ask questions. (But please not for years on end...)

Don't be condescending.

You are being asked the same question repeatedly because you are giving conflicting answers to it. You are not being asked to teach eager students. Your knowledge is being tested. You are being asked to give one answer and stick to it. You are not being bullied. You are being held accountable for your claims.

 

[JesseCuster]

We will get there. I am proud of you. Never be afraid to ask questions. (But please not for years on end...)

Is there going to be an actual explanation of what you mean by geopositioned? Because you’re clearly doing your darndest to avoid actually going there.

Remember, when you first mentioned “photos taken without viewfinders transmitted via a non-geopositioned satellite”? I want to know what you meant by the word “geopositioned” in that and subsequent posts. Edit: You’ve also called the TV footage “photos taken without view finders” and “telemetry film”. You’re clearly very confused about everything.

Does it really require hundreds of words, multiple posts and a bunch of multiple choice questions about sextants, stopwatches, drones, GoPro cameras, filming people on highways, etc. to answer that simple request?

No, it doesn’t. All it requires is a single post from you explaining what you mean by “geopositioned”. But it’s clear to you that your bluffing isn’t working, so you’re trying to stall and deflect.

Just answer the question.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Is Vixen always this confused?

No. Sometimes she's considerably more confused.

 

[Vixen]

Edited out.

 

[Vixen]

Testing longitude with a stick.