• 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

Vixen said:
Please quit the abuse.
Click to expand...
Under normal circumstances, it would be cruel and abusive to laugh at all the stupid things a truly stupid person insists upon saying, but the circumstances of this thread are unusual for these reasons:
  1. Many of those who are laughing believe they are laughing at the inept trolling of a person whose intelligence might well lie well below 99.9% of the population, but—even so—can't possibly be as stupid as she would have us believe.
  2. Some of us believe we are laughing at the inept arguments of a person who is doing the very best she can to argue in good faith, but even we can't help but laugh when those arguments include repeated efforts to claim a triple-niner level of intelligence.
  3. Because (with respect to #2) believing you can rescue persistently ignorant and stupid arguments by insisting you are truly intelligent is itself a risibly stupid argument, and it's perfectly fair to laugh at risibly stupid arguments.
  4. Just as it is perfectly fair to laugh when professional clowns and comedians say and do amazingly stupid things as part of their act.
  5. And if this is not an act, and the ocean of stupidity at which we are laughing is genuine, then all the claims to superior intelligence are fabricated, which means the consistent dishonesty deserves contemptuous laughter all by itself.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Under normal circumstances, it would be cruel and abusive to laugh at all the stupid things a truly stupid person insists upon saying, but the circumstances of this thread are unusual for these reasons:
  1. Many of those who are laughing believe they are laughing at the inept trolling of a person whose intelligence might well lie well below 99.9% of the population, but—even so—can't possibly be as stupid as she would have us believe.
  2. Some of us believe we are laughing at the inept arguments of a person who is doing the very best she can to argue in good faith, but even we can't help but laugh when those arguments include repeated efforts to claim a triple-niner level of intelligence.
  3. Because (with respect to #2) believing you can rescue persistently ignorant and stupid arguments by insisting you are truly intelligent is itself a risibly stupid argument, and it's perfectly fair to laugh at risibly stupid arguments.
  4. Just as it is perfectly fair to laugh when professional clowns and comedians say and do amazingly stupid things as part of their act.
  5. And if this is not an act, and the ocean of stupidity at which we are laughing is genuine, then all the claims to superior intelligence are fabricated, which means the consistent dishonesty deserves contemptuous laughter all by itself.
Click to expand...
I haven't claimed superior intelligence, I was correcting an untrue claim being circulated by detractors.
 
wollery said:
Wow, you are just incapable of answering a simple direct question.

Why was the Telstar satellite NEEDED.
What problem did using the satellite solve?
What was wrong with normal terrestrial transmission?
Click to expand...
Did I not say? It was needed to (a) transmit live tv from one continent to another, (b) a communications network that would deal with tv, telegraph and phone. It solved the problem of tv crew having to record - for example - the coronation of QEII and then having to get the stuff into transmittable form in an aircraft immediately after.
 
Vixen said:
Did I not say? It was needed to (a) transmit live tv from one continent to another, (b) a communications network that would deal with tv, telegraph and phone. It solved the problem of tv crew having to record - for example - the coronation of QEII and then having to get the stuff into transmittable form in an aircraft immediately after.
Click to expand...
So nothing to do with any transmissions from the Moon. At least you have conceded that. So the Telstar satellite has no relevance to anything in this thread,
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Did I not say? It was needed to (a) transmit live tv from one continent to another, (b) a communications network that would deal with tv, telegraph and phone. It solved the problem of tv crew having to record - for example - the coronation of QEII and then having to get the stuff into transmittable form in an aircraft immediately after.
Click to expand...
What is the problem with transmitting from one continent to another?

Why can't that be done without a satellite?
 
wollery said:
What is the problem with transmitting from one continent to another?

Why can't that be done without a satellite?
Click to expand...
ETA: Quoting wollery, but question is for @Vixen.
Why *can* it be done without a satellite in some frequencies, but not in others? There's something else that solves the same problem for shortwave radio, and that something else doesn't boost signal strength at all.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
This wikimedia image should sum it all up:

View attachment 75178

As we already determined before, satellites via the Moon would only work via four legrange points - not shown here - so unless there are further logistics for the guys on the Moon this makes all the work already on their cribsheet another headache. ( cf Hill Sphere)
Click to expand...
Sum what up? I'm the one who told you about the L1 Lagrange point and how it could have worked as a position for a satellite long enough to serve during a mission back when you were insisting that a satellite in a fixed position relative to the earth/moon system was necessary. The L4 and L5 positions would also have worked.

You keep talking about satellites between the earth and moon not being used to facilitate communications for the Apollo missions, but you keep dancing around the question of why you think they were necessary at all. The geostationary satellites you've been talking about are all used to relay radio signals from one location on earth to another location on earth that is beyond the horizon. You can't just point a microwave antenna in Maine at a microwave antenna in France and start talking to people across the Atlantic. So you need something to bridge the gap, like a satellite that can be seen simultaneously from both locations, so the radio signals, which travel in straight lines, can go from one location to the satellite, then from the satellite to the second location.

But you can point an antenna on earth directly at an antenna on the moon and start talking to people. I'm sure you realized this some time ago, but you're just too pathologically obstinate to admit that you were wrong.

I ask again, are you seriously suggesting that scientists and engineers all over the world for more than half a century have been too stupid to realize that it was impossible for the Apollo communications to work without a "geopositioned" satellite? You can't actually be that deluded and arrogant.
 
Vixen said:
Did I not say? It was needed to (a) transmit live tv from one continent to another, (b) a communications network that would deal with tv, telegraph and phone. It solved the problem of tv crew having to record - for example - the coronation of QEII and then having to get the stuff into transmittable form in an aircraft immediately after.
Click to expand...
It was needed to a communications network that would deal with TV, telegraph and phone? It solved the problem of TV crew having to record and then having to get the stuff into transmittable form in an aircraft? Do you realise what a confusing, grammatical and syntactical nightmare so many of your statements are?
 
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian said:
ETA: Quoting wollery, but question is for @Vixen.
Why *can* it be done without a satellite in some frequencies, but not in others? There's something else that solves the same problem for shortwave radio, and that something else doesn't boost signal strength at all.
Click to expand...
When a baby is still learning to crawl, it's cruel and abusive to ask it to take baby steps.

If and when @Vixen starts to understand that visible light and radio transmissions are the same kind of stuff, and that both can travel along a line of sight, only then will she be ready to appreciate the subtle differences between them.

Foster Zygote said:
You can't actually be that deluded and arrogant.
Click to expand...
Evidence needed.

JesseCuster said:
Do you realise [...]?
Click to expand...
I assume that was a rhetorical question.
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
When a baby is still learning to crawl, it's cruel and abusive to ask it to take baby steps.
Click to expand...

I'm just a mean bastard, I guess.

W.D.Clinger said:
If and when @Vixen starts to understand that visible light and radio transmissions are the same kind of stuff, and that both can travel along a line of sight, only then will she be ready to appreciate the subtle differences between them.
Click to expand...

If you can see 'em, you can EM.
 
Vixen said:
I haven't claimed superior intelligence, I was correcting an untrue claim being circulated by detractors.
Click to expand...
No, of course not. You're just claiming to be in the most intelligent one tenth of one percent while also claiming that for half a century millions of engineers and scientists have been too cartoonishly stupid to notice things that you think you've picked up on just these last few months.
 
By the way, I'm admitting my error regarding the Telstar 1 signal amplification.

Unlike some people, I can admit when I've been wrong about something. Not that it changes anything about the claims that Vixen has made about satellites and Apollo communications.
 
Foster Zygote said:
By the way, I'm admitting my error regarding the Telstar 1 signal amplification.

Unlike some people, I can admit when I've been wrong about something. Not that it changes anything about the claims that Vixen has made about satellites and Apollo communications.
Click to expand...
That's okay, buddy. Notice I don't abuse you or get all gleeful, unlike some.
 
Foster Zygote said:
No, of course not. You're just claiming to be in the most intelligent one tenth of one percent while also claiming that for half a century millions of engineers and scientists have been too cartoonishly stupid to notice things that you think you've picked up on just these last few months.
Click to expand...
(a) I've never claimed any such thing and (b) appealing to the crowd is a logical fallacy as it doesn't establish proof.
 
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