Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[JayUtah]

The world is round.

And well provisioned with landlines and undersea cables which even today carry the vast bulk of communications.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

What is the problem with transmitting from one continent to another?

Why can't that be done without a satellite?

The world is round.

So what?

Why does that require a satellite?

And well provisioned with landlines and undersea cables which even today carry the vast bulk of communications.

@Vixen has not yet figured out that the roundness of the world is the thing that prevents intercontinental transmissions from being line of sight. Which is why such communications generally use landlines and undersea cables.

That was the point of @wollery's Socratic questions. The Socratic method works when the student is sufficiently honest and intelligent to realize the roundness of the world does not prevent line of sight communication between the moon and earth.

There is no reason to think @wollery's Socratic questions will help @Vixen in any way, but I applaud the attempt. If nothing else, it is amusing to watch someone tie herself in knots while doing her very best to remain astoundingly ignorant.

 

[Steve]

(a) I've never claimed any such thing

This is what is known, in the real world, as a lie. It was posted here by a liar.

 

[Foster Zygote]

That's okay, buddy. Notice I don't abuse you or get all gleeful, unlike some.

Yeah, chum, you're not being passive aggressive right now at all. We all know that you've never condescendingly spoken down to someone like a child while pretending to explain something that you'll never actually explicate because you're just engaging in theater in an attempt to distract from yet another scientific or engineering fact that you've gotten completely wrong.

 

[Foster Zygote]

(a) I've never claimed any such thing and...

Right, because you've never claimed to be a triple niner, and you didn't recently attempt to present photos of documents to back up your claim.

I am a triple niner and I am not going to 'dumb down' any time soon just to avoid bullying.

I would expect a triple niner would know better than to lie about something so easily disproved.

(b) appealing to the crowd is a logical fallacy as it doesn't establish proof.

There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that Apollo really landed twelve people on the moon. You are arguing vociferously that they didn't, based on what you erroneously think is scientific fact. Therefore you think that you know better than the many millions of scientists and engineers over the last fifty-seven years. Don't pretend that this isn't self-evidently true just because you realize how ridiculous it makes your arguments look.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The world is round.

See? You can get something scientifically correct. Baby steps, indeed.

 

[JayUtah]

@Vixen has not yet figured out that the roundness of the world is the thing that prevents intercontinental transmissions from being line of sight. Which is why such communications generally use landlines and undersea cables.

Once the signals arrive at Earth (directly, via radio), they are handled like any other signal. Telemetry used leased phone lines, no different than a modulated digital signal generated by, say, a teletype. Television required higher bandwidth, and indeed used Intelsat GSO spacecraft for some of the network during TV broadcasts, after the signal arrived at Earth. It also used the normal terrestrial networks used for other TV relays and transmissions such as sporting events. Again, after the signal had been received directly from the Moon at the ground station.

This is not the same as saying you need any intervening spacecraft for the Moon-to-Earth link, which has to have been the point. Making a special point of saying that signals are distributed around the globe by various means once they’re on Earth is a non-issue. That was never a mystery or in dispute.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Yes, of course, 'line of sight' is the official version of the 'live' tv broadcast, 250K miles away, with no problem with the images.

If you think *that* was cool, check out this ◊◊◊◊:

 

[Helen]

She's probably terrified of getting one of your lectures if she doesn't laugh along with you.

I think you may be wrong about that (!), in my experience, most children are a delight at that age; open, curious, serious about learning, very appreciative of grown-ups who take them seriously, interested by any and all subjects and knowledge, and also intellectually honest. When I was 8, my dad was my hero, and he knew EVERYTHING, but I would have loved having a JayUtah-uncle as well, so I suspect his niece quite enjoys his "lectures".

 

[catsmate]

As my 8-year old niece figured out, “If you can see my eyes, I can see your eyes.”

Already better than the Ravenous Bugbladder Beast...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

In what sense did Telstar “capture” the Boston game live?

What I wrote was factual:



I am not a punchbag.

Factual, but irrelevant to the question it avoided answering.

 

[Axxman300]

The world is round.

Yes, and if I'm in a rowboat in the middle of the Atlantic on July 20, 1969, I can fashion a high gain antenna using the top part of the skull of the other guy in the boat, whom I've eaten, and use that antenna to contact the Apollo 11 astronauts to get them to send help. In the meantime, I've assembled a crude sextant using bones from my partner's ribcage, and collar bones to aid in navigation.

Some problems solve themselves.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Did I not say?

You could make that your sig and save time.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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. ...

Insisting, let's remember, that a fixed satellite was both necessary and impossible, because it could not something something achieve its hill.

 

[Mojo]

Insisting, let's remember, that a fixed satellite was both necessary and impossible, because it could not something something achieve its hill.

No, the satellite needed to be non-geopositioned, so it could make a hole in the Hill sphere for the radio waves to go through.

 

[welshdean]

See? You can get something scientifically correct. Baby steps, indeed.

Nearly correct. It's an oblate sphere.

I know you know this, but if a certain poster actually knew this, you would have been corrected and condescended.

 

[catsmate]

Please quit the abuse.

That's not "abuse" that's asking you questions you're unable to answer.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No, the satellite needed to be non-geopositioned, so it could make a hole in the Hill sphere for the radio waves to go through.

If you can make a hole in the Hill then you have line of sight through the hill and no longer need a satellite for the hop over it. QED.

It all suddenly makes sense.

 

[wollery]

If you can make a hole in the Hill then you have line of sight through the hill and no longer need a satellite for the hop over it. QED.

It all suddenly makes sense.

So what we really need is a scanning tunnelling telescope.

 

[Vixen]

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?

Dear me, Jesse Custer. Let's put this into perspective: satellite TV didn't happen til 1962, okay but long in development since post-war. Telstar was very quickly obsolete due to earlier mentioned problems and the ensuing Syncom system quickly became too expensive. But wait. Kennedy pledged to put a man on the Moon when it could barely blueprint a decent satellite. So in the pics that supposedly been transmitted by SSTV barely developed since John Logie Baird's TV system of the 1920's ten frames per sec via two receivers in Australia with the audio needing a delay of six seconds (speed of sound and all that) which needed SSTV decoding and revised into worldwide transmissible format in order to go out.

But the Moon is also round and moving, albeit at about 3 km per hour, compared to Earth's 3,600 k per hour (IIRC), so Houston we have a problem!

Think about the exercise when you positioned yourself next to a moving car. Now imagine it is going at 50mph and you are moving slower. What anomalies would you expect to see in your video, without your repositioning yourself?

Think of the car as travelling on a large beach ball four times the size of the beach ball you are on alongside of it*; with its beach ball turning almost 3,600/3 times faster than yours, meaning synchronicity is slightly off, even though with your slow spin, the difference is about 3 or 4 km behind the car every X seconds and always needing to catch up. The resulting images should theoretically reflect this anomaly - the images showing a constant catching up - just as it appears to reflect the sound delay.

notandum: Compare and contrast how quickly the Moon's shadow passes across the Sun in a solar eclipse as viewed from a set spot on Earth for an idea of how quickly you could lose the picture if the camera is not in a selenostationary position.

*Assumption: both beach balls are suspended in a vacuum and revolving freely in the same direction disregarding azimuth aspects and orbit angles.