• 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

JesseCuster said:
Also, you still haven't answered, so I'll ask again.

Vixen, what does geopositioned satellite mean in the context you have been using it?

Do you mean geostationary satellite or do you mean something else?

Please be frank, honest and straightforward with your answer.
Click to expand...
You have failed to rule out hesitation, repetition, and deviation.
 
Vixen said:
Bravo. I am glad you are feeling a warm glow of gotcha.
Click to expand...
Why were you chastising me for not spitting out what I wanted to ask, when I asked you directly in plain simple English at least 18 times over the course of the thread, exactly what I wanted to ask?

When you say "geopositioned satellite", do you mean "geostationary satellite? Or do you mean something else?
 
Vixen said:
The discussion was to do with the logistics of beaming live tv broadcasts from another planetary body with its own orbit (albeit a moon orbiting Earth) from 250,000 miles away in 1969 when tv broadcasting was pre-cable and largely by antennae reception. Your claim it was a doddle and just like turning on the wireless was what was being weighed up.

We discussed the problems and unless there is anything further you wish to add about the logistics of this broadcast without satellite assistance then do please carry on.
Click to expand...

Sure: Getting a TV signal from the moon to the earth required the use of no satellites whatsoever. The astronauts had their antenna pointed at earth, and their signal was received by one or more of the three large receiving ground stations of the deep space network.

It was, compared to whatever weird contrivance is half-formed in your imagination, a doddle.
 
Vixen said:
It is in highly saturated colour - bright orange gold - (albeit less so than than the glossy Carruthers/Conway one) when the rest of the photo is grainy and non-descript. In addition it is in a shade which means something must have provided light for it to show up so fully. Lastly, its edges are very sharp against the background, exactly how one would expect a cut out to appear.

Look, I understand this means the world to you so I shan't press it any further.
Click to expand...

Stop playing dumb.

Two posters are telling you that they own *physical copies of 50-year-old documents* that show the Apollo 16 image with the instrument in it. How did NASA photoshop a picture physically appearing in a 1972 National Geographic magazine?
 
Vixen said:
It would prove they were where they said they were. Isn't that the point of photographing historical moments, like reaching the peak of Mount Everest, or reaching the North Pole or finding the North West Passage?
Click to expand...
Again, I have pictures from trips all over North America and France. I don't have a single photograph of the stars from any of those locations, and no one has ever doubted their authenticity or asked why they aren't there.

You were asked to quantify the increase in stellar brightness outside earth's atmosphere that would make it possible to photograph stars with ASA 160 film with an aperture of f-5.6 and an exposure of 1/125 second. You already admitted that imaging even the brightest stars would require a minimum of a ten second exposure. That's 1,250 times longer than the longest exposure time used for the Apollo Hasselblads, which should mean that the stars would need to be 1,250 times brighter to expose the same amount of light in 1/125th of a second as would be exposed on earth's surface in 10 seconds.

Also, why wouldn't the sun then also be 1,250 times brighter when on the surface of the moon than it is on the surface of the earth?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Sure: Getting a TV signal from the moon to the earth required the use of no satellites whatsoever. The astronauts had their antenna pointed at earth, and their signal was received by one or more of the three large receiving ground stations of the deep space network.

It was, compared to whatever weird contrivance is half-formed in your imagination, a doddle.
Click to expand...
Yes and this is what was being discussed. If it is so mortifying to have a fond belief put to the test then perhaps avoid contributing to the debate. Just because it is perfectly natural to you for Nixon to ring up the Apollo11 crew on the Moon from his White House phone, for the sceptics amongst us, this needs further consideration as to the logistics of it all. It is not a reflection on you if you don't get what the problem is. Not everyone is a problem solver.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Yes and this is what was being discussed. If it is so mortifying to have a fond belief put to the test then perhaps avoid contributing to the debate. Just because it is perfectly natural for you for Nixon to ring up the Apollo11 crew ont he Moon from his White House phone, for the sceptics amongst us, this needs further consideration as to the logistics of it all. It is not a reflection on you if you don't get what the problem is. Not everyone is a problem solver.
Click to expand...

You have never cogently articulated a logistical problem wrt that phone call. And your interlocutors understand more about the logistics than you seem to be aware of.
 
Vixen said:
What is the context of your question, Caller?
Click to expand...
Are you so thick and obtuse that you need me to explain to you the context in which *you* have been using the phrase "geopositioned satellite"?
Ok, since you're too dense to follow the discussion and your memory is too broken to remember what you've actually posted, here we go, here's the context:

Vixen

Post in thread 'Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk'

Reformed Offlian said:
She has pivoted from pretending to think the missions were real to pretending to think they were fake.
Click to expand...
The missions were real enough, even if only doing stuff in practical orbit (docking and undocking an' stuff). Problem is, the filming and photography is obviously faked, likely based on numerous simulations. Not so much a 'hoax', more a PR exercise: giving the public a tangible 'commemoration', if you like. When the next guys went up, there was little public interest due to the 'live' part being audio only. Having added it to the history books and encyclopaedic tomes as...
  • Haha

Vixen said:
... photos taken without view finders and directly transmitted to Earth via a non -Geopositioned satellite ...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The Carruthers/Conway camera pic looks photoshopped on to me. There is no need for you to go into meltdown heavy sarcasm mode like it's the end of the world.
Click to expand...

Is this opinion informed by the same expertise that couldn't distinguish between an actual photograph of the moon and obvious AI-generated slop?
 
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