Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Smock]

As opposed to accusing people of being too emotionally invested or angry...

Or blinded by US-centric patriotic fervor, or astronaut hero worship.

 

[JesseCuster]

There are plenty of examples in the annals of crime.

There’s plenty of examples in the annals of crime of murderers calling their victims after they’re dead, and hiding that fact for the rest of their lives?

Your inability to read and comprehend basic English knows no bounds, does it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

There are plenty of examples in the annals of crime.

Show me some

 

[wollery]

@Vixen I just googled "geopositioned satellite"

All of the response were for "geostationary satellite" and "geosynchronous satellite"

Not one reference I could find to "geopositioned satellite".

Therefore it would seem that it isn't possible to google it to understand what you mean.

So, the question remains, what do YOU mean when YOU say "geopositioned satellite"?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There are plenty of examples in the annals of crime.

One would do. Just one murderer, who rang up their victim but nobody ever knew they did. The floor is yours.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If Vixen cannot tell us what she meant by the term, she could instead tell us what her imagined satellite would do to assist getting a TV signal from the moon to the earth, and why she thinks that task was necessary.

 

[Steve]

Look, what I am trying to communicate is that simply announcing that someone is 'spectacularly stupid' or useless, doesn't make them so, just on your say so. It is a conceit on your part, and indicates a bullish closed-mindedness that only your opinion is right or acceptable.

The hilite is very true.

However

Having copious supporting evidence recognized and pointed out by many, many knowledgeable people over a long period of time goes well beyond one opinion and comes as close to an indisputable fact as it is possible to be. You are, as a matter of fact, either spectacularly stupid or you choose to portray a spectacularly stupid person on this forum. My money is on the former.

 

[Smock]

One would do. Just one murderer, who rang up their victim but nobody ever knew they did. The floor is yours.

Hell, I'll settle for any criminal anywhere who pre-fabricated proof of their innocence, but then never revealed this proof in order to stave off any accusations of guilt. Just one example will do.

 

[Smock]

If Vixen cannot tell us what she meant by the term, she could instead tell us what her imagined satellite would do to assist getting a TV signal from the moon to the earth, and why she thinks that task was necessary.

Baby steps. We are only now, after 100's of pages, getting a kind of, sort of, maybe explanation that she may have misspoken and meant to say geostationary. The fact that a satellite, geopositioned, geostationary, or otherwise, would play any part in line-of-sight communications of any kind is a little too much introspection for @Vixen to handle, IMHO.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

We're not any nearer getting Vixen to tell us whether she meant geostationary. We just have multiple posters suggesting "Did you perhaps mean 'geostationary'?" If she was ever going to answer that, she would have done so long ago. It's now one of the rules of her game that she avoids answering that simple question.

 

[Mojo]

That can be looked up on google.

Google prompt: "What does Vixen believe a "geopositioned satellite" to be?"

Google response:

In discussions on the International Skeptics Forum regarding the Apollo moon landings, a user posting under the pseudonym "Vixen" argued that a "geopositioned" (geostationary) satellite is required for radio communications between Earth and the Moon. [1, 2]


Other users in the debate corrected this belief, pointing out that because the sending and receiving antennae on Earth and the Moon were in a direct line of sight with one another, a relay satellite was completely unnecessary.

 

[ferd burfle]

Yes it's a metaphor but ridiculous and triumphant exultations trumpeting that I have been shown to be 'spectacularly wrong' reminds me of the type of person who laughs loudly at people tripping over on the pavement, as if you've never tripped on a pavement or ever got anything wrong in your life. Massive plank in your own eye.

Tripping is an accident. Your evasions and lies are not.

 

[Steve]

Tripping is an accident. Your evasions and lies are not.

Perhaps Vixen trips intentionally so that people will laugh at her, thereby garnering the much craved attention.

 

[Vixen]

I’ve looked it up. I can’t find anything that explains what a “geopositioned satellite” is, its not a valid phrase or term used to describe satellites or orbits. Google, Bing, a couple of AI chatbots, etc. did however suggest that I perhaps meant “geostationary satellite”.

Given what the word “geopositioned” actually means, it makes no sense for a satellite to be described as “geopositioned”. Geopositioning refers to using any of various methods and technologies to identify your position on earth. For something to be “geopositioned” means that its location/co-ordinates have been figured out.

It makes no sense for a satellite to be a “geopositioned satellite”, definitely not in the context that you’ve been using it.

I know I said I’d drop it, but Vixen seems to be willingly discussing her unwillingness to answer the question, so I’ll ask again. (I’ve said it before and Jay has reiterated the point, it will take you far less effort to simply type a paragraph or couple of sentences explaining what you mean, or linking to a source that explains what a “geopositioned satellite” is, than it will to continually dodge and weave and refuse to answer the question)

Did you mean “geostationary satellite” but made a mistake and said “geopositioned satellite” instead? Or do you mean something different than geostationary satellite? Google can’t tell us what YOU mean.

OK. You've made your point. When I see a typo, grammatical or syntactic error or a careless mistake (for example, writing Monday instead of Tuesday), I ignore it and move on. (Unless there's an amusing aspect to it then it might be mentioned, or corrected if it shows a misconception.) What I don't do, is a 'gotcha dance' about it over seven or eight pages. This is what I meant when I said if the principle is wrong draw up the relevant post and point it out instead of throwing out a random term ten weeks later and demanding a definition. It is the element of teasing that is irritating. So you've pointed out a careless error twenty-five times. Thank you. Now move on.

 

[Vixen]

There’s plenty of examples in the annals of crime of murderers calling their victims after they’re dead, and hiding that fact for the rest of their lives?

Your inability to read and comprehend basic English knows no bounds, does it?

No, it is not my abilities being called into question. I said precluding is what strategic criminals do of which ringing up a murder victim knowing they are dead but to cover your back is an example of this behaviour.

 

[Andy_Ross]

OK. You've made your point. When I see a typo, grammatical or syntactic error or a careless mistake (for example, writing Monday instead of Tuesday), I ignore it and move on. (Unless there's an amusing aspect to it then it might be mentioned, or corrected if it shows a misconception.) What I don't do, is a 'gotcha dance' about it over seven or eight pages. This is what I meant when I said if the principle is wrong draw up the relevant post and point it out instead of throwing out a random term ten weeks later and demanding a definition. It is the element of teasing that is irritating. So you've pointed out a careless error twenty-five times. Thank you. Now move on.

So does this mean you did mean geostationary and typed geopositioned by mistake?

 

[Mojo]

OK. You've made your point. When I see a typo, grammatical or syntactic error or a careless mistake (for example, writing Monday instead of Tuesday), I ignore it and move on. (Unless there's an amusing aspect to it then it might be mentioned, or corrected if it shows a misconception.) What I don't do, is a 'gotcha dance' about it over seven or eight pages. This is what I meant when I said if the principle is wrong draw up the relevant post and point it out instead of throwing out a random term ten weeks later and demanding a definition. It is the element of teasing that is irritating. So you've pointed out a careless error twenty-five times. Thank you. Now move on.

What word was "geopositioned" a typo, grammatical or syntactic error or a careless mistake for?

What word did you actually intend?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Now's your chance Vixen.
You are being offered a way out

 

[Mojo]

No, it is not my abilities being called into question.

Oh yes it is!


Looks like panto season has started early.

 

[Vixen]

Why would he ever possibly "need it" when the success of the faked mission was already predetermined? You can't be this dense. Nixon, two days after launch, ordered a press release anticipating the failure of a mission he was faking in order to ensure success. He then filed the press release away and never mentioned it. The question remains - Why order a press release for a failure that was guaranteed never to happen? And if he did it to ward off accusations that the mission was faked as you seem to claim, why did he keep it hidden long after those accusations were widespread and in the public vernacular?

We discussed this already, remember? We discussed how Eisenhower started the protocol of having ready a message of condolences for those who gave their lives in service of their nation. Protocols? What aides are for, to advise the President of formalities that need to be attended to. Do you really believe Nixon thought of this condolences speech all by himself? It was almost certainly written up by an aide following Eisenhower protocols and using similar words. All Nixon likely did was sign the thing. I am not sure why you think this proves there is no way he could have cheated in order to beat the Soviets.