Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Mojo]

Anyway, now that you've got the 'joke' out of your system, what was it that you were claiming that "Watergate was the official reason" for?

 

[Vixen]

100's of pages repeating the term "non-geopositioned" as if it were a legitimate way to describe satellites. Dozens of people asking what she meant, giving her chance after chance to make a correction, and she kept using the term. When she finally realized (after the cacophony of laughter reached a level that penetrated even her delusions) she wasn't fooling anyone, she blames us for not being able to handle simple typos or syntax mistakes. That's our @Vixen!

Here we see a practical demonstration of the difference between a 40W bulb and a 100W one.

A non-geopositoned satellite is just another way of saying geostationery.* It's descriptive, helps the reader to think about the word meaning by comparing it to its antonym. I can't believe this confused anyone after 100 pages of my referring to indepth discussion demonstrating it so that there could not be any doubt what is meant**.

*Read 'selono-' in place of 'geo-' in respect of when appertaining to the Moon rather than Earth.

**I get that Smock and JesseCuster will claim not to understand this but this is my last word on the matter.

 

[Vixen]

Anyway, now that you've got the 'joke' out of your system, what was it that you were claiming that "Watergate was the official reason" for?

That was the joke, hello? You're very earnest, Mojo. Sometimes it's worth taking a breath.

 

[threadworm]

Here we see a practical demonstration of the difference between a 40W bulb and a 100W one.

A non-geopositoned satellite is just another way of saying geostationery.* It's descriptive, helps the reader to think about the word meaning by comparing it to its antonym. I can't believe this confused anyone after 100 pages of my referring to indepth discussion demonstrating it so ghat there could not be any doubt what is meant**.

*Read 'selono-' in place of 'geo-' in respect of when appertaining to the Moon rather than Earth.

**I get that Smock and JesseCuster will claim not to understand this but this is my last word on the matter.

We all understood it. Your posts indicated repeatedly that you did not, up to and including this one.

The main point of your argument was that satellites were somehow involved in faking lunar TV. They were not.

 

[Mojo]

A non-geopositoned satellite is just another way of saying geostationery.

No, it isn't.

 

[Vixen]

I think we're onto something...

View attachment 77410View attachment 77411View attachment 77412View attachment 77413


Guys, this goes all the way to the top.

[I was planning to correct the "missing leg" with the lamp from A Christmas Story but I work midnight shift, and I'm too tired to do more.]

This should be set to the tune of the Jedi March.

 

[Vixen]

We all understood it. Your posts indicated repeatedly that you did not, up to and including this one.

The main point of your argument was that satellites were somehow involved in faking lunar TV. They were not.

Of course they weren't; that was the whole argument!

 

[Mojo]

Of course they weren't; that was the whole argument!

Your argument was that they would be necessary for line-of-sight transmissions from the Moon. Even Google's AI knows that this is cobblers.

 

[threadworm]

A more pressing difficulty is how you get a non-Geopositioned satellite (i.e., one whose orbit matches the speed of that of the relevant planet) to be in the right place at the right time.

You first.

This you?

 

[Mojo]

This you?

You can't expect Vixen to know that a geostationary satellite is in a geostationary orbit.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

A non-geopositoned satellite is just another way of saying geostationery.

So it's made of paper. Now it becomes clearer.

 

[Vixen]

Your argument was that they would be necessary for line-of-sight transmissions from the Moon. Even Google's AI knows that this is cobblers.

Oh dear. I never said it was 'line of sight', that is the official explanation because of reverse engineering...? Kemo sabe? To explain how it all happened in retrospect, of course it has to sound plausible, because we know it happened. It's in the textbooks. Via radio antennae in Australia and California IIRC. For example, "Even my six-year-old nephew knows that some tech bod made a radio call all the way across the Atlantic in 1928', and we all know photons can go whoosh straight to the Moon with no time delay (even though a live tv broadcast from England to America involves a delay before the presenter at the other end responds to what you said, even in 2026). What Weaver and Allen claim is that this doesn't make sense and that instead, Houston simply used one of the training satellites, as had been used for five years to monitor progress of the astronauts' training in the desert. This training involved wires to the astronauts spacesuits hooked up to a hoist that lifted them up. In theory, to experience one-sixth of the earth's gravity (hence, the 'giant steps and hopping about 'on the lunar surface' identical to what they did in training). They had to hop in training because the wires made them swing about if they walked normally. The hopping was to balance and stabilise them from swinging owing to the hoist wires set up. But on the Moon's surface, they weren't hooked up to any hoist so there was no need for all that hilarious hopping round. There was no reason they couldn't just walk normally. Some guys at NASA even claimed that if they jumped too high, they'd go straight off into space. It gets more and more ludicrous all the time.

So let's see if the Chinese astronauts do the same hopping about.

 

[Mojo]

Oh dear. I never said it was 'line of sight', that is the official explanation because of reverse engineering...? Kemo sabe?

Whether or not you said "line of sight" is immaterial. We know it was line-of-sight because we can see the Moon from the Earth.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I have sight of the moon right now. Not hearing anything though. Nobody home just now, i guess.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

1st: It's been more than sixty years since I read "The Sentinel" so I might get the title wrong. It's a short story about humans exploring the Moon. On a remote mountain top they find a pyramid of transparent material with something like a machine inside. When they touch the thing a power electronic blast nearly deafens them.

That story is credited for inspiring "2001; A Space Odyssey".

So let's keep looking for that thing.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Here we see a practical demonstration of the difference between a 40W bulb and a 100W one.

A non-geopositoned satellite is just another way of saying geostationery.* It's descriptive, helps the reader to think about the word meaning by comparing it to its antonym. I can't believe this confused anyone after 100 pages of my referring to indepth discussion demonstrating it so that there could not be any doubt what is meant**.

*Read 'selono-' in place of 'geo-' in respect of when appertaining to the Moon rather than Earth.

**I get that Smock and JesseCuster will claim not to understand this but this is my last word on the matter.

See, that wasn't so hard.

It's still wrong though. Geopositioned isn't another way of saying geostationary.

Now, why was any kind of satellite needed for communication between Apollo and Earth?

 

[threadworm]

Oh dear. I never said it was 'line of sight', that is the official explanation because of reverse engineering...? Kemo sabe?

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. It is the 'official explanation' because you can see the moon from Earth

To explain how it all happened in retrospect, of course it has to sound plausible, because we know it happened. It's in the textbooks.

It was clearly explained to people at the time.

Via radio antennae in Australia and California IIRC.

After it arrived on Earth, from the moon.

For example, "Even my six-year-old nephew knows that some tech bod made a radio call all the way across the Atlantic in 1928', and we all know photons can go whoosh straight to the Moon with no time delay (even though a live tv broadcast from England to America involves a delay before the presenter at the other end responds to what you said, even in 2026).

There is a time delay. You even claimed it was suspiciously long.

What Weaver and Allen claim is that this doesn't make sense and that instead, Houston simply used one of the training satellites, as had been used for five years to monitor progress of the astronauts' training in the desert.

Weaver and Allen are full of it. The training satellites were used to practice handovers from one ground station to another. They would not, and could not, have simulated a lunar transmission. See here, again.

5.9 Sneaking satellites

This training involved wires to the astronauts spacesuits hooked up to a hoist that lifted them up. In theory, to experience one-sixth of the earth's gravity (hence, the 'giant steps and hopping about 'on the lunar surface' identical to what they did in training). They had to hop in training because the wires made them swing about if they walked normally. The hopping was to balance and stabilise them from swinging owing to the hoist wires set up. But on the Moon's surface, they weren't hooked up to any hoist so there was no need for all that hilarious hopping round. There was no reason they couldn't just walk normally.

They did walk normally, for people in 1/6G. Astronauts in "trained for likely conditions" shocker.

Some guys at NASA even claimed that if they jumped too high, they'd go straight off into space. It gets more and more ludicrous all the time.

Citation required.

So let's see if the Chinese astronauts do the same hopping about.

Their gait will match Apollo astronauts

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh dear. I never said it was 'line of sight', that is the official explanation because of reverse engineering...? Kemo sabe? To explain how it all happened in retrospect, of course it has to sound plausible, because we know it happened. It's in the textbooks. Via radio antennae in Australia and California IIRC. For example, "Even my six-year-old nephew knows that some tech bod made a radio call all the way across the Atlantic in 1928', and we all know photons can go whoosh straight to the Moon with no time delay (even though a live tv broadcast from England to America involves a delay before the presenter at the other end responds to what you said, even in 2026). What Weaver and Allen claim is that this doesn't make sense and that instead, Houston simply used one of the training satellites, as had been used for five years to monitor progress of the astronauts' training in the desert. This training involved wires to the astronauts spacesuits hooked up to a hoist that lifted them up. In theory, to experience one-sixth of the earth's gravity (hence, the 'giant steps and hopping about 'on the lunar surface' identical to what they did in training). They had to hop in training because the wires made them swing about if they walked normally. The hopping was to balance and stabilise them from swinging owing to the hoist wires set up. But on the Moon's surface, they weren't hooked up to any hoist so there was no need for all that hilarious hopping round. There was no reason they couldn't just walk normally. Some guys at NASA even claimed that if they jumped too high, they'd go straight off into space. It gets more and more ludicrous all the time.

So let's see if the Chinese astronauts do the same hopping about.

You are trying too hard now.

This is too obviously trolling bollocks

 

[Mojo]

Here we see a practical demonstration of the difference between a 40W bulb and a 100W one.

A non-geopositoned satellite is just another way of saying geostationery.

You say that a "pressing difficulty is how you get a [geostationary satellite] to be in the right place at the right time." Why do you think this is difficult?

 

[zooterkin]

A non-geopositoned satellite is just another way of saying geostationery.*

You are aware that makes no sense? Grammatically, and logically (as well as being misspelt).

Did you mean to say that 'geopositioned' means the same as 'geostationary', rather than the opposite?