Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Helen]

I always suspected Australia was.

I think this may actually explain a thing or two;

On Finland, and other places that don’t exist

Some thoughts regarding the internet’s strange habit of declaring very real places to be imaginary.

jonn.substack.com

 

[Andy_Ross]

Re-reading this is confusing me even more. Never mind the confusion between photos and TV footage, is Vixen saying that the photos TV footage was supposedly transmitted directly to earth or that it was transmitted via a non-geopositioned satellite, those are mutually exclusive surely? If she thinks that a satellite was involved, or that NASA claims a satellite was involved, then what satellite is she referring to?

For a scientist, author, triple niner, etc. with dozens of letters after her name, etc. Vixen sure does use some vague mushy language describing things that should be easy to state clearly.

Also the photos were transmitted via the command module when it returned to earth and the films were developed in a lab.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I think this may actually explain a thing or two;

On Finland, and other places that don’t exist

Some thoughts regarding the internet’s strange habit of declaring very real places to be imaginary.

jonn.substack.com

Finland must be real.
Ian from Forgotten Weapons, Bloke on the Range and The Chieftain go there every year for a stupidly, physically arduous shooting match organised by some Finnish army guys.

 

[Helen]

Finland must be real.
Ian from Forgotten Weapons, Bloke on the Range and The Chieftain go there every year for stupidly, physically arduous shooting match organised by some Finnish army guys.

And my recent visitors live in Helsinki, when they're not here. This conspiracy goes deeeep, man!

 

[Vixen]

Re-reading this is confusing me even more. Never mind the confusion between photos and TV footage, is Vixen saying that the photos TV footage was supposedly transmitted directly to earth or that it was transmitted via a non-geopositioned satellite, those are mutually exclusive surely? If she thinks that a satellite was involved, or that NASA claims a satellite was involved, then what satellite is she referring to?

For a scientist, author, triple niner, etc. with dozens of letters after her name, etc. Vixen sure does use some vague mushy language describing things that should be easy to state clearly.

Did you manage to understand the first baby step?

 

[threadworm]

Did you manage to understand the first baby step?

Did you miss the explicit affirmative?

There is only one person in this thread that doesn't understand the arguments put forward, can you guess who it is?

 

[Mojo]

Did you miss the explicit affirmative?

She saw it, but she's far too intelligent to understand it.

 

[Vixen]

Did you miss the explicit affirmative?

There is only one person in this thread that doesn't understand the arguments put forward, can you guess who it is?

Citation please, as I haven't seen it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I understand that both the earth and the moon rotate.

Please continue.

Did you manage to understand the first baby step?

Did you miss the explicit affirmative?

Citation please, as I haven't seen it.

Vixen's attention to detail is legendary.

i.e. mostly fiction.

 

[Vixen]

I understand that both the earth and the moon rotate.

Please continue.

Okay. So next bit. Consider the following:

You are a YouTuber content creator. You create content on the latest new car. So, you want to film your mate driving this new model. You put on your GoPro camera to film him driving along a motorway. He is travelling at 50 mph. You are filming alongside of him in your car.

Question: how fast do you need to travel to keep up with him, so that he appears perfectly static in your video, with the background visibly whizzing by: is it:

1. Faster
2. 50 mph
3. Slower
4. Stationary
5. Haven't a clue?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Did you manage to understand the first baby step?

Was that the bad quality, completely inaccurate AI animation clip you most recently shared?

Vixen, whether you address the actual erroneous argument, or your erroneous interpretation of it, they're both wrong.

A&W claimed that the TV images of the lunar surface from the CSM in lunar orbit were shot from a stationary position relative to the moon. Their claim is wrong, because an examination of the full recording shows that they are progressing over the surface at a rate consistent with their orbital velocity. A&W edited the video in such a way that it's made clear that they knew they were being deceptive. Like Sibrel and Percy, they were deliberately fooling people who want to think they're too brilliant to be fooled. They were, in effect, selling ◊◊◊◊ sandwiches by labeling them "for smart people only".

But you misinterpreted their argument to mean that the Apollo missions required a communications satellite in a fixed position between the earth and moon. This is also false. There is no need for an intermediary receiver/transmitter when there is clear line of sight between the earth and moon. You've since attempted to modify your argument by making vague noises about "spinning", without further elaboration. But the relative motions of the earth and moon are easily solved with a tracking technology that has existed for two centuries, and by having multiple earth-based radio telescopes arranged so that at least one is always in line of sight with the moon and all are linked via a global communications network.

There, I've walked you all the way to the mailbox and back. I'm curious to see what form your next alternative to admitting error will take.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's getting trickier now. But I think the answer is (2).

I don't want to influence anyone else's vote but the sooner we get this over and done with...

 

[Foster Zygote]

Okay. So next bit. Consider the following:

You are a YouTuber content creator. You create content on the latest new car. So, you want to film your mate driving this new model. You put on your GoPro camera to film him driving along a motorway. He is travelling at 50 mph. You are filming alongside of him in your car.

Question: how fast do you need to travel to keep up with him, so that he appears perfectly static in your video, with the background visibly whizzing by: is it:

1. Faster
2. 50 mph
3. Slower
4. Stationary
5. Haven't a clue?

So now it's a matter of spinning and speed?

Well, the moon orbits the earth at an average of 0.00034% of the speed of light in a vacuum (which is the speed of radio in space). So what's the problem with speed?

And as for the earth spinning: the earth rotates at half the rate of the hour hand on a clock, radio telescopes can be aimed at and track specific points in the sky. So what's the problem with spinning?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Gross misconception incoming

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Tch. It's your own time you're wasting. Teacher isn't going to move on until you say the car has to go at the same speed as the other one if it wants to drive along beside it.

I appreciate this astrophysics stuff is a bit advanced but stick with it and just imagine what revelations await.

 

[wollery]

Vixen clearly missed my post in which I pointed out that the baby steps aren't needed.

 

[JesseCuster]

Okay. So next bit. Consider the following:

You are a YouTuber content creator. You create content on the latest new car. So, you want to film your mate driving this new model. You put on your GoPro camera to film him driving along a motorway. He is travelling at 50 mph. You are filming alongside of him in your car.

Question: how fast do you need to travel to keep up with him, so that he appears perfectly static in your video, with the background visibly whizzing by: is it:

1. Faster
2. 50 mph
3. Slower
4. Stationary
5. Haven't a clue?

2. 50mph

Please continue. I want to hear how the earth’s rotation fits into this analogy.

Edit: Before you continue, I’d going to ask you not to switch horses midstream and remind you that your argument is an objection to how the photos TV footage was transmitted to earth and how the fact that the Earth is rotating and how a “geopositioned satellite involved in the transmittion (not capturing the footage, this is something you’ve just introduced into your argument) is important to your argument. Remember that, please don’t alter your argument to make it look like you were arguing something else.

 

[Steve]

Vixen clearly ct impassed my post in which I pointed out that the baby steps aren't needed.

We have tried them with her, with very little success. Vixen knows what she knows, and simplification, accuracy, even rationality, have no detectable impact.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Vixen clearly missed my post in which I pointed out that the baby steps aren't needed.

It's Vixen who needs the baby steps.

She has no idea what to tell us a satellite would have been needed for, and she knows we already know Allen and Weaver's claim was based on a lie, so she can't go there. All that is left is to bluff, taking a journey to nowhere, one baby step at a time.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Vixen clearly missed ignored my post in which I pointed out that the baby steps aren't needed.

Let me just fix that for you.