Moon landing hoax

Emblematic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121464579#Comment_121464579

I believe you stated for satellite TV the equipment in orbit needs to be stainonary in relation to the ground we stand on. We are told these satellites are orbit the planet @17k mph.

Holding a stainonary position seems pretty difficult even without factoring the orbital speed. They would still have follow the earth's 1000 mph rotation.

They orbit a bit under 7k mph which at the orbital height of a bit over 22k miles, keeps them above a particular point on the earth's equator. Maintaining that position does require adjustment from time to time as the satellites drift. This is why they have thrusters on board.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121464677#Comment_121464677

Coming around again every 90 or so minutes (for low Earth orbit) exactly as the laws of physics predict is quite a large clue.

Giblet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121464579#Comment_121464579

You have a few numbers wrong there, go find the right data and ask the question again, thanks! (We need to show you can actually research, otherwise why explain something you will just dismiss?)

Giblet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121464850#Comment_121464850

So as the posters above have posted correct numbers. A GeoStationary satellite follows the earths rotation, but is orbiting at a distance of 35,000km above the earth @ 10,000kmh. The lateral motion allows the satellite to stay in position above earth, and the effect of gravity isn't as great as a LEO satellite Even if it did fall to earth, it has plenty of time to miss at such a distance.

Low Earth Orbit satellites are closer to earth, so in order to "clear" the earth laterally, they must travel faster.. so they basically "miss" before gravity causes them to crash. These satellites are usually require something to prevent their orbits from decaying, and are usually tracked by moving dishes (you might have seen videos where dishes scan the sky over a period of time, and suddenly jolt back. The satellites might form an array either for continuous communication with the ground.

The mechanics, evidence of these dishes moving for LEO satellites, and remaining stationary for Geostationary orbits, all fits with the fact that yes.. satellites are in orbit and we are doing the necessary things to communicate with them, track them, launch them, orbit them, interact between them, and avoid collisions between them given we have the technology, and maths that works out very simply in fact to every variable you can throw at it. The earth rotates once a day, speed is irrelevant in space / a vacuum, and these big numbers that seem to trip everyone up are simply accounted for when you know the physics of it all, and only cause problems when you don't. We didn't reverse engineer the size of the earth, it's weight, it's gravity, and all calculations of where the planets, moons, satellites are back to a simple trigonometry function based on a simple radius of the earth with a mass of elements found in the same ratios that account for it's mass. The earth has a radius of ~6,300km, from that we can calculate the distance of any two positions using polar coordinates and they will match. We can use great circles to plot flight plans and they will match. We can throw objects into the air and they will match our expectations given the distance from the surface and the mass of the objects. We can measure air density accurately from the ground and predict it at the summit of a mountain and it will match. We can predict the boiling point of water at these summits. We can predict the eclipses, we can predict the transit of satellites across the moon, all using simple physics which all correlate with each other. You can predict the likely hood of a collision between two satellites. The radius of geostationary satellites is 8 times that of earth, the likely hood of two car size satellites travelling within near each other is minuscule, and can be measured, so why are there arguments that it would be crowded up there? You can yourself, figure out the tensile strength of materials needed in a vacuum, and figure out that the materials used on the lunar modules were sufficient. You can test it yourself, nothing is hidden, there isn't a tribunal about hidden evidence, it's all there.

You can not do this for any other explanation of how we landed on the moon, how it was concealed, if it was concealed. There is no evidence to support we use balloons. There is no argument that the earths rotation causes problems beyond a simple variable to be accounted for, or that the earth is really flat, and space doesn't exist. There has never been evidence for it, nor any attempt to integrate the above knowledge into the fantasy either. Personal Incredulity is Anti Science.

NIMAN

Great post, but some will never be convinced it's not all some great deception, no matter what.

I'd say if these folk were put on a shuttle, launched into space, seen the earth from orbit, they still wouldn't believe you.

I would worry about someone who genuinely believes the earth is flat. Or believes certain people can talk to dead people.

BailenaMbocht

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121458182#Comment_121458182

considering the obvious knowledge you possess and real world experience with info/data transfer for television signal transmission ,I'd like to hear your opinion on the phone call made to the moon in 1969. I honestly can't describe our telecommunication capabilities in the 1960's but just from memory I do remember making calls in the 80's and any international call had terrible quality and often dropped. It was not easy. Just my own experience.

This call had 1/4 million miles to travel 1 way .It had to be received at the moon and broadcast back over the air which all went pretty flawlessly. Are we to believe the conversation was sent by radio waves which i believe would require large receivers and high power. Also we routinely bounce radio waves off the ionosphere which rules out a casual radio conversation to the moon imo.

If you know what the extent of our tech at the time and offer an explanation i'd appreciate it.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465005#Comment_121465005

But when people do give you explanations for things you ignore them and call them fake or lies.

There's extensive information out there about how the Apollo missions communicated with the ground. There's a movie about it.

Also if your opinion is that it's impossible to use radio to talk to craft on the moon because of the ionosphere, then your opinion is just not correct.

Opinions are not facts.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465005#Comment_121465005

There was a network of transmitters and receivers around the world to handle communication throughout the mission. Plenty of information on this online if you would do a few basic searches.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121464731#Comment_121464731

Yeah, sure it is.......It's me pointing out your hypocrisy and contradiction that stifles debate and not, y'know, posters refusing to reply to others for BS reasons.

You said you weren't avoiding responding to any points that were aimed directly at you and then IMMEDIATELY said you were going to avoid responding to a whole heap of points that were directly aimed at you because it's futile.

You can claim they're not contradictory points, but the rest of us can see through the bluster and crap.

Bluefoam

Judging by how incompetent engineers are with new models of cars... I just don't believe that they flew a rocket up there, put it in reverse, backed up until they landed on a perfectly flat bit of moon, opened up the doors, did their business, locked up their spaceship, then took off at the right speed/power to overcome the moons different gravity/atmosphere and then flew home safe and sound...

When they land stuff on mars these days, they just fire it at the planet and burst some airbags as it hits the surface... I just don't believe for a minute that they landed on the moon...

Hotblack Desiato

FFS we can get pictures back off a little space probe flying past Pluto, an audio call to the moon is a doddle in comparison.

The President of the USA even in the 1960s was not using an old ramshackle phone system like most of Ireland was until we went digital.

Only certain frequency bands bounce off the ionosphere, e.g. shortwave radio but not VHF/UHF which just goes straight through out off into space.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465889#Comment_121465889

Satire?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465989#Comment_121465989

Impossible to tell with lot of conspiracy theories.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121464677#Comment_121464677

Critical thinking.

If the light isn't a satellite, then what is it? Something that can be predicted exactly when it will pass overhead.

If the below aren't Starlink satellites, then what are they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihVuz8uM1qU

If you conjure up in your head that these could be .. *spins wheel*.. a line of brightly lit drones high in the sky.

You have to demonstrate evidence for that

It's not enough to sit there and imagine what it might be and then somehow that becomes real. I could pretend this is a string of lights magically pulled by an airplane, does that make it so? No.

Critical thinking.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465005#Comment_121465005

Keep in mind, someone didn't "phone space".

They phoned Houston, and Houston patched them through to comms with the lunar lander. Communications can speak to astronauts the same way air traffic control speaks to pilots. The only difference is that astronauts are further away.

However they weren't on the other side of the universe, they were on the way to or on the moon, which is around 380k kilometers away, not that far in space terms. For a signal to get there and back is only a few seconds. Which means it's possible to have a two way conversation with astronauts.

Another very important thing to keep in mind, someone not understanding that or believing that is not evidence against it.

Giblet

Ah he's started with the whole "intangible lights in the sky, I can't touch it therefore it could be anything" argument. Nathan Oakley milked that one dry.

I've had enough, this is just an exercise in contrarianism in the same shape as Mr. Oakley et.al, you don't believe what you are saying, but like to play the other side because you want to exercise absurdism as a way to win (read: drawn out until the other side just gives up). There is no basis to any of these arguments, so either it is trolling, or too stupid to listen to reason in the first place. Remember, Mr. Oakley drank piss on screen to try build cred within the scene with the other piss drinkers, right after he tried pimping out his wife and his sex life on a tech review show. I know being a Van Driver is a hard job but...

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465889#Comment_121465889

Judging by how incompetent engineers are with new models of cars

Bizarre comparison and generalisation. The equivalent of claiming "There are hair-driers with manufacturing faults, therefore it's not possible that human beings have built functioning aircraft carriers"

I just don't believe that they flew a rocket up there, put it in reverse, backed up until they landed on a perfectly flat bit of moon, opened up the doors, did their business, locked up their spaceship, then took off at the right speed/power to overcome the moons different gravity/atmosphere and then flew home safe and sound

They didn't "fly a rocket up, put it in reverse and back it up" like a tractor.

Also, if you can't believe something, okay, but that's not evidence against it. There are posters on this forum who "can't believe" the world is round.

We experimented with rockets for decades, eventually building rockets powerful enough to reach the edge of our atmosphere and space. We further developed these to deploy satellites. Using that same principle, we further developed these rockets to get a spacecraft module and lander into space. Hundreds of thousands (millions on both sides) of people were involved over decades as a part of that effort.

Once in space, the next step was to perform an orbit of the moon. Once that was successful, they attempted to land on the moon. It involved decoupling the lander, and piloting that to land on the moon (think of a drone being operated to land on earth, but in a sixth less gravity). Thanks to that low gravity and almost non-existent atmosphere on the moon we were able to relaunch the lander off the surface.

We then did it successfully five more times

I strongly recommend watching any of the countless documentaries (or reading one of the many books) on this, it's fascinating. You'll also learn a little about orbital mechanics, flight control systems, moon atmosphere and gravity, rocket propellent mixtures, and the thousands of challenges they had to overcome.

For everyone else reading this thread: note the pattern.

NIMAN

But the books and documentaries are all part of the hoax.

That'll be the argument.

Dohnjoe

Indeed, but at least an opportunity is being provided for people to educate themselves.

Being ignorant of something is fine, there's plenty of things I don't understand. However, there's a huge leap from that to "I don't get it, therefore it wasn't possible"

Which is the massive 800lb gorilla in the room. People who can't accept they don't understand something. And worse, they then entertain a conspiracy they can't explain or detail.

NIMAN

Exactly.

The believers continue to point to explanations. They actively try to educate the conspiracy nuts. They go out of their way to say, "look this is how X was done, how we were able to do Y etc. Have you any other questions". If it was all made up, they would be ducking and diving questions. But they aren't, cos they have explanations for everything. That's what science does.

But the non believers simply say "well I don't believe they were able to do that and I'm not going to listen to any explanations you are offering. Those lights in the sky aren't satellites, they are something else, but don't ask me what they are, I just believe they are something else".

Never going to win a battle against minds like that.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121464651#Comment_121464651

A quick search of YouTube shows up plenty of amateur astronomers demonstrating it. In relation to the mirror, an earlier poster explained the design of the mirror...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121464677#Comment_121464677

Once again, I posted a pretty clear photo of a satellite that was taken by an amateur astronomer. So it is possible to actually visibly view them, it's just a matter of investing in the right equipment. Your approach appears to be "far away object that is possible to view and has a consistent trackable path, everyone who has put the effort into viewing it are part of the conspiracy"...

Yeah Right

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/math-formula-charts-the-lifespan-of-hoaxes

Nearly half a million people would have been involved if it was a hoax.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121467842#Comment_121467842

Plus you'd need the same number of people from the USSR to keep quiet as well... And they would be highly motivated to expose any slip up by the USA.

storker

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465889#Comment_121465889

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-Incredulity

...

Bluefoam

The computer chips they used in the spacecraft were as powerful as those in a tumble dryer from circa 1998... The research to produce gaskets for reusable airlocks was not suitably advanced, the various levels of power and the knowledge of fueling was not advanced enough for the multiple types of manoeuvres that were required... basically there's huge difficulty in getting space ships to complete one task effectively, but getting a Swiss Army spaceship to pull off a bunch of various manoeuvres in fundamentally different ways... The technology was not available and to a large extent still isn't, otherwise they'd would still be sending people to the moon... even Tesla's spaceships keep exploding trying to manage one exercise.

Giblet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121468957#Comment_121468957

Bluefoam, please explain how the computers worked in detail. I mean, I already know, but you seem to be a thought leader here, so what was the issue?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121468957#Comment_121468957

Jesus. You were being serious?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121468957#Comment_121468957

Lots of empty assertions there with absolutely nothing to back them up.

The heavy computing was done on the ground, course corrections were sent over the radio to the spacecraft. But an efficient, special-purpose computer doesn't need to waste power doing all the crap your laptop or phone does just to make the display look nice.

Impossible to produce a vacuum tight seal in the 1960s? Bollocks

What is a level of power? What is a knowledge of fuelling? Bear in mind that accurate ICBMs were already a thing by then. And yeah the first big application for integrated circuits in the US was the Minuteman ballistic missile.

They did complete one task pretty much. The lunar lander didn't have to fly in Earth's atmosphere or support the astronauts except during the lunar phase of the mission. The descent stage got them down, the ascent stage got them up... once every part had finished its job it was dead weight and was thrown away to make the job of the next part easier.

They stopped sending people to the moon because the political imperative to spend the money to do so had ended.

Tesla don't make spaceships.

Your lack of knowledge or understanding does not change reality.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121468957#Comment_121468957

None of this is actually true.

You're falling back to vague insistence that things "werent advanced enough" but you won't actually elaborate on this (never mind back it up.)

Meanwhile we have flat earthers claiming that the conspirators had access to things like giant building sized vacuum chambers and CGI more advanced than today's.

Giblet

Man forgot we built nukes in the 40's