Moon Landing: Fake or Real?

[Thumpalumpacus]

They were well out of range of anyone's radar to pick up and the Russians would not know where to aim radar anyway.

You're apparently unaware that we had Earthbound radar that could map the Moon in the late 60s. This is the sort of oversight that undermines your credibility, because this is simple information easy to find online.

As for where to aim the radar, a simple 60° sweep in the direction of the Moon would do the trick, because at some point in its flight, a proper lander would have to, you kow, approach the Moon. This objection is rendered especially silly when you consider that the Russians, as well as the Americans, had radars pointed in the general direction of North, and sweeping 60° arcs, because they didn't know exactly where the enemy's bombers would come from. In other words, the radar was used to pinpoint the location of objects whose location was uncertain.

It's kind of why radar was invented, I think.

It's clear to me that you haven't thought through your objections. You are latching onto stuff that sounds "sciency" but don't have much, if any actual knowledge of the principles and techniques at hand.

[thesummerqueen]

I don't have any real aggression towards you, Poc, but I do have aggression towards the crap people put on the internet.

Even a cursory look at Wikipedia would give you sourced material - cited, from .orgs with credibility. You can even find explanations for the conspiracy theories there. And before you badmouth Wiki: they don't put up with bullshit there. Not from homeopaths, not from truthers.

[psychoslice]

All I said was that the first moon landing seem too easy, now what's frigging wrong with that know all ??.

Not a damn thing, until you got butthurt that someone called you on it - because "seeming too easy" is fallacious reasoning.

I don't get hurt be idiots, I get angry that they think their so smart and think they know everything, I see a lot of that on this forum, and you all stick together like crap.

---

I don't have any real aggression towards you, Poc, but I do have aggression towards the crap people put on the internet.

Even a cursory look at Wikipedia would give you sourced material - cited, from .orgs with credibility. You can even find explanations for the conspiracy theories there. And before you badmouth Wiki: they don't put up with bullshit there. Not from homeopaths, not from truthers.

You may believe everything you read but I don't, that's the difference between you and me.

[thesummerqueen]

I was hoping you could provide what convinced you of the trustworthiness of the media reports.

And what makes you think those websites with the conspiracy theories are MORE trustworthy?

---

You may believe everything you read but I don't, that's the difference between you and me.

No, actually - I don't believe it when I read conspiracy theories or anti-vax information, which you do.

[psychoslice]

I was hoping you could provide what convinced you of the trustworthiness of the media reports.

And what makes you think those websites with the conspiracy theories are MORE trustworthy?

---

You may believe everything you read but I don't, that's the difference between you and me.

No, actually - I don't believe it when I read conspiracy theories or anti-vax information, which you do.

So you have a 100% knowledge about all this do you, I know I don't.

[ShaMan]

@psychoslice...

[thesummerqueen]

No, don't strawman me.

[Jackalope]

Not a damn thing, until you got butthurt that someone called you on it - because "seeming too easy" is fallacious reasoning.

I don't get hurt be idiots, I get angry that they think their so smart and think they know everything, I see a lot of that on this forum, and you all stick together like crap.

Yeah, we sure do stick together - almost as if we're part of a conspiracy.

/sarcasm

[Thumpalumpacus]

And what makes you think those websites with the conspiracy theories are MORE trustworthy?

---

No, actually - I don't believe it when I read conspiracy theories or anti-vax information, which you do.

So you have a 100% knowledge about all this do you, I know I don't.

Epistemology is not so black-and-white. Nuanced thought is not teh evul.

[Anomalocaris]

They were well out of range of anyone's radar to pick up and the Russians would not know where to aim radar anyway.

You're apparently unaware that we had Earthbound radar that could map the Moon in the late 60s. This is the sort of oversight that undermines your credibility, because this is simple information easy to find online.

As for where to aim the radar, a simple 60° sweep in the direction of the Moon would do the trick, because at some point in its flight, a proper lander would have to, you kow, approach the Moon. This objection is rendered especially silly when you consider that the Russians, as well as the Americans, had radars pointed in the general direction of North, and sweeping 60° arcs, because they didn't know exactly where the enemy's bombers would come from. In other words, the radar was used to pinpoint the location of objects whose location was uncertain.

It's kind of why radar was invented, I think.

It's clear to me that you haven't thought through your objections. You are latching onto stuff that sounds "sciency" but don't have much, if any actual knowledge of the principles and techniques at hand.

You don't need 1960s radar technology to see the Apollo to confirm it is near or at the moon. 1920-1930s radio direction finding technology is sufficient to intercept telemetry, voice and television broadcast from Apollo and verify where in the sky the transmission came from.

By plotting the point in the sky where the transmission is coming from, one could use 1690AD physics and 3000BC stylus, ink and goat skin technology to verify the source of transmission MUST be on a transfer trajectory to the moon, or in orbit about the moon.

It wouldn't need the soviets to penetrate any deception involving an earth orbit space craft trying to pretend to be near the moon. Almost any interested semi-competent amateur radio enthusiast anywhere in the world can pinpoint the location of the source of transmission and verify it is following a trajectory that could not be anything but either on a round trip to the moon, or is in orbit about the moon.

As for the "professor", he is not something that deserves to be addressed directly. You don't try to publically rebutt the rumblings of an evident lunatic. It merely makes you look as if you are only marginally more lucid than he is, and therefore take him with some degree of seriousness.