I know the moon missions were bull, but what is so funny about the pics.Come on hoppy there's no porter. They are making them carry their own luggage.
I wonder what's in them bags?
I know the moon missions were bull, but what is so funny about the pics.
OK, so the fact that these are most likely pictures from two different missions and therefore are using different technology never crossed your mind?
That one of the guys has red markings on his sleeve probably indicates that he is the commander of the crew maybe?
I mean sports teams change their uniforms every couple years or so.
Well, looks to me like they are making adjustments to the tubing of the suit. Therefore the ends haven't been finished yet.
Is it scotch or ducktape?
Wow, this movie is a real treasure. Apollo funs in the audience, could you please tell me, are the astronauts in the first image I placed the same as in the second picture? We can decide if this was the same mission or different ones. I can send you the movie... or may be, upload it to Youtube, for it is so important (01:17:08):
I know the moon missions were bull, but what is so funny about the pics.
Wow. Just a few funny things:
The first image: NASA emblems on the right shoulders
The second image: no NASA emblems on the right shoulders
The first image: all the hoses going from their luggage to the "spacesuits" are white
The second image: the second "astronaut" has black hoses, with white bands
The first image: two of the three "spacesuits" have hoses attached on both sides
The second image: two of the three "spacesuits" have hoses attached on the right side
The second image: the first "astronaut's" hoses have nice red and blue ends at the "spacesuits"
The first image: all hoses have white ends
The first image: red bands (tape?) around arms and legs of the first "astronaut". Later, no "astronauts" in the elevator has them.
The first image: all pieces of their luggage are dark-blue
The second image: light grey
The first image, luggage: small upper handle
The second image: big handle
Look at the size and shape of the luggage in both images
Now look at the right side of the "astronauts'" chests. First image: no NASA emblem. Second image: NASA emblem.
Now look at their gloves, how different they are... Look at the second image, blue stuff on the right sleeve of the first guy, - nothing like that in the first picture. Wait a minute... yes, here we are... look at the screenshot at 04:06. What is that on the back of the second "astronaut"? Look at the their luggage, this side should be the same as the front side in the second image... Where is the white stuff in the second image? Where are the brass terminals in the first image? etc. etc. etc.
;D
OK, so the fact that these are most likely pictures from two different missions and therefore are using different technology never crossed your mind?
That one of the guys has red markings on his sleeve probably indicates that he is the commander of the crew maybe?
I mean sports teams change their uniforms every couple years or so.
Exactly, about 10 years worth of footage covering 29 missions. During the first couple of minutes of documentary before the first screenshot Humble posted they show clips of astronauts gearing up and getting checked out before transfer to the rocket. Those are taken from at least two different missions with the NASA logos switching arms and being located in different rooms. The NASA emblem was moved to the right arm from Apollo 15 onwards.
Red bands indicate the mission commander and are on both arms and legs, this started with the Apollo 13 mission and was introduced in order to differentiate between the two astronauts in images/video captured on the moon.
Exactly. Look at the technology (03:11):
Is it scotch or ducktape?
Wow, this movie is a real treasure. Apollo funs in the audience, could you please tell me, are the astronauts in the first image I placed the same as in the second picture? We can decide if this was the same mission or different ones. I can send you the movie... or may be, upload it to Youtube, for it is so important (01:17:08):
I have recently got a rare, old and precious movie, and the quality is not too bad.
Exactly, about 10 years worth of footage covering 29 missions. During the first couple of minutes of documentary before the first screenshot Humble posted they show clips of astronauts gearing up and getting checked out before transfer to the rocket. Those are taken from at least two different missions with the NASA logos switching arms and being located in different rooms. The NASA emblem was moved to the right arm from Apollo 15 onwards.
Red bands indicate the mission commander and are on both arms and legs, this started with the Apollo 13 mission and was introduced in order to differentiate between the two astronauts in images/video captured on the moon.
Thank you. So, one mission is in the shuttle bus and another is leaving it... interesting. The same mission is using different equipment... very interesting.
It's a great DVD which I have watched many times. You should check the director's commentary where Al Reinert explains that although the documentary seems to show a single moon mission it is actually a mish-mash of footage from all six Apollo missions that successfully landed on the moon (11, 12 14, 15, 16 & 17) as well as footage from the earlier Apollo and Gemini missions. A lot of the imagery is out of context, for example rocket launch footage coming from the earlier Apollo missions and spacewalks from the Gemini missions instead!
May I ask you, who was filming that (01:13:15):
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/268/mvqk.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/268/mvqk.jpg/)
(http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3723/mvqk.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/268/mvqk.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
The mission is leaving the Moon. All the crew is inside, right? Who is filming?
Exactly, about 10 years worth of footage covering 29 missions. During the first couple of minutes of documentary before the first screenshot Humble posted they show clips of astronauts gearing up and getting checked out before transfer to the rocket. Those are taken from at least two different missions with the NASA logos switching arms and being located in different rooms. The NASA emblem was moved to the right arm from Apollo 15 onwards.
Red bands indicate the mission commander and are on both arms and legs, this started with the Apollo 13 mission and was introduced in order to differentiate between the two astronauts in images/video captured on the moon.
Thank you. So, one mission is in the shuttle bus and another is leaving it... interesting. The same mission is using different equipment... very interesting.
Not really, two different missions many years apart (Apollo and Gemini) and spliced together by the documentary .
Also:It's a great DVD which I have watched many times. You should check the director's commentary where Al Reinert explains that although the documentary seems to show a single moon mission it is actually a mish-mash of footage from all six Apollo missions that successfully landed on the moon (11, 12 14, 15, 16 & 17) as well as footage from the earlier Apollo and Gemini missions. A lot of the imagery is out of context, for example rocket launch footage coming from the earlier Apollo missions and spacewalks from the Gemini missions instead!
Please listen to it before embarrassing yourself further.QuoteMay I ask you, who was filming that (01:13:15):
The mission is leaving the Moon. All the crew is inside, right? Who is filming?
The camera on the rover which was parked specifically to film it. This has been covered before, please lurk moar.
Dear dephelis,Please re-read my comments. It is not one mission using different spacesuits.
Thank you for your answers. I am just trying to understand what is in this movie.
Not really, two different missions many years apart (Apollo and Gemini) and spliced together by the documentary
Why the same mission with the badges, a genuine mission, as you pointed out, is using different spacesuits?
A lot of the imagery is out of context, for example rocket launch footage coming from the earlier Apollo missions and spacewalks from the Gemini missions instead!
This is very strange indeed. The movie clearly says (01:57 - 02:04):"Twenty-four men made the journey.
They were the first human beings
to leave the planet Earth
for another world.
This is the film they brought back..."
and"Filmed on location by the Unites States
National Aeronautic and Space Administration."
Could you please tell me, why would the "men" who "made the journey" bring back from the Moon the film filled with "a lot of the imagery" that "is out of context"?
If these people in the spacesuits that are coming into the cabin of the elevator carrying them to the rocket are not the members of the mission ("this isn't an Apollo mission as there is no patch", as you indicated), then who are they?
Any chance your next message/troll could actually be thought out?
Dear dephelis,Please re-read my comments. It is not one mission using different spacesuits.
Thank you for your answers. I am just trying to understand what is in this movie.
Not really, two different missions many years apart (Apollo and Gemini) and spliced together by the documentary
Why the same mission with the badges, a genuine mission, as you pointed out, is using different spacesuits?QuoteA lot of the imagery is out of context, for example rocket launch footage coming from the earlier Apollo missions and spacewalks from the Gemini missions instead!
This is very strange indeed. The movie clearly says (01:57 - 02:04):"Twenty-four men made the journey.
They were the first human beings
to leave the planet Earth
for another world.
This is the film they brought back..."
and"Filmed on location by the Unites States
National Aeronautic and Space Administration."
Could you please tell me, why would the "men" who "made the journey" bring back from the Moon the film filled with "a lot of the imagery" that "is out of context"?
If these people in the spacesuits that are coming into the cabin of the elevator carrying them to the rocket are not the members of the mission ("this isn't an Apollo mission as there is no patch", as you indicated), then who are they?
Now you are either being deliberately obtuse or no longer care about the subject to troll effectively. Hey ho, I can't sleep so I might as well feed you.
Listen to the director's commentary on your DVD and it explains how this documentary was made. He himself will explain why things are out of context.
The part of the documentary that shows astronauts walking down a corridor (your first screenshot) was recorded during the Apollo 15 mission. The part of the documentary that shows astronauts going into the elevator was recorded during either the early Apollo missions or Gemini missions many years earlier. Al Reinert stuck the two together to make a single sequence. How hard is it to understand the this is a documentary made in 1987 from video and audio recorded from 1962 to 1972?
Twenty four men may have made the journey to and onto the Moon, but they did it three at a time over several missions and over several years.
Any chance your next message/troll could actually be thought out?
Any chance that your next message/troll could actually be thought out?
I can't sleep so I might as well feed you.
You would better read your own post:
It is not one mission using different spacesuits.
Very good. Now please have a look at the third image that I placed, at 04:06. It is only four seconds after the first one, at 04:02, and showing the same "mission". You said it
shows astronauts walking down a corridor (your first screenshot) was recorded during the Apollo 15 mission.
The same "astronauts", just from the back. Are their "spacesuits" different or not?
Now you are either being deliberately obtuse or no longer care about the subject
I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
After what I have seen in just a few minutes of this movie and after your explanations, I am not going to believe a single word from NASA.
For the rest, I am finishing uploading the movie, so it will hopefully be available in a few minutes at:
(http://)
Enjoy.
Any chance that your next message/troll could actually be thought out?
I can't sleep so I might as well feed you.
You would better read your own post:
Clever and original .... well done!QuoteIt is not one mission using different spacesuits.
Very good. Now please have a look at the third image that I placed, at 04:06. It is only four seconds after the first one, at 04:02, and showing the same "mission". You said it
shows astronauts walking down a corridor (your first screenshot) was recorded during the Apollo 15 mission.
The same "astronauts", just from the back. Are their "spacesuits" different or not?
No need to refer to the second image, it is blatantly obvious that he is wearing a slightly different suit to the other two in the first image. The middle astronaut is wearing the CMB variant of the A7LB spacesuit, the first and third astronauts (the ones that land on the moon) are wearing the EVA variant of the A7LB. Two variants of the same type of suit, which have different entry methods. The CMB is opened via the back which is what the bulge is. The EVA opens diagonally across the front and from right to left across the back at the waist.
Sorry, this question wasn't clear to me the first time you asked it as I mentioned two Apollo missions.QuoteNow you are either being deliberately obtuse or no longer care about the subject
I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
After what I have seen in just a few minutes of this movie and after your explanations, I am not going to believe a single word from NASA.
Quite, have you actually listened to the director's commentary yet? If you choose to continue posting poorly though out and easily explained (by the directors commentary for starters) "errors" in a documentary that uses (as it explains in the directors commentary) 6 million feet of film footage and 80 hours of NASA interviews from over 10 years.
It wasn't produced by NASA. Blame Al Reinart for not using footage from a single mission and creating this confusion for you.QuoteFor the rest, I am finishing uploading the movie, so it will hopefully be available in a few minutes at:
(http://)
Enjoy.
Why? Your account is unverified so you can't post clips of more than 15 minutes. Besides, as I said earlier ... it is already there and has been for at least 6 years.
People like Humble_Scientist never let the facts get in the way of a good story. ;D
Conspiracy theorists are far to eager to see errors where there are none, and often trip themselves up in their eagerness to display their superior powers of observation and logic. Even without knowing the back-story to these screen grabs, it's more than obvious they're all from different actual missions, dry runs, or equipment testing.
(3) You said:Are you saying you don't know the difference between "filmed" and "produced"?
It wasn't produced by NASA
With all my due respect to your opinion, here is what I see at the end of the movie:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/839/4qsr.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/839/4qsr.jpg/)
I guess it should have read, "This is the film about it." or something along those lines. Would that have made you feel better?Twenty-four men made the journey.
They were the first human beings
to leave the planet Earth
for another world.
and they brought back the film about "dry runs, or equipment testing"?
;D
Dear dephelis,
Thanks for your reply. I just want to know the truth. Once I believed that the people were walking on the Moon, but the more I am watching this movie and listening to you, the less probable it seems.
Blame Al Reinart for not using footage from a single mission and creating this confusion for you.
Of course, I am not blaming you. I just want to explain why all that "moon landing" story now looks so doubtful to me. Briefly, just from a few minutes of the movie, and just a few examples.
(1) As we saw above, one "crew" is goind to the shuttle bus that is purposedly delivering the "mission" to the rocket, - and a different "crew" (or is it the same one? that would be even funnier) is leaving the bus, with a very different equipment. On top of all, you are telling me that the second "crew" is not a real Apollo mission, because they do not have stickers. Then, who are they? Fake "astronauts"? Actors? Other missions? Which exactly? Which missions had three people in them before Apollo missions?
(2) You told me:
It is not one mission using different spacesuits.
I showed you the picture. Now is what you are saying:
it is blatantly obvious that he is wearing a slightly different suit to the other two in the first image
(3) You said:
It wasn't produced by NASA
With all my due respect to your opinion, here is what I see at the end of the movie:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/839/4qsr.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/839/4qsr.jpg/)
(http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/662/4qsr.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/839/4qsr.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
:))
(3) You said:Are you saying you don't know the difference between "filmed" and "produced"?
It wasn't produced by NASA
With all my due respect to your opinion, here is what I see at the end of the movie:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/839/4qsr.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/839/4qsr.jpg/)
I guess it should have read, "This is the film about it." or something along those lines. Would that have made you feel better?Twenty-four men made the journey.
They were the first human beings
to leave the planet Earth
for another world.
and they brought back the film about "dry runs, or equipment testing"?
;D
Oh, he's not embarrassing himself. He's seeing the Apollo missions for what they were. Fake!
Oh, he's not embarrassing himself. He's seeing the Apollo missions for what they were. Fake!
NASA believers, apologists, and shills never see anything amiss when it comes to the words of NASA. This brainwashing is more than likely caused by repeated exposure to space flight propaganda from birth onwards. The brain washing is so complete that they are incapable of grasping the notion that the whole moon landing story is science fiction, then presented as fact.
People like Humble_Scientist never let the facts get in the way of a good story. ;D
Conspiracy theorists are far to eager to see errors where there are none, and often trip themselves up in their eagerness to display their superior powers of observation and logic. Even without knowing the back-story to these screen grabs, it's more than obvious they're all from different actual missions, dry runs, or equipment testing.
...the whole moon landing story is science fiction, then presented as fact.
I consider it brain washing that renders some unable to see that whole thing is fake. I think that some peoples brains just don't have that certain wire that lets them see the b.s....the whole moon landing story is science fiction, then presented as fact.
I just wanted to address this specific part. Like I said in my last post, I just can't see how the landing could have been faked. I admit, it seems pretty implausible that we (humankind) would actually have made it to the moon, so when I found out that some people believed it to be faked, I found the idea appealing. I then started looking for possible ways that it could have been faked:
slow-motion footage: nope, doesn't look the same, no matter how hard you try
suspending actors from wires: still doesn't look the same
simulated moon gravity: looks exactly right, but there's not enough space in a vomit comet to create a suitable set, and the low-g flights are nowhere near long enough.
After a fair bit of investigation and thought, I concluded that the only possible explanation for the footage was that we had, in fact, made it to the moon.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Do you believe that satellites exist for communications and are used for live tv news broadcasts from Iraq?No, I don't believe in satellites.
I consider it brain washing that renders some unable to see that whole thing is fake. I think that some peoples brains just don't have that certain wire that lets them see the b.s.
No, I don't believe in satellites.
Yes, you cannot perceive the truth even when it is shown to you. The wire is just not there.I consider it brain washing that renders some unable to see that whole thing is fake. I think that some peoples brains just don't have that certain wire that lets them see the b.s.
So, even though I approached it from the assumption that it was fake, actively and enthusiastically sought confirmation, and found none, you still think I'm brainwashed?
No, I don't believe in satellites.
So how does tv work then, what do the dishes point at? They point into the sky.Do you believe that satellites exist for communications and are used for live tv news broadcasts from Iraq?No, I don't believe in satellites.
Oh, he's not embarrassing himself. He's seeing the Apollo missions for what they were. Fake!
Oh, he's not embarrassing himself. He's seeing the Apollo missions for what they were. Fake!
Actually, you're the one embarrassing yourself with this comment sceptimatic. Apparently you agree with the conspiracy theorists who claim most if not all of the American space missions were bogus?
I'll tell you why they're fake and it's not a case of me just going along with conspiracy theorists. For me, this is a conspiracy that has become fact. It's a conspiracy fact in my honest opinion for many reasons.Oh, he's not embarrassing himself. He's seeing the Apollo missions for what they were. Fake!
Actually, you're the one embarrassing yourself with this comment sceptimatic. Apparently you agree with the conspiracy theorists who claim most if not all of the American space missions were bogus?
And that upwards of 40,000 scientists, technicians, engineers, astrophysicists, and the entire global media agreed to an absolute vow of silence for more than 40 years. That this was agreed to by two arch enemies at the height of the Cold War—Russia and the US, and also China.
You don't think for a minute that Russia would've loved nothing more than proving America's claim to be winning the so-called space race to be totally fabricated?
Even more ludicrous is your apparent belief that all these people, all over the world, have kept this secret for four decades, with not one single leak?
—Dream on my friend.
I could spend all night going on and on and on... I could mention shadows, stars, fluttering flags, tin foil jalopy craft and so on and so on and so on..Since you've shown a general lack of understanding regarding the subjects in points 1-10, you may as well go ahead and show us what you don't understand about whatever would be covered by points 11-20.
You might believe you're good with your throwaway camera, but it doesn't make you an expert on anything, so don't be the Mr smug trying to tell me what i don't understand and believing you are up on some pedestal, because to me your words like what you're saying above, are meaningless and this is what you will get back, every time you attempt the silly smugness.I could spend all night going on and on and on... I could mention shadows, stars, fluttering flags, tin foil jalopy craft and so on and so on and so on..Since you've shown a general lack of understanding regarding the subjects in points 1-10, you may as well go ahead and show us what you don't understand about whatever would be covered by points 11-20.
I'll tell you why they're fake and it's not a case of me just going along with conspiracy theorists. For me, this is a conspiracy that has become fact. It's a conspiracy fact in my honest opinion for many reasons.
1: Rockets need atmosphere to work, regardless of you lot believing otherwise. They cannot operate in the upper atmosphere never mind what you people think space is, which is supposedly a vacuum...BUT...it has SCATTERED particles, we are told to believe.
2: The pressurised oxygen tanks that propel the ignited fuel out, would be rendered useless in short order as they reached a certain height due to serious expansion, blowing the rocket into smithereens.
3.So called astronauts would not survive the supposed 21,000? miles per hour vertical speed that's supposedly needed to escape the atmosphere.
4. A vacuum flask with only partially evacuated air, keeps your coffee piping hot or cold, depending on what's used. It only loses heat or becomes room temperature, because it's not a full separation gap between the inner and outer containers, with it having a neck and a stopper, which transfer the heat under atmospheric pressure, slowly but surely.
In space, assuming what we are told about it...there would be none of this, so people can harp on about coolants and heat exchanges and anything else....but it requires water (and plenty of it) that can be cooled and ejected...No silly back pack battery is going to aid astronauts in space or on the so called moon.
5: If the moon is lit up like a beacon from our point of view, then it should be lit up like a beacon from the moon walkers view, or to put it simpler...they should have been settling into the moon dust as black charcoal along with their melted aluminium heap of crap they called a lunar lander.
6:The camera's they supposedly took with them, had no super special film, yet somehow it worked perfectly with no heat or cold effects of supposed minus 250 or plus 250 in the shade or light, respectively.
7. They say the rocket doesn't need atmosphere to work and claim that the rocket pushes ITSELF from inside and the same thing when landing on the moon...saying that it all works in a combustion chamber and that's why it works in a so called vacuum...yet to steer it side by side, it supposedly had little compressed air retro boosters or some baloney...yet how did this combust in a chamber to keep the craft from wobbling?
Not only that but to move to the side in one direction, it had to use the retro thrusters on one side only, which means, the pile of crap craft would simply tip over.
I've seen the arguments from the super scientists on here who try their best to argue against it....It makes me smile, because they do try...and try hard, too.
8.The amount of photos taken on all the missions, would be impossible when you consider all what they had to do in between it all...not to mention the bozo's driving about in stupid moon buggies.
9: When you have a pressurised space suit in a so called near vacuum, there is nothing and I mean nothing pushing back onto that space suit...NOTHING...there is no balance, which means the astronauts would have simply inflated like big space hoppers before their suits exploded with the dead astronauts suffering the same fate as all their cells simply expand.
10: When you are in a swimming pool and you try to run...you find that it's not as easy as running through air...being in the water makes you look like you're running in slow motion, where as running against air, you naturally move quite well....yet in this so called vacuum...the clowns of the time who first done the pretend space walks in a training pool, had to keep up the same slow motion of all missions, even on the moon, because that's how they depicted it to the gullible people...who swallowed it, hook, line and sinker...even to this day.
For all you right thinking people...have a serious think about running against super low air resistance and you will find that you wouldn't be going in slow motion, you would be like a frightened mouse running away from a cat.
Don't believe me?
Well have a think about the arguments with the coin and the feather in a vacuum chamber and see how fast the FEATHER falls....pretty fast eh?...nearly as fast as the coin.
Well that's what would be happening on the so called moon if it was what they say it all is.
If you jumped up, you would jump much higher than on earth, but your landing would require a team of astronaut paramedics to quickly rush you back to earth by commandmodulance to have all your leg bones pinned back together after they snap in x amount of places.
I could spend all night going on and on and on...
I could mention shadows, stars, fluttering flags, tin foil jalopy craft and so on and so on and so on...but they are argued to death the most, even though they are very pertinent...it just seems like urinating against the wind with the apologists.
I'm fairly certain this post will be jumped on by the super debunkers...but all I say to those who are watching , who have some kind of open mind.....have a serious think about how they are laughing at you for being as gullible as you are in believing all this tripe.
They are getting so smug now that they will come up with more ridiculous claims in the not too distant future and it's already started with this mars rover and this sudden wake up of a probe that's apparently half a billion miles into space ready to piggy back an asteroid or something like that. But that's another silly story.
So there you have it: all you rational people can add to it at your leisure, if you so wish. All the irrationals can argue the hell out of what I've said but you know I'm right.
Not that I think you'll respond without your usual name-calling to this but:I'll tell you why they're fake and it's not a case of me just going along with conspiracy theorists. For me, this is a conspiracy that has become fact. It's a conspiracy fact in my honest opinion for many reasons.
1: Rockets need atmosphere to work, regardless of you lot believing otherwise. They cannot operate in the upper atmosphere never mind what you people think space is, which is supposedly a vacuum...BUT...it has SCATTERED particles, we are told to believe.
No they don't. They don't need it for combustion or for pushing against, as I believe you have stated in previous threads. The rocket is propelled by the action of the exhaust gases exiting the combustion chamber causing the rocket to move in the opposite direction in reaction.Quote2: The pressurised oxygen tanks that propel the ignited fuel out, would be rendered useless in short order as they reached a certain height due to serious expansion, blowing the rocket into smithereens.
No, because we are able to build rockets of material that can withstand it. Just like we can build submersibles that stand the compressive force deep oceans.Quote3.So called astronauts would not survive the supposed 21,000? miles per hour vertical speed that's supposedly needed to escape the atmosphere.
Incorrect. Speed does not kill you, acceleration can. The space shuttle astronauts are said to have experienced a spike 3g of force against them in the moment of launch, 2g from the rocket acceleration and 1g from Earth's gravity. That is not enough to make a fit human white out, let alone former military jet pilots.Quote4. A vacuum flask with only partially evacuated air, keeps your coffee piping hot or cold, depending on what's used. It only loses heat or becomes room temperature, because it's not a full separation gap between the inner and outer containers, with it having a neck and a stopper, which transfer the heat under atmospheric pressure, slowly but surely.
In space, assuming what we are told about it...there would be none of this, so people can harp on about coolants and heat exchanges and anything else....but it requires water (and plenty of it) that can be cooled and ejected...No silly back pack battery is going to aid astronauts in space or on the so called moon.
My laptop processor is prevented from overheating by exchanging heat with a copper heat sink which exchanges heat with a copper heatsink it is connected to. The heatsink exchanges heat with the air blown past it. The last stage may have a some water vapour in it, but it is certainly not required.Quote5: If the moon is lit up like a beacon from our point of view, then it should be lit up like a beacon from the moon walkers view, or to put it simpler...they should have been settling into the moon dust as black charcoal along with their melted aluminium heap of crap they called a lunar lander.
123ºC isn't enough to melt aluminium. Fire proximity suits providing protection against radiant temperatures of upward of 260ºC. Fire entry suits are rated for prolonged use at radiant temperatures of over to 800ºC. These suits have been around in various forms since the 30's.Quote6:The camera's they supposedly took with them, had no super special film, yet somehow it worked perfectly with no heat or cold effects of supposed minus 250 or plus 250 in the shade or light, respectively.
The film, like the astronauts, were suitable protected.Quote7. They say the rocket doesn't need atmosphere to work and claim that the rocket pushes ITSELF from inside and the same thing when landing on the moon...saying that it all works in a combustion chamber and that's why it works in a so called vacuum...yet to steer it side by side, it supposedly had little compressed air retro boosters or some baloney...yet how did this combust in a chamber to keep the craft from wobbling?
Not only that but to move to the side in one direction, it had to use the retro thrusters on one side only, which means, the pile of crap craft would simply tip over.
I've seen the arguments from the super scientists on here who try their best to argue against it....It makes me smile, because they do try...and try hard, too.
Well they didn't use compressed air. They did, however, use monomethylhydrazine (MMH) with nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer. MMH is hypergolic meaning that when it and the oxidizer are mixed, they spontaneously ignite.
The craft would only tip over if the thrust from the RCS units was out of alignment with the centre of mass of the craft.Quote8.The amount of photos taken on all the missions, would be impossible when you consider all what they had to do in between it all...not to mention the bozo's driving about in stupid moon buggies.
Not that many considering there were two astronauts taking pictures on the surface, many are panoramic sequences which would have been taken in quick succession.Quote9: When you have a pressurised space suit in a so called near vacuum, there is nothing and I mean nothing pushing back onto that space suit...NOTHING...there is no balance, which means the astronauts would have simply inflated like big space hoppers before their suits exploded with the dead astronauts suffering the same fate as all their cells simply expand.
Or there space suits were made to resist that internal pressure. Really not that hard to imagine.Quote10: When you are in a swimming pool and you try to run...you find that it's not as easy as running through air...being in the water makes you look like you're running in slow motion, where as running against air, you naturally move quite well....yet in this so called vacuum...the clowns of the time who first done the pretend space walks in a training pool, had to keep up the same slow motion of all missions, even on the moon, because that's how they depicted it to the gullible people...who swallowed it, hook, line and sinker...even to this day.
For all you right thinking people...have a serious think about running against super low air resistance and you will find that you wouldn't be going in slow motion, you would be like a frightened mouse running away from a cat.
Don't believe me?
Well have a think about the arguments with the coin and the feather in a vacuum chamber and see how fast the FEATHER falls....pretty fast eh?...nearly as fast as the coin.
Well that's what would be happening on the so called moon if it was what they say it all is.
If you jumped up, you would jump much higher than on earth, but your landing would require a team of astronaut paramedics to quickly rush you back to earth by commandmodulance to have all your leg bones pinned back together after they snap in x amount of places.
What training was to give the sense of weightlessness not to simulate being in a vacumn. It also did train the astronauts to make considered, slow movements rather than flapping around like a frightened mouse.
So you don't jump that high. Also, less gravity on the Moon than on Earth so not falling as fast as that feather and coin you saw falling on Earth.QuoteI could spend all night going on and on and on...
Don't let us stop you.QuoteI could mention shadows, stars, fluttering flags, tin foil jalopy craft and so on and so on and so on...but they are argued to death the most, even though they are very pertinent...it just seems like urinating against the wind with the apologists.
True, they are argued to death. Try not to get hit by the splashback. :)QuoteI'm fairly certain this post will be jumped on by the super debunkers...but all I say to those who are watching , who have some kind of open mind.....have a serious think about how they are laughing at you for being as gullible as you are in believing all this tripe.
Absolutely, don't want to disappoint you scepti.QuoteThey are getting so smug now that they will come up with more ridiculous claims in the not too distant future and it's already started with this mars rover and this sudden wake up of a probe that's apparently half a billion miles into space ready to piggy back an asteroid or something like that. But that's another silly story.
So there you have it: all you rational people can add to it at your leisure, if you so wish. All the irrationals can argue the hell out of what I've said but you know I'm right.
Not so much smug as despairing really, but then again I'm pretty sure you don't believe a word you say.
I thank you dephelis for taking the time to thoroughly debunk all of sceptimatic's erroneous claims about space travel. :)
It's pretty obvious by now that sceptimatic's comprehension of even basic geophysics and astrophysics is very limited, and I'd guess that he never studied physics and chemistry, electromagnetism, astronomy, etc at school.
He's even fallen for the old "fluttering flag" misconception (and yes; flags do in fact flutter longer in a vacuum than in air).
I thank you dephelis for taking the time to thoroughly debunk all of sceptimatic's erroneous claims about space travel. :)
It's pretty obvious by now that sceptimatic's comprehension of even basic geophysics and astrophysics is very limited, and I'd guess that he never studied physics and chemistry, electromagnetism, astronomy, etc at school.
He's even fallen for the old "fluttering flag" misconception (and yes; flags do in fact flutter longer in a vacuum than in air).
It's been proven that the Moon has an atmosphere, not much of one mind you but it's definitely not a Vacuum. (Space has an Atmosphere as well but even less of one then the Moon)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/experiments/lace/ (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/experiments/lace/)
I thank you dephelis for taking the time to thoroughly debunk all of sceptimatic's erroneous claims about space travel. :)
It's pretty obvious by now that sceptimatic's comprehension of even basic geophysics and astrophysics is very limited, and I'd guess that he never studied physics and chemistry, electromagnetism, astronomy, etc at school.
He's even fallen for the old "fluttering flag" misconception (and yes; flags do in fact flutter longer in a vacuum than in air).
It's been proven that the Moon has an atmosphere, not much of one mind you but it's definitely not a Vacuum. (Space has an Atmosphere as well but even less of one then the Moon)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/experiments/lace/ (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/experiments/lace/)
Exactly. Not much of an atmosphere means the flag could not be blowing in the wind. And more likely it is swinging like a pendulum with little air resistance. So your post is great for supporting all the moon landing evidence. Good job.
Yea, however it also means space is not a Vacuum. Outer Space is Full of Oxygen but it's in the form of ROR. Therefore in outer space Oxygen is always present to burn. (It wouldn't be nearly dense enough for humans to breathe though)Actually, what little gas exists in outer space is mostly hydrogen. The lunar "atmosphere", on the other hand...
The average daytime abundances of the elements known to be present in the lunar atmosphere, in atoms per cubic centimeter, are as follows:
Argon: 40,000
Helium: 2,000-40,000
Sodium: 70
Potassium: 17
Hydrogen: fewer than 17
So space and the moon has an atmosphere now, does it.
So space and the moon has an atmosphere now, does it.
People need to make up their minds.
One minute, things can float forever in space and now it has an atmosphere.
That's the beauty about mainstream science and scientists. They can simply make up any bull crap they want and the gullible will swallow it all with gusto, believing they actually know what they're talking about.
No. Do you?So space and the moon has an atmosphere now, does it.
You obviously have no comprehension of the metric "atoms per cc" do you, with reference to any atmosphere?
We are all wrong, because none of us really know what the hell the moon is in the first place. Of course, you can cite astronauts being there and all the rest of it. The real truth is, it's just dick measuring contests between us all, because the actual real truth may never be known...yet we can all have a best guess.So space and the moon has an atmosphere now, does it.
People need to make up their minds.
One minute, things can float forever in space and now it has an atmosphere.
That's the beauty about mainstream science and scientists. They can simply make up any bull crap they want and the gullible will swallow it all with gusto, believing they actually know what they're talking about.
There is an extremely tenuous (it's less than one hundredth trillionth of the density of Earths at sea level) atmosphere on the moon. That's so thin that it is effectively a vacuum.
Only Sculelos claims there is an atmosphere in space. There are traces of gas so anybody, RE or FE, who claims that it is a perfect vacuum is wrong.
No. Do you?So space and the moon has an atmosphere now, does it.
You obviously have no comprehension of the metric "atoms per cc" do you, with reference to any atmosphere?
We are all wrong, because none of us really know what the hell the moon is in the first place. Of course, you can cite astronauts being there and all the rest of it. The real truth is, it's just dick measuring contests between us all, because the actual real truth may never be known...yet we can all have a best guess.So space and the moon has an atmosphere now, does it.
People need to make up their minds.
One minute, things can float forever in space and now it has an atmosphere.
That's the beauty about mainstream science and scientists. They can simply make up any bull crap they want and the gullible will swallow it all with gusto, believing they actually know what they're talking about.
There is an extremely tenuous (it's less than one hundredth trillionth of the density of Earths at sea level) atmosphere on the moon. That's so thin that it is effectively a vacuum.
Only Sculelos claims there is an atmosphere in space. There are traces of gas so anybody, RE or FE, who claims that it is a perfect vacuum is wrong.
No. Do you?
Yes. Earth's atmosphere has been measured to contain 30 billion billion molecules per cc.Who counted these and how long did it take and what equipment was used ?
Well, it looks like a huge, heavily pockmarked, roughly spherical rock floating up in the sky to me when observed directly. I'll stick with models that fit with that and leave the dick measuring to you.You're quite entitled to stick to that.
Show me the equipment that measured all this and by who's eye and what not, to come to this.No. Do you?
Yes. Obviously if we're talking about H with fewer than 17 atoms per cc. or He with fewer than 2,000-40,000 atoms per cc, we're effectively saying those concentrations do not constitute an "atmosphere" for the purpose of this discussion.
Roughly speaking, there's around 5x1019 gaseous atoms per cc.
We are all wrong, because none of us really know what the hell the moon is in the first place.Yes we do. Core samples returned to earth give us a pretty precise mineral composition.
Of course, you can cite astronauts being there and all the rest of it.Yes we can.
The real truth is, it's just dick measuring contests between us all, because the actual real truth may never be known...yet we can all have a best guess.It may well be the "real truth" in your mind, but in the minds of millions of scientists it's known precisely what the composition of the moon is. There's nothing about "guesses" involved in science.
You keep telling yourself that, Geoff.We are all wrong, because none of us really know what the hell the moon is in the first place.Yes we do. Core samples returned to earth give us a pretty precise mineral composition.QuoteOf course, you can cite astronauts being there and all the rest of it.Yes we can.QuoteThe real truth is, it's just dick measuring contests between us all, because the actual real truth may never be known...yet we can all have a best guess.It may well be the "real truth" in your mind, but in the minds of millions of scientists it's known precisely what the composition of the moon is. There's nothing about "guesses" involved in science.
Guessing is the purview of the flat earthers.
Show me the equipment that measured all this and by who's eye and what not, to come to this.
To measure something, you must know what you are measuring, so how did they see this stuff to know that it is what it is.
Show me the equipment that measured all this and by who's eye and what not, to come to this.
It should be evident that one doesn't measure these sorts of things with the human eye, or "equipment" LOL. It's determined by mathematical equations—obviously.
You may need to read up on atomic weights and Avogadro's Number (6.022 X 1023) to clarify this concept.
People like Humble_Scientist never let the facts get in the way of a good story. ;D
Conspiracy theorists are far to eager to see errors where there are none, and often trip themselves up in their eagerness to display their superior powers of observation and logic. Even without knowing the back-story to these screen grabs, it's more than obvious they're all from different actual missions, dry runs, or equipment testing.