For all mankind.

  • 66 Replies
  • 11580 Views
*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2014, 04:05:47 PM »
...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."
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.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2014, 04:07:57 PM »
Do you believe that satellites exist for communications and are used for live tv news broadcasts from Iraq?

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2014, 04:18:20 PM »
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.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2014, 04:22:30 PM »
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 what did I see yesterday evening just after sunset? It definitely wasn't a plane, or a meteor!
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2014, 04:45:48 PM »
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?

Yes, you cannot perceive the truth even when it is shown to you. The wire is just not there.

No, I don't believe in satellites.

So what did I see yesterday evening just after sunset? It definitely wasn't a plane, or a meteor!
[/quote]
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2014, 10:18:54 PM »
After examining the Moon landing I think the Moon landing was indeed real but a lot of the videos and stuff were doctored automatically by some fancy (for the time) video editing system. Some of the Shadows look off because they used Lenses that warped the Ground considerably. The Moons surface is far harder then anyone had ever anticipated and it has much less dust then anyone thought it would. Radiation in space doesn't effect humans the same way it does here on Earth but more study is needed on this if we ever plan to stay on any other planet for more then a few days. Right now without proper shielding staying in outer space for more then 6 months is very ill advised. I'd say it's more then likely that the Moon missions were real but I don't think there was much point to them which is why we haven't had any real reasons to return to the Moon since then.

Satellites on Earth are definitely real but most of them are static and not moving as the moving satellites need re adjustment much more often then the static satellites.

Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #36 on: January 27, 2014, 01:14:39 AM »
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.
So how does tv work then, what do the dishes point at? They point into the sky.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #37 on: January 27, 2014, 09:26:02 AM »
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.

Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #38 on: January 27, 2014, 11:18:49 AM »
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 disagree that that's the embarrassing bit.

The embarrassing bit is even putting all that aside this video is nothing close to being any sort of evidence of fakery, If it WAS all faked the issue of different suits wouldn't even come up, why would they have made different prop suits int he first place? look at films from the time period, you might see a dodgy car in the background but the actor doesn't suddenly sprout a stetson between shots. This documentary alone doesn't prove the moon missions happened but trying to twist it and coming up with unconvincing "problems" with it just undermines the whole argument.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #39 on: January 27, 2014, 11:35:09 AM »
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'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.


Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #40 on: January 27, 2014, 11:50:49 AM »
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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #41 on: January 27, 2014, 12:12:50 PM »
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.

Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #42 on: January 27, 2014, 01:35:58 PM »
There's answers to all of those points but you wouldn't accept any of them except the one to point 8 since they all involve other things you think are rubbish (gravity and the like, incidentally you say a feather falls pretty fast in a low pressure environment, isn't that directly contrary to your denpressure theory?).

That being so there's no point discussing it with you but if anyone else has specific questions on the moon landing I'm pretty sure I could answer most of them.

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #43 on: January 27, 2014, 01:49:01 PM »
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
3.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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

The film, like the astronauts, were suitable protected.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

Or there space suits were made to resist that internal pressure. Really not that hard to imagine.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
I could spend all night going on and on and on...

Don't let us stop you.

Quote
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.

True, they are argued to death. Try not to get hit by the splashback. :)

Quote
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.

Absolutely, don't want to disappoint you scepti.

Quote
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 so much smug as despairing really, but then again I'm pretty sure you don't believe a word you say.

Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #44 on: January 27, 2014, 10:29:04 PM »
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
3.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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

The film, like the astronauts, were suitable protected.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

Or there space suits were made to resist that internal pressure. Really not that hard to imagine.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
I could spend all night going on and on and on...

Don't let us stop you.

Quote
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.

True, they are argued to death. Try not to get hit by the splashback. :)

Quote
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.

Absolutely, don't want to disappoint you scepti.

Quote
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 so much smug as despairing really, but then again I'm pretty sure you don't believe a word you say.

My Additional thoughts to your response.

1: Outer Space is not a Vaccum but merely a low Pressure Environment.

2: The Farther you get out in space the less force is applied to you as on Earth it's less in the Heavens.

3: Yep

4: Space is not a Vaccum but Heat Changes are throttled both directions so it would actually take more time to overheat in space, this also explains why the Astronauts didn't need Air Conditioning or Heating on the Moon as heat and cold conservation is actually much stronger in space since it doesn't have a strong pressurized atmosphere to work against you. (But Space is a Weak Atmosphere definitely not a Vacuume)

5: Heat Absorption is much slower on the Moon, it would probably take 300F on the Moon to equal 50F on Earth.

6: The Film didn't even need protection as the Moon radiation is actually less strong then Earths everyday radiation.

7: Space is not a Vacuum and backthrust will actually move you FASTER then on Earth due to less air resistance (and more electrical conductivity)

8: Plus the Astronauts didn't even take most of the photos as the Cameras were linked to mission control with wide lens and equiped with atomatic focusing and editing systems, so mission control actually was responsable for taking most of the photos.

9: Or Space is not a Vacuum and therefore there was no need to protect their suits from Radiation or Heat or Cold.

10: Astronauts probably can't move very well with their space suits as they seemed quite combersome and weighed about 300lbs which even if you adjust for gravity 300lbs in a 1/6th force environment means even though your suit weighs now 50lbs your 150lbs turns to only 25lbs so your still moving twice your body weight around which means you are still heavily encombered due to the massive bulk of that which you are carrying. 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2014, 06:43:21 AM »

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).

Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #46 on: January 28, 2014, 09:43:34 AM »

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/

Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #47 on: January 28, 2014, 04:13:56 PM »

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/

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.
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #48 on: January 28, 2014, 09:41:21 PM »

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/

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)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43180
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #49 on: January 29, 2014, 07:28:28 AM »
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
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #50 on: January 29, 2014, 09:00:08 AM »
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.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #51 on: January 29, 2014, 09:07:42 AM »
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?
 

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #52 on: January 29, 2014, 10:14:12 AM »
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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #53 on: January 29, 2014, 10:22:14 AM »
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?
No. Do you?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #54 on: January 29, 2014, 10:24:21 AM »
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.
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.

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #55 on: January 29, 2014, 10:33:09 AM »
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?
No. Do you?

Yes. Earth's atmosphere has been measured to contain 30 billion billion molecules per cc.

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.
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.

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.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #56 on: January 29, 2014, 10:38:18 AM »
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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #57 on: January 29, 2014, 10:42:59 AM »
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.

People in the desert see many things until they get closer and find that it wasn't what they thought it was.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #58 on: January 29, 2014, 10:44:04 AM »
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.
Show me the equipment that measured all this and by who's eye and what not, to come to this.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #59 on: January 29, 2014, 10:44:58 AM »
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.

Quote
Of course, you can cite astronauts being there and all the rest of it.
Yes we can.

Quote
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.

Guessing is the purview of the flat earthers.