moon hoax information index.

Such as ?

Such as ?

You really need me to explain density, hardnes, and elasticity to you?

Quote from: feuk on March 06, 2016, 01:27:28 PM

Such as ?

You really need me to explain density, hardnes, and elasticity to you?

Please, if you don't mind.

Quote from: sokarul on March 06, 2016, 01:29:41 PM

Quote from: feuk on March 06, 2016, 01:27:28 PM

Such as ?

You really need me to explain density, hardness, and elasticity to you?

Please, if you don't mind.

If you do not understand those concepts you shouldn't' be making any claims, let alone about the space missions.

Uh hu,

Bottled it ?

In just going to assume that means you agree you shouldn't use your lack of knowledge as evidence for your arguments.

Quote from: sokarul on March 06, 2016, 01:01:02 PM

No. I'm suggesting that not every action performed was the same. Some actions could transfer vibrations into a suit and some could not.

Such as ?

Specifics,
Otherwise you just sound like you are fumbling around in the dark trying to sound convincing.

To be honest it feels as if you have gone down the "shit happens" route and abandoned science and logic.

Sokarul is correct,  that fact that you don't understand sound propagation,  is your downfall.   

This whole thread is a case of you not understanding something,  and therefore concluding it must be faked. 

Sad to say,  I doubt you will ever have the capability to understand basic physics.  Your thinking is trapped forever in a conspiracy meme.

So every single action performed on the moon was the same? They never did different things?

They allegedly did loads of stuff, still waiting for you to explain why it was all so noisy.
(I see you have latched onto the hammer, that is only ONE example)

No. I'm suggesting that not every action performed was the same. Some actions could transfer vibrations into a suit and some could not.

examples needed otherwise you are desperately grabbing at non existent straws.

seems to me I am the only one willing to back up my claims with links and references,

All you appear to have is ad hominem and evasion.

NEXT

Sokarul is correct,  that fact that you don't understand sound propagation,  is your downfall.   

This whole thread is a case of you not understanding something,  and therefore concluding it must be faked. 

Sad to say,  I doubt you will ever have the capability to understand basic physics.  Your thinking is trapped forever in a conspiracy meme.

We appear to have struck internet comedy gold again don't we,
the seam appears continuous.
readers need only go to the top of this page to witness you explaining how sound travels through a vacuum using an example of sound travelling through air 

I could go on but would be here all day,
Your scientific face plants are the stuff of legend,
It's no wonder you started running, dancing, soiling and bottling.

Still waiting for that reply by the way 

"          *The sound of the Lunar Module descent engine should be heard in the Apollo audio, but there is no such sound.*
On Earth, a rocket engine is an extremely noisy device; this comes from the shearing action between the high velocity exhaust jet and the surrounding atmosphere. The LM operated in a vacuum so the only sound would be that produced by vibrations transmitted through the spacecraft structure itself. Also, the microphones used by the astronauts were located inside their spacesuits, thus insulated from the cabin environment. Finally, the microphones were designed to pick up only the sound in their immediate vicinity, that is, the astronauts' voices." 

Hmmm, kind of debunks the usual suspects mental gymnastics being offered up on this thread,
especially when we remember the claim that the spacemen were standing directly on top of the rocket,

Don't worry, I'm not expecting a coherent discussion,
Just more ad hominem and manic arm waving,

Shame   

Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2016, 05:16:33 PM

Sokarul is correct,  that fact that you don't understand sound propagation,  is your downfall.   

This whole thread is a case of you not understanding something,  and therefore concluding it must be faked. 

Sad to say,  I doubt you will ever have the capability to understand basic physics.  Your thinking is trapped forever in a conspiracy meme.

We appear to have struck internet comedy gold again don't we,
the seam appears continuous.
readers need only go to the top of this page to witness you explaining how sound travels through a vacuum using an example of sound travelling through air 

You mean where you showed that you didn't understand the basic principles of sound propagation?

I could go on but would be here all day,
Your scientific face plants are the stuff of legend,
It's no wonder you started running, dancing, soiling and bottling.

Still waiting for that reply by the way 

What reply are you waiting for?  Did you accidentally say something intelligent, if so, I'm sorry I missed it,  such a rare event.   

"          *The sound of the Lunar Module descent engine should be heard in the Apollo audio, but there is no such sound.*
On Earth, a rocket engine is an extremely noisy device; this comes from the shearing action between the high velocity exhaust jet and the surrounding atmosphere. The LM operated in a vacuum so the only sound would be that produced by vibrations transmitted through the spacecraft structure itself. Also, the microphones used by the astronauts were located inside their spacesuits, thus insulated from the cabin environment. Finally, the microphones were designed to pick up only the sound in their immediate vicinity, that is, the astronauts' voices." 
[/color]
Hmmm, kind of debunks the usual suspects mental gymnastics being offered up on this thread,
especially when we remember the claim that the spacemen were standing directly on top of the rocket,

Don't worry, I'm not expecting a coherent discussion,
Just more ad hominem and manic arm waving,

Shame   

Who is making the claim that the sound of the lunar descent engine should be heard?

The rest of the description, highlighted in red is perfectly correct as far as it goes. 

If you did get a bit of stray noise transmitted through to the microphones would you be surprised?

You mean where you showed that you didn't understand the basic principles of sound propagation?

Erm...nope.
I mean where you completely melted down and displayed breath taking idiocy,
You ran away and now pretend it never happened 
 http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65666.msg1764614#msg1764614

What reply are you waiting for?  Did you accidentally say something intelligent, if so, I'm sorry I missed it,  such a rare event.   

Maybe you would like offer a reply now you have had 16 pages to think about it 
of course you won't,
It's better to pretend it never happened and bury your trauma deep in a false memory 

 http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65666.msg1764614#msg1764614

how's your blisters ?

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2016, 02:18:35 AM

You mean where you showed that you didn't understand the basic principles of sound propagation?

Erm...nope.
I mean where you completely melted down and displayed breath taking idiocy,
You ran away and now pretend it never happened 
 http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65666.msg1764614#msg1764614

Quote

What reply are you waiting for?  Did you accidentally say something intelligent, if so, I'm sorry I missed it,  such a rare event.   

Maybe you would like offer a reply now you have had 16 pages to think about it 
of course you won't,
It's better to pretend it never happened and bury your trauma deep in a false memory 

 http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65666.msg1764614#msg1764614

how's your blisters ?

Why do you think it helps your case to keep linking to your own totally unreadable gibberish?  Instead you could try saying something intelligent or even just comprehensible would be nice.

@ the blistered bottler 

So you agree the description of the microphones inside the suits is "perfectly correct",
That " the microphones used by the astronauts were located inside their spacesuits, thus insulated from the cabin environment."
Logic demands the same suits are also "insulated" from sound transference when on excursion in the lunar "environment" of the vacuum.

Added to this do you also agree the microphone description is "perfectly accurate" when described as such,
" the microphones were designed to pick up only the sound in their immediate vicinity, that is, the astronauts' voices."

"designed" to only pick up sound in the "immediate vicinity".

So we have specially designed microphones and insulated suits that prevented sound propagation when standing on top of a firing rocket,

Yet you (et al) have being claiming the suits actually enhance the sounds in a vacuum and are easily picked up by the microphones 
easily transmitted sounds like crunching regolith 
Rattling moon buggy compartment lids 
Falling objects 
Rattling objects 
etc
etc

Here we have the thread in a nut shell,
it's either one or the other,
but of course you will claim it's both at the same time 

what's next my blistered bottling friend ?
More insults for me and claims of scientific brilliance for you 

Why do you think it helps your case to keep linking to your own totally unreadable gibberish?  Instead you could try saying something intelligent or even just comprehensible would be nice.

My "case" is helped by science and logic,
Yours ?
Selective memory, insults and evasion 

Even your pretend comprehension difficulties and best innocent face is not fooling anyone

Sorry 

@ the blistered bottler 

So you agree the description of the microphones inside the suits is "perfectly correct",
That " the microphones used by the astronauts were located inside their spacesuits, thus insulated from the cabin environment."
Logic demands the same suits are also "insulated" from sound transference when on excursion in the lunar "environment" of the vacuum.

Added to this do you also agree the microphone description is "perfectly accurate" when described as such,
" the microphones were designed to pick up only the sound in their immediate vicinity, that is, the astronauts' voices."

"designed" to only pick up sound in the "immediate vicinity".

So we have specially designed microphones and insulated suits that prevented sound propagation when standing on top of a firing rocket,

Yet you (et al) have being claiming the suits actually enhance the sounds in a vacuum and are easily picked up by the microphones 
easily transmitted sounds like crunching regolith 
Rattling moon buggy compartment lids 
Falling objects 
Rattling objects 
etc
etc

Here we have the thread in a nut shell,
it's either one or the other,
but of course you will claim it's both at the same time 

what's next my blistered bottling friend ?
More insults for me and claims of scientific brilliance for you 

More failure to comprehend simple physics,   most comms systems use noise cancelling mics,  you should know that,  and you should know the pick up characteristics of such mics,  if you did you would understand that external sounds can and are picked up provided they are loud enough and the direction favours propagation.

You misquoted me ( and everyone else ) when you said that..

Yet you (et al) have being claiming the suits actually enhance the sounds in a vacuum and are easily picked up by the microphones 

No-one ever said suits "enhance the sounds" ,  no-one ever said "the sounds in a vacuum",  and no-one ever said "easily picked up by the microphones".

So you have just been caught in a bare faced lie,   no wonder you are having trouble following the discussion.   You aren't listening. 

Also, when you start a sentence with "Logic demands"  you need to clarify whose logic you are referring to,  if it's yours, then you can ignore the rest of the sentence.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2016, 04:01:47 AM

Why do you think it helps your case to keep linking to your own totally unreadable gibberish?  Instead you could try saying something intelligent or even just comprehensible would be nice.

My "case" is helped by science and logic,
Yours ?
Selective memory, insults and evasion 

Even your pretend comprehension difficulties and best innocent face is not fooling anyone

Sorry 

No, you haven't presented anything but your own failure to understand sound propagation.   I doubt you even know how sound propagates.   

Linking to gibberish, just destroys your limited credibility, not that you actually had much to start with. 

Low frequency engine rumble is totally different to high impact metallic sounds. Again, you no nothing about sound propagation and aren't in a position to critically review evidence.

Quote from: feuk on March 07, 2016, 04:09:08 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2016, 04:01:47 AM

Why do you think it helps your case to keep linking to your own totally unreadable gibberish?  Instead you could try saying something intelligent or even just comprehensible would be nice.

My "case" is helped by science and logic,
Yours ?
Selective memory, insults and evasion 

Even your pretend comprehension difficulties and best innocent face is not fooling anyone

Sorry 

No, you haven't presented anything but your own failure to understand sound propagation.   I doubt you even know how sound propagates.   

Linking to gibberish, just destroys your limited credibility, not that you actually had much to start with.

Feuk has presented enough evidence that the moon shenanigans are complete and utter crap. You profess to be intelligent and logical and yet you argue against what Feuk is saying when you know fine well that those in charge of the bullshit, failed to carry it off reliably and seamlessly.

The mere fact that you are arguing like a frenzied sulking child will not be lost on those that do actually see through the lies being told.
The mere fact you're not questioning this stuff tells it's own massive story, of which any rational person with a clear mind will see for what it is.

I hope you continue to sleep well once you're not needed.

I have a gift for you mainframes in my next post,
Just shuffling this to the top 

Quote from: Mainframes on March 06, 2016, 07:13:29 AM

Solids can propagate sound but you need fairly specific conditions for that sound to be picked up. For example the Apollo video picks up the sound because the astronaut is hitting a metallic object against another metallic object and this creates a very intense sound that transmits well.

Garrett Reisman
NASA spaceman

" It is true, however, that sound cannot travel in a vacuum so you do not hear things outside.  When you drive a bolt or tap a piece of equipment with a tool, you don't hear a thing.  "

Metal on metal,
"you don't hear a thing" 

we also know NASA classes the "atmosphere" densities of the lunar surface and that surrounding the ISS as comparable, in effect a vacuum.

Has this phenomena of sound travelling through  spacemens arms when hitting metal on metal ever being recorded on the high quality audio from an ISS excursion ?
Or has any spaceman reported this phenomena ever during an ISS excursion ?

Also we have instances with sound transmission without contact,


quite the conundrum I'm sure you will agree.

Low frequency engine rumble is totally different to high impact metallic sounds. Again, you no nothing about sound propagation and aren't in a position to critically review evidence.

Let's look at the officially supported historical narrative regarding " low frequency engine rumble" courteously of the blistered bottlers cut and paste moon Bible.

" And here’s another video Tom 128 put together of the Apollo 16 Lunar Module Orion lifting off from the Lunar surface. Listen carefully for the sound of Orion’s ascent engine ignition as the vibrations were conducted into the pressurized cabin of the Lunar Module to the onboard microphones and then relayed back to Houston. There are likely to be many more examples of sounds in the Apollo archives
."

You're welcome 

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2016, 04:23:09 AM

Quote from: feuk on March 07, 2016, 04:09:08 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2016, 04:01:47 AM

Why do you think it helps your case to keep linking to your own totally unreadable gibberish?  Instead you could try saying something intelligent or even just comprehensible would be nice.

My "case" is helped by science and logic,
Yours ?
Selective memory, insults and evasion 

Even your pretend comprehension difficulties and best innocent face is not fooling anyone

Sorry 

No, you haven't presented anything but your own failure to understand sound propagation.   I doubt you even know how sound propagates.   

Linking to gibberish, just destroys your limited credibility, not that you actually had much to start with.

Feuk has presented enough evidence that the moon shenanigans are complete and utter crap. You profess to be intelligent and logical and yet you argue against what Feuk is saying when you know fine well that those in charge of the bullshit, failed to carry it off reliably and seamlessly.

The mere fact that you are arguing like a frenzied sulking child will not be lost on those that do actually see through the lies being told.
The mere fact you're not questioning this stuff tells it's own massive story, of which any rational person with a clear mind will see for what it is.

I hope you continue to sleep well once you're not needed.

The little feucker doesn't need your help to make himself look stupid,  you contribution to any discussion is like the kiss of death....   oh no septicmagic agrees with me...  I must be wrong.

I'm not sure how someone who thinks we live in a snow globe, is going to have any meaningful contribution to a discussion on the vagaries of sound propagation. 

But on the off chance you still have one or two functional brain cells,   let me explain.    Suppose I am standing in front of you,  and you can hear me clearly,   now I go outside and face away from you and speak normally can you still hear me?   Yes or no?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2016, 04:49:08 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2016, 04:23:09 AM

Quote from: feuk on March 07, 2016, 04:09:08 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2016, 04:01:47 AM

Why do you think it helps your case to keep linking to your own totally unreadable gibberish?  Instead you could try saying something intelligent or even just comprehensible would be nice.

My "case" is helped by science and logic,
Yours ?
Selective memory, insults and evasion 

Even your pretend comprehension difficulties and best innocent face is not fooling anyone

Sorry 

No, you haven't presented anything but your own failure to understand sound propagation.   I doubt you even know how sound propagates.   

Linking to gibberish, just destroys your limited credibility, not that you actually had much to start with.

Feuk has presented enough evidence that the moon shenanigans are complete and utter crap. You profess to be intelligent and logical and yet you argue against what Feuk is saying when you know fine well that those in charge of the bullshit, failed to carry it off reliably and seamlessly.

The mere fact that you are arguing like a frenzied sulking child will not be lost on those that do actually see through the lies being told.
The mere fact you're not questioning this stuff tells it's own massive story, of which any rational person with a clear mind will see for what it is.

I hope you continue to sleep well once you're not needed.

The little feucker doesn't need your help to make himself look stupid,  you contribution to any discussion is like the kiss of death....   oh no septicmagic agrees with me...  I must be wrong.

I'm not sure how someone who thinks we live in a snow globe, is going to have any meaningful contribution to a discussion on the vagaries of sound propagation. 

But on the off chance you still have one or two functional brain cells,   let me explain.    Suppose I am standing in front of you,  and you can hear me clearly,   now I go outside and face away from you and speak normally can you still hear me?   Yes or no?

Let's not do atmospheric voice checks via a back to front sound audibles. Stick to the space crap that your masters have trained you for, because this is where the crux of the matter, lies.

Quote from: Mainframes on March 07, 2016, 04:28:29 AM

Low frequency engine rumble is totally different to high impact metallic sounds. Again, you no nothing about sound propagation and aren't in a position to critically review evidence.

Let's look at the officially supported historical narrative regarding " low frequency engine rumble" courteously of the blistered bottlers cut and paste moon Bible.

" And here’s another video Tom 128 put together of the Apollo 16 Lunar Module Orion lifting off from the Lunar surface. Listen carefully for the sound of Orion’s ascent engine ignition as the vibrations were conducted into the pressurized cabin of the Lunar Module to the onboard microphones and then relayed back to Houston. There are likely to be many more examples of sounds in the Apollo archives
."

You're welcome 

Very good,  a logically constructed  sentence,  you are getting better.    What do you suppose that means, if you can hear the faint sounds of the ascent engines?  But you don't hear much from the descent engines.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2016, 05:01:00 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2016, 04:49:08 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2016, 04:23:09 AM

Quote from: feuk on March 07, 2016, 04:09:08 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2016, 04:01:47 AM

Why do you think it helps your case to keep linking to your own totally unreadable gibberish?  Instead you could try saying something intelligent or even just comprehensible would be nice.

My "case" is helped by science and logic,
Yours ?
Selective memory, insults and evasion 

Even your pretend comprehension difficulties and best innocent face is not fooling anyone

Sorry 

No, you haven't presented anything but your own failure to understand sound propagation.   I doubt you even know how sound propagates.   

Linking to gibberish, just destroys your limited credibility, not that you actually had much to start with.

Feuk has presented enough evidence that the moon shenanigans are complete and utter crap. You profess to be intelligent and logical and yet you argue against what Feuk is saying when you know fine well that those in charge of the bullshit, failed to carry it off reliably and seamlessly.

The mere fact that you are arguing like a frenzied sulking child will not be lost on those that do actually see through the lies being told.
The mere fact you're not questioning this stuff tells it's own massive story, of which any rational person with a clear mind will see for what it is.

I hope you continue to sleep well once you're not needed.

The little feucker doesn't need your help to make himself look stupid,  you contribution to any discussion is like the kiss of death....   oh no septicmagic agrees with me...  I must be wrong.

I'm not sure how someone who thinks we live in a snow globe, is going to have any meaningful contribution to a discussion on the vagaries of sound propagation. 

But on the off chance you still have one or two functional brain cells,   let me explain.    Suppose I am standing in front of you,  and you can hear me clearly,   now I go outside and face away from you and speak normally can you still hear me?   Yes or no?

Let's not do atmospheric voice checks via a back to front sound audibles. Stick to the space crap that your masters have trained you for, because this is where the crux of the matter, lies.

Sound is sound,  the propagation of sound is what's got little feucker's knickers in a twist,  maybe he can answer if you can't.

"Sound is sound,"- blistered bottler.

 

How many examples must I provide that show you are really struggling with this subject,


Lots probably 

"Sound is sound,"- blistered bottler.

 

How many examples must I provide that show you are really struggling with this subject,


Lots probably 

Just one that proves you understand the fact that "sound is sound"  ( I think you meant to type blustered, not blistered,  another one of your faux pars (sic).. dumbass ).  You can call me bottler anytime, thanks. 


PS For those that aren't as ignorant as the dumb feuck.   Bottler is high praise in Australian slang. 

Nope, wrong again blistered  bottler

blistered due to your epic running and dancing marathon 

ha ha ha ha ha ha aha .......

what a tool,
another off topic face plant failathon over flowing with desperate appeals for credibility,

Even when running away from information you are fail pay dirt 

Have you successfully buried the flow of the thread ?
nope,
Sorry.

Nope, wrong again blistered  bottler

blistered due to your epic running and dancing marathon 

ha ha ha ha ha ha aha .......

what a tool,
another off topic face plant failathon over flowing with desperate appeals for credibility,

Even when running away from information you are fail pay dirt 

Have you successfully buried the flow of the thread ?
nope,
Sorry.

Not only do you not make sense,  but you are starting to become manic,   you do know what manic means don't you...    because you seem to be having trouble with blistered?   

"Sound is sound,"- blistered bottler.

That reminds me,  what is it in your tiny pig brain, that constitutes running away,  I'm still here.   I haven't run anywhere.