Thanks I'll check it out, you can tell the yt shills because they respond to every comment with the same facts (the facts are usually wrong)
I don't know if hunchbacked mentions this but I looked at the schematic of the lunar module several years ago. If you search for it on Google images you'll see that it only has a beach ball sized container to get the top half of the lander and three men into moon orbit,whereas to get into earth's orbit a huge Saturn five is needed.
The moon has one third of earth's gravity but the lander was also using some propellant that needed it's own oxidizer it can't be as good as Saturn five rocket fuel or they would logically use it in the Saturn five.
The LEM(on) allegedly used a hypergolic rocket motor as these are simpler & more reliable than non-hypergolic motors.
An interesting fact about hypergolic engines is that the compounds used are quite horrifically hazardous & difficult to handle.
A look at the refuelling procedures for the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet (the only rocket-powered plane ever to see service, which is a clue in itself) will give an idea of how dangerous these things are; this is why the military are trying to phase the few they still use out in favour of solid-fuel rockets as fast as possible.
As for the Apollo fairy-tale, it is cut off at it's knees by the fact that a 3,000-ton flying machine, as the Saturn V was claimed to be, is physically impossible.
And a gas-powered rocket cannot function in a vacuum either...
So I don't bother poring over any more of the data from the mission as it cannot be anything but fake.
Still, looking at photos of the LEM-on, all held together with pop-rivets, curtain-rods & duck tape, is always good for a laugh...