HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

So, how many more times are you going to put forward this kind of stupid questions : why is that problem, so what is the importance of this, what is the importance of that? What a funny parrots you are...

Rabinoz, what is the importance of this :

Tom Bishop says :

It clearly says the following on NASA's website.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s1ch2.htm

"The crew checked out the spacecraft, and, after approximately three hours in Earth orbit, the Saturn IV-B stage was fired for approximately five minutes to accelerate the spacecraft to an Earth-gravity escape velocity of 40 233 km/hr (25 000 mph) to begin its 370 149 km (230 000 mile) coast to the moon. Following the translunar injection maneuver, the Apollo spacecraft was separated from the Saturn IV-B stage."

https://images.nasa.gov/details-0100983.html

"The S-IVB restarted to speed the Apollo spacecraft to escape velocity injecting it and the astronauts into a moon trajectory."

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-the-journey-to-the-moon-begins

"Two hours and 44 minutes after liftoff, the third stage engine ignited for the six-minute TLI burn, increasing the spacecraft’s velocity to more than 24,000 miles per hour, enough to escape Earth’s gravity."

Apollo 15 Flight Journal https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap15fj/03tde.html

The stack is 40 metres long and 6.6 metres at its widest, weighing over 65 metric tonnes; not an insubstantial load to have propelled away from Earth at escape velocity.

Popular mechanics:

Instead, the remaining structure continued to orbit Earth until a "go/no-go" decision was made by Mission Control in Houston. At that time, the third-stage rocket, technically known as an S-IVB, reignited and achieved "translunar injection." Once escape velocity, the speed needed to overcome Earth's gravity, or 24,500 mph, was achieved, the S-IVB was discarded as well.

...

They are clearly claiming to reach escape velocity of the Earth's gravity to inject into a trans lunar orbit. In order to reach escape velocity, it must be done in relation to the center of the earth.

Escape Velocity has only to do with the speed away from the center of the earth, not any particular method of application.

It is just how we are taught about Escape Velocity. Look at this page from Georgia State:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vesc.html



Disregarding any and all applications which any space agency claims to use, how would you describe this image if you had to put it into a sentence?

One way to phrase it is that the object needs to go straight up, or away from the earth, at 7 miles per second. It is simply what needs to be done. A description of Escape Velocity as commonly taught and nothing more. I can change the "straight up" in the sentence to "away from the earth" if it makes it more clear.

So, how many more times are you going to put forward this kind of stupid questions

If that is addressed to me, there is nothing stupid about it.
How many more times are you going to avoid this damning question?

Again, you have 3 options:
Either rockets work in space,
Gasses can be magically contained with nothing,
The laws of physics are wrong.

Which will it be?

What force is forcing the gas out of the rocket and what is the other body involved?

You now seem to put forward quite a lot of text, without saying much.
Just what do you think the issue is?
The closest I can find is this:

Escape Velocity has only to do with the speed away from the center of the earth, not any particular method of application.

Actually, it is just velocity relative to Earth. Direction isn't important.
If it is not directly away and you are at escape velocity you will enter a parabolic orbit, any faster and it will be an hyperbolic orbit.

Also, as an additional caveat, they weren't actually escaping the gravity of Earth. Just going to the moon, which is still in Earth's gravity well.

Another important thing to note with escape velocity is that it is dependent on altitude.

Disregarding any and all applications which any space agency claims to use, how would you describe this image if you had to put it into a sentence?

I would say something along the lines of:
If the kinetic energy of an object were equal in magnitude to its gravitational potential energy, then in the absence of friction it could escape from Earth.

If only there were text in the picture to help you determine the author's intent...

So, how many more times are you going to put forward this kind of stupid questions : why is that problem, so what is the importance of this, what is the importance of that? What a funny parrots you are...

Rabinoz, what is the importance of this :

Answered in:

The far more important issues are:

• The usually quoted escape velocity, be it from earth or higher, assumed that no further thrust will be applied.
  
  It is quite feasible to escape from the earth by first achieving Low Earth Orbit and then applying a small continuous thrust.
  
• When a single large thrust is applied to escape the direction does not matter as long as the craft does not impinge on the atmosphere or worse impact the planetary body:
  
  From: CalcTool: Escape velocity Calculator

The escape velocity does not have to be directly away from centre of the earth. It can and usually is a tangential velocity.
And "Note that a powered object may escape the gravity of a body at any velocity desired.".

You might also do a "Google search" on the "Isaac Newton cannonball escape velocity calculations" that Tom Bishop alludes to.

---

Why should I waste more of my time answering your question when you have accused JackBlack of dishonesty yet you have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?

That sounds like complete hypocrisy to me. If you don't know what I mean I'll happily explain it to everyone again.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I see no answer in that to

Quote from: rabinoz on July 25, 2019, 05:32:56 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 25, 2019, 05:25:51 AM

<< Some response thank you! >>

Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
See HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #215 on: Today at 10:10:07 PM ».

I thought you admitted you mistakes!

Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
An answer, thank you!

Then you completely ignore this that took quite a time to prepare: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #269 on: Today at 04:18:15 PM »

Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :

DANSITY TABLE :


As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)

Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.

- A rocket rising through the atmosphere will nicely proceed upwards in its escape from gravity - as long as certain conditions are maintained: the relative pressures at the rocket's nozzle and the outside atmosphere need to be as equal as possible, in order to obtain maximum 'mileage' / efficiency from the rocket's fuel.

- In fact, NASA clearly states that the optimal running conditions of their rockets occur only ONCE, at a certain unspecified (mid-range) altitude, when the above-mentioned pressures are identical. This, in perfect accordance with Newton's 3d law - what with its notion of "equal and opposite forces". Clearly, these rockets are designed to work best in our earthly atmosphere - and the atmospheric pressure IS in fact "the equal and opposite force" which the rocket thrust pushes against. To deny this fact is pure, outlandish and deceptive NASA hogwash-babble. Ironically, it is NASA itself that claims that their rockets work BEST when those two pressures are equal !

- Aerodynamic drag will of course be a factor in the equation, yet only a minor one - given the pencil-shaped, streamlined vessel. As the atmosphere pressure thins out with altitude, some more speed will probably be gained (out of a given power output) - but this fact would, obviously, have no incidence whatsoever in alleviating the forces needed for the weight of the rocket to escape the pull of gravity.

- Now, as we have previously seen, the atmospheric density range which our spacebound rocket is supposed to operate in, spans from a pressure of 0,001 (the average air density in our atmosphere) to a staggeringly inferior pressure of 0,000000000000000000000001 (the density of space vacuum). Thus, as the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude.

- The rocket (at a given, high altitude which I cannot pretend to calculate precisely) will eventually be overpowered by the force of the exponentially decreasing outside pressure, its fuel being sucked out into the infinite 'vacuum of space' at stratospheric rate/speed - and faster than you can say "Houston-we-have-a-prob...---". Much like a champagne bottle popping its cork here on Earth (due to a minimal pressure difference), the rocket fuel will flush out with explosive force. Moreover, this force will expand in ALL directions (a bit like the diffused spray of your garden waterhose nozzle set on 'broad, soft mode') and provide little or no thrust. The rocket, from there on, will be doomed - and plunge back to Earth.

And for those willing to argue that NASA may have found a way to 'pinch' their rocket nozzles, so that the fuel doesn't get sucked out in a flash : well, you can always open a champagne bottle with great care, making the force inside it fizzle slowly out in the atmosphere. But such a subdued, impotent fizzle would hardly provide the necessary energy to propel a rocket away from Earth's gravity, would it?

Only a pinched fart would produce the same amount of 'power'(odor-power, in this case) as a vigorously expelled bowel-gas sample. We all know that much!

Now, NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course, this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations - imagine that "recoil power" alone would not allow a given mass of rocket exhaust to lift a 100.000kg vessel from the ground - let alone propel it at supersonic speeds.

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:




Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do. Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.

DO YOU NOTICE AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM :

There is a synergy (combined deadly effects (inconsistencies)) of three HUGE problems here :

1. Contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going seven miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)! (see the first post on this page : reply #270)

2. As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude.

3. To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.

So, how many more times are you going to put forward this kind of stupid questions : why is that problem, so what is the importance of this, what is the importance of that? What a funny parrots you are...

Probably about as many times as you keep repeating the same thing in different colours and increasing font size.  The disagreement isn’t that no one has read what you wrote, it’s that you are just wrong.

Maybe we are “parrots”, but we are parroting the basic physics used by scientists and engineers, not just for rocket design, but all fluid and thermodynamic systems- car engines, aeroplane wings, power station turbines, refrigeration, etc, etc.  They all work using the same fundamental physics.

If you are genuinely interested in how this all works, I strongly recommend you stop getting your physics from fellow conspiracy theorists who are just trying to find some reason to say it doesn’t work, and buy a fluid dynamics text book.

Rabinoz, what is the importance of this :

Tom Bishop says :

<snip>

Good question.  I asked Tom if he had a point behind quoting escape velocity on the thread this came from.  He didn’t answer.  Do you know what he’s getting at?

Rabinoz, feel free to scrutinize (with your analytic mind) this APOLLO conundrum :

James Donaghy 2 years ago
@odiupicku Good job. Here's the thing though,  there is a much more obvious problem with apollo- the heat.
It's such an obvious problem that it is amazing that it has been overlooked for so long. We all know the story of Icarus, but does everyone know the story of Leonov? He is the original spacewalker. He said, "It was so hot I thought I was frightened i was going to die."
Leonov is one of the bravest creatures on this planet which is partly why he was picked for this work.
So how does NASA explain his account of the incredible heat of the sun? They say he entered an awning feet first instead of head first and became so flustered that his monitors registered a dangerously high body temperature because he was such a woss. 
And there's more; if you get a black belt in astrophysics you can explain effortlessly how the sun isn't hot because of the low air pressure in space. In our advanced institutes there are paussies of top notch professors climbing over each other to take credit for reasons why Icarus would have had no feather problems if only he'd managed to get higher and with some breathing apparatus because the sun isn't hot once you reach space. Of course his wings wouldn't work either, but that's not the point.
For 50 years we have been told by those who know more than we, that the sun is cold in space, sorry, I just had to repeat that.
For more see my 5 minute presentation here:


Now put James Donaghy's words into broader ( perspective :


Well, it is indeed Fantasy the lot :

According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/, for Apollo 12, values given for cabin pressure are 4.8 psi, and for normal operating suit pressure, 3.8 psi. This suggests a pure oxygen environment for the Lunar Module.

For Apollo 11, 12, & 14, during EVA preparation, the suit relative pressures were 4.6 to 5.2 psi when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi, giving suit absolute pressures of 8.1 to 8.7 psi pure oxygen.  At earth's atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi, this correlates to 55% to 60% oxygen content, which gives an oxygen partial pressure of 8.1 to 8.7 psi.

According to the Apollo 12 ALSJ, the suits were already difficult to bend at 3.8 psi relative pressure (when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi).  When the suit pressures were at about 4.5 psi relative pressure, the suits were very stiff.

The following quotes are from a March 11, 1968 Aviation Week & Space Technology article headlined "Flammability Tests Spur Two-Gas Apollo".

"Washington - Decision to use a two-gas atmosphere (60% oxygen, 40% nitrogen) during manned Apollo on-the-pad preparations and in pre-orbital flight reflects a basic inability to make the spacecraft flameproof after 14 months of redesign that cost more than $100 million and added about 2,000 lb. to the system.

"The decision (AW&ST, Mar. 4, p. 21) was forced on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration after three series of flammability tests on an Apollo command module boilerplate failed to satisfy officials that changes would prevent the spread of fire under a pure-oxygen environment."

The article goes on to mention how a 95% oxygen system at 6.2 psi which would be orbital configuration developed problems in fire propagation tests.

Would not there have been serious flammability problems of such an environment in the lunar module? The article concludes:

"By switching to a two-gas system for pre-flight and immediate post-launch activities, NASA is willing to accept an added problem. Astronauts will be breathing pure oxygen during that phase and they will have to vent the spacecraft cabin during boost to orbit and repressurize to 6 psi with oxygen to permit them to remove their helmets and work in relative comfort.

"Possibility of the 40% of nitrogen causing bends if an emergency escape has to be made during the launch phase was considered by officials less hazardous than that of fire propagation in a one-gas system."

A Feb. 6, 1967 article in AW&ST indicates that when the Apollo program was being planned, the primary reason for choosing a 5-psi cabin oxygen system was weight considerations. Added weight (with a two-gas system) would come from a mixture control system to keep the proper gas ratio. Also, introduction of an oxygen-nitrogen or oxygen-helium environmental control system for Apollo would have meant the addition of an airlock.

Just how dangerous was a pure oxygen environment in the ascent and descent lunar module considered to be?

Here on earth, increasing the percentage of oxygen to slightly above 21% dramatically increases probability of fires. According to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (p. 567) by Barrow and Tipler, "...the probability of a forest fire being started by a lightning-bolt increases 70% for every 1% rise in oxygen concentration above the present 21%. Above 25% very little of the vegetation on land would survive the fires...". "At the present fraction of 21%, fires will not start at more than 15% moisture content. Were the oxygen content to reach 25%, even damp twigs and the grass of a rain forest would ignite."(p. 568).

Ralph René, in his book NASA Mooned America, provides a list of government-sponsored testing that resulted in oxygen fires. René extracted this information from Appendix G in Mission To The Moon by Kennan & Harvey. Here are some tests on that list:

"September 9, 1962 - The first known fire occurred in the Space Cabin Simulator at Brooks Air Force Base in a chamber using 100% oxygen at 5 psi. It was explosive and involved the carbon dioxide scrubber. Both occupants collapsed from smoke inhalation before being rescued."

"November 17, 1962 - Another incident using 100% oxygen at 5 psi in a chamber at the Navy Laboratory (ACEL). There were four occupants in the chamber, but the simple replacing of a burned-out light bulb caused their clothes to catch on fire. They escaped in 40 seconds but all suffered burns. Two were seriously injured. In addition an asbestos 'safety' blanket caught fire and burned causing one man's hand to catch fire."

"April 28, 1966 - More Apollo equipment was destroyed as it was being tested under 100% oxygen and 5 psi at the Apollo Environmental Control System in Torrance, CA."

"January 1, 1967 - The last known test was over three weeks before Grissom, Chaffee & White suffered immolation. Two men were handling 16 rabbits in a chamber of 100% oxygen at 7.2 psi at Brooks Air Force Base and all living things died in the inferno. The cause may have been as simple as a static discharge from a rabbit's fur ... but we'll never know."

NASA subjected Grissom, White and Chaffee to over 90% pure oxygen at over 16 psi in a test with live electrical circuits and switches being thrown, and with a hatch that took more than three minutes to open, resulting in the fatal Apollo 1 fire.

Bill Kaysing, in his book We Never Went To The Moon, states, in Chapter 9 titled "Murder By Negligence On Pad 34", "If any two documents lend credibility to the contention that the Apollo flights were faked, they are most certainly the Baron Report and the Phillips Report. They were authored by two men of obvious integrity and dedication. Although from diverse backgrounds, both Tom Baron and Sam Phillips were in total agreement on one basic premise, i.e., that North American Aviation and its sponsor, NASA, were totally unequal to the task of assuring even one successful flight to the moon!"

DO YOU NOTICE AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM :

There is a deadly synergy of these two moments :

1. Leonov testimony (temperature problem) : Leonov said, "It was so hot I thought I was frightened i was going to die." Leonov is one of the bravest creatures on this planet which is partly why he was picked for this work. So how does NASA explain his account of the incredible heat of the sun?

2. Would not there have been serious flammability problems of such an environment in the lunar module? Just how dangerous was a pure oxygen environment in the ascent and descent lunar module considered to be?

ON TOP OF THAT :

How about the stability of the lunar module in flight. Only a single engine is provided, for both the ascent and descent phases, right in the centre with the potential for a rapidly shifting centre of gravity to be off considerably from the thrust vector due to the design.  Shifting centre of gravity due to fuel consumption and astronaut movement, and eccentric loading due to weight of rover or moon rocks, would result in an unstable and unbalanced craft.  The ascent and descent modules have a significantly different centre of gravity yet they both use the same four sets of quadruple thrusters, giving different flight characteristics and handling.  How can the quadruple thrusters fire quickly enough and sufficiently enough to counteract a quickly changing and significantly changing thrust vector?  How can the system remain stable and not loop uncontrollably?  The ascent stage engine was not gimballed, and the inherently off-center, large torquing thrust would have to have been constantly and very immediately counteracted by the small, low-thrust, quadruple thrusters.  The craft has good potential to fly like a balloon you let go of and let deflate.  I am currently attempting to obtain actual engineering drawings to perform detailed calculations.

Set of excerpts of "docking" : You must be a genuine idiot so to be unable to recognize obvious fakery in this cheap animation : once again : 100% proof moon landing Hoax in a 1 minute clip :

IN ADDITION :

Quote from: cikljamas on July 25, 2019, 05:25:51 AM

<< Some response thank you! >>

Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
See HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #215 on: Today at 10:10:07 PM ».

I thought you admitted you mistakes!

What mistakes? Even guys who believe that we landed on the moon admit that there is huge amount of altered (photoshopped) "apollo" images.--- MOON FAKERY - 3 : http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/192/moon-fakery-3.htm

Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :

DANSITY TABLE :


As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

No!

That’s not how pressure differentials work.  It’s the pressure difference that’s important, not the ratio.

100 bar to 1 bar = pressure drop of 99 bar

100 bar to 0 bar = pressure drop of 100 bar

Apollo was not a hoax, but a straight up con of epic proportions.

Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers. Suddenly you have people believing unquestioningly the universe started with a big bang explosion from absolutely nothing that happened 14 billion years ago (impossible to know what happened 50,000 years ago let alone 14 BILLION, talk about total insanity) or that people evolved from bacteria in the ocean, all utter nonsense that can never ever be demonstrated, tested or proven in any way. Just math equations and computer models that are entirely made up. But once a person accepts just one of their mind warping propaganda programs, they inevitably end up believing them all.

I think the apollo missions play a big part in how people form their beliefs about the world and the universe so much so that accepting them as hoax would cause their worldviews to collapse and I don’t think most people today are ready to face that kind of a fundamental change in their lives. It changes everything. The apollo missions are nasa’s way of proving to people that they got all the answers and that everything is the way they claim it is because they’re the only ones that have been out there. Now you have billions of people in the world who believe in them and their doctrine and anyone who disagrees with them is portrayed as an insane paranoid conspiracy theorist. The technique used by narcissists to destroy the credibility of their victims.

Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing. - It's called Van Allen Belt, the radiation would kill everyone and all electronics. The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.
How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such.  Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.

Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van Allen

In1986 I was a 2nd Lt. and a newly minted, USAF officer and aviator, flying C-130s. One of my first operational missions was to fly some troops to Andrews AFB. We stayed in D.C. for two days. On one day, we wemt to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. When I saw the LEM and especially when I saw the lunar rover exhibit, a life size mock-up, I told one of my crewmates, another 2nd Lt., copilot, that this is b.s., no way they landed the LEM with that rover. After seeing that exhibit, I started questioning the veracity of the lunar landings. Most professional aviators do not have the balls to even question the lunar missions, let alone say that they were fake. Look at 911, any active aviator who questions 911 will be grounded. Few will say a thing when they know the Pentagon strike was a virtual impossibility. John Basilone

Blazing Saddles, Boyz in the Hood, Star Wars, and Back to the Future are just a few of the hundreds of films collected in the Library of Congress. But we’re to believe NASA can’t preserve the telemetry data from the moon missions. Hahahahahah!!!
Don’t get me wrong. Those are all great films but I believe the significance of the moon data  may be just a tad bit more important. I guess it’s hard to hold on to something that never existed.

"The only bird who can talk is the Parrot and he didn't fly very well.. There are great ideas left undiscovered to those who can peel away one of truths most protective layers."
- Neil Armstrong --------- Don't be a parrot people..

- YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY :


- When the first crew who landed on the moon did a world tour ,they presented the Dutch premier with a piece of moon rock ,,,when he died a few years ago the university of Utrecht in Holland did some experiments on what they thought was moon rock ,,and it was found to be worthless petrified wood ,,?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM 1 :


ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM 2 :


COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :



I crack  up sometimes while watching these evaluations as I suddenly realize how the "brains" behind the moon fake could never have anticipated the way we can scrutinize and study these clips. Further, it must be painful for any living astronauts to see their lies repeated in endless loops on youtube. Their fakery shall live in infamy. lol and God help me, but Buzz is just sooo campy. I never tire of his shenanigans, esp the latest while Trump was speaking. Do you think Trump was trolling Buzz? I like to think so!

The specific thing that lead me to entertain that it's all a hoax is that when I would watch atronots being interviewed on tv; what immediately struck me;was that they didn't look or sound intelligent. But as my mind would be telling me something doesn't add up;it's as if another message immediately started playing about how asteonots are the "creme of the crop", highly educated, intelligent, carefully selected" So my initial instinct would be over ridden by that brainwashed thought, and I would continue watching the interviews.

What is funny to me is that grown 40 year old men and women look back at the movies they watch in the movies when they were little and laugh now of how fake they look now as much as they looked so real when they were little. But those same people look at footage of a film that was made 15 or 20 years before they were even conceived and swear on their children that it is a real event and indeed took place on the surface of the moon.

If some robot like Jesus would walk on the Moon in sandals, wrapped in bed shit and NASA would say that was Jesus,  I am sure millions would believe it.

Apollo was not a hoax, but a straight up con of epic proportions.

Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers. Suddenly you have people believing unquestioningly the universe started with a big bang explosion from absolutely nothing that happened 14 billion years ago (impossible to know what happened 50,000 years ago let alone 14 BILLION, talk about total insanity) or that people evolved from bacteria in the ocean, all utter nonsense that can never ever be demonstrated, tested or proven in any way. Just math equations and computer models that are entirely made up. But once a person accepts just one of their mind warping propaganda programs, they inevitably end up believing them all.

I think the apollo missions play a big part in how people form their beliefs about the world and the universe so much so that accepting them as hoax would cause their worldviews to collapse and I don’t think most people today are ready to face that kind of a fundamental change in their lives. It changes everything. The apollo missions are nasa’s way of proving to people that they got all the answers and that everything is the way they claim it is because they’re the only ones that have been out there. Now you have billions of people in the world who believe in them and their doctrine and anyone who disagrees with them is portrayed as an insane paranoid conspiracy theorist. The technique used by narcissists to destroy the credibility of their victims.

Nice rant, but meaningless if you are wrong. 

Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing. - It's called Van Allen Belt, the radiation would kill everyone and all electronics. The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.
How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such.  Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.

Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van Allen

The level of threat to Apollo astronauts has been done to death.  I’m not going to go through that again.

But consider this-  the first readings of radiation levels were taken by the Explorer satellites.  Satellites put in orbit by fucking rockets!  Rockets you don’t believe can do the job.

So you cite “official science” on the Van Allen belts, while simultaneously rejecting the “official science” behind assessing the risk.

Do you really not see a problem with this logic?

Do you really not see a problem with this logic?

Do you really not see a problem with a bunch of elephants in your room :

Apart from an elephants in which direction you have been pointed in my two previous posts above, there are quite a few other huge elephants in your room :

For example :

1. Neil Armstrong and especially Michael Collins have pointed out many times that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars from the moon, or from the lunar orbit.

However, Michael Collins wrote on page 221 of "Carrying the Fire" : "My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different, this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human ever had."?

See the last part of this video : APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 3 : It's about Michael Collins contradicting himself : During famous Apollo 11 conference he claimed that he wasn't able to see *ANY* star from the lunar orbit...However in his book he claims that he was very able to observe countless stars from earth' orbit...How about that??? You see, this is an example where the same person asserts two totally contradictory claims (in two different occasions)...There is more to it (concerning Michael Collins) :

Michael Collins was designated the navigator for Apollo 11. In his book he lists the 37 navigation stars they were to use, plus their corresponding octal numbers which identified them to the computers. Here's how Michael explains that navigation package:

"The astronaut, peering out through either his telescope or his sextant finds one of the chosen few, superimposes a + on it, and pushes a button at the instant of perfect alignment. He then tells the computer which star it was, by numbers. Repeating this process on a second star allows the computer and the platform to determine which way the spacecraft is pointing. So we now know which way is up? Well, not exactly, because "up" is a rather fragile concept meaning away from the center of the earth, a direction opposite the gravity vector used to clutch us tightly by. But suppose we cannot even see the earth in our window, suppose we are floating free of earth's gravity. What now, M.I.T.? Back to our friendly stars. We simply define a new up-down and left-right, using the stars in place of earth. All will be well as long as we all play the game by the same rules, as long as the ground controllers send us instructions using the same stellar frame of reference. Now we are free of all terrestrial conventions and can correct our course to and from the Moon by pointing in the proper direction relative to the stars."

Someone could say that there is the difference : Michael Collins was able to see the stars by naked eyes from earth's orbit (Gemini), but he wasn't able to see *ANY* star from the lunar orbit...And if someone attempted to claim such a ridiculous claim, then he would have to be able to explain to us this : what would disable Michael Collins to see the stars from the lunar orbit? If there was anything that could obscure the stars while he was in lunar orbit, that very same reason (an obstacle) would disable him to see the stars TO EVEN A GREATER EXTENT while he was in earth's orbit since according to NeilDeGrass Tyson the only reason why we can't see the stars from the earth (during the day) is the presence of earth's atmosphere which is a glow with scattered light from the sun!!! If you take away the atmosphere, the sun will still be there but the sky goes dark! That is what folks get when they get to the edge of the atmosphere, the atmosphere is no longer between you and the rest of the universe and the stars would reveal themselves just as they would at night! Plain and simple!!!

2. Astronutts' blatant mutual contradictions regarding the stars issue and Apollo 13 case :



3. Is the Founder of Modern Rocket Science trying to tell us something?

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Psalm 19:1



4. Some more elephants in your room :


The lunar ascent module engine had a 15000 N (3500 lb) thrust.  The attitude control thrusters for the Apollo C/SM and LM (which had four sets of quadruple thrusters) had 490 N (110 lb) of thrust each. In comparison, the 38 thrusters for shuttle orbit control each have a nominal thrust of 3870 N (880 lb), with a range from 3114 N to 5338 N.  Why is the exhaust visible from the 3870 N shuttle thruster but not from the 15000 N lunar ascent module engine?

It's impossible to find any images or video footage of any visible flame or exhaust coming from any of the four quadruple clusters used for attitude control of the lunar module, or from the main engines of the ascent and descent modules.  However, official NASA artists' drawings do show a considerable amount of flame and exhaust emanating from the main engine :




In the films To The Edge And Back covering Apollo 13 and Apollo 13, animation shows the LM main engine emitting a bright flame for the various burns between the earth and the moon.  In Apollo 13, animation shows visible flame from the LM thrusters during SM separation from the CM and LM.

In the 30-minute documentary Houston, We've Got A Problem covering Apollo 13, an image of the service module shows the panel blown off :


The SM is bright and takes up a good portion of the screen. On the remainder of the screen stars appear to be indistiguishable from debris. Photographs taken from the surface of the moon do not show stars in the sky.

In For All Mankind by the National Geographic Society, astronauts are shown suiting up. In their launch suits, the astronauts do arm exercises and wave to the crowd.  From these scenes the Apollo suits do not appear to have bearings at the joints like the space shuttle extra vehicular suits, which do have bearings at the elbow, shoulder, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle joints.  How were the Apollo astronauts able to bend their joints, especially their finger joints, on the moon if their suits were pressurized?



Pressurized suits give a rigid balloon-like appearance which the moon astronauts did not appear to have

The For All Mankind video shows the ground when the lunar module is landing.  As dust is being kicked up from the main engine, a dark shadow of the module appears.  The ground in the lunar module shadow does not show any reflection or brightness from any main engine exhaust flame.

Why were there were no emergencies or problems from the temperature extremes of -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit to +215F?  A study paper for a proposed moonbase uses a noon-time worst case of 375 K (102 C, or 215 F) for a lunar surface temperature.

In For All Mankind, ground control announced that the temperature in the shade was -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit.  Were the batteries of the lunar rover in the shade, and if so, how were they protected against these temperature extremes?

At temperatures less than -40F (-40C) a lot of materials start becoming very brittle. Electrical items do not work as well.  Batteries produce less current.  The extreme temperature variations from shadow to sunlight would cause significant material contraction and expansion and would make equipment breakdown and failure very likely.

Why did the one-sixth gravity cause the astronauts to alternate between hopping and walking?  We all saw many sequences where an astronauts looked like they were flexing their knees pretty good to jump but they did not travel any higher than 40 cm. Why? The astronauts were not hopping any farther than what the typical person could hop here on Earth.

There a number of times in Apollo footage when the astronauts were landing pretty hard on their knees.  Were they not running a huge risk of puncturing their pressurized suits? According to an article in the Dec. 1, 1969 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology, Apollo mission planners were worried about suit puncture and cutting.

After an Apollo 14 astronaut sets up and lets go of the flag, the flag flutters, is still, and then flutters again.  This may be viewed on the Apollo Interactive CD-ROM by Simitar Entertainment.

HOW MUCH EXTRA ROOM HAS LEFT IN YOUR OVERCROWDED "ROOM"

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 27, 2019, 07:19:10 AM

Do you really not see a problem with this logic?

Do you really not see a problem with a bunch of elephants in your room :

<Gish Gallop>

Sure, change the subject as soon as a claim is challenged and just spam as many arguments already  done to death as possible.

If you’re not going to attempt to answer any of my points, then you clearly have no interest in honest debate. 

Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective

No, we don't.
If you want to claim escape velocity requires you to go directly away from Earth, you need to prove it.
The simple version is quite simple:
In a gravity well you have a particular gravitational potential energy, which is negative.
If your kinetic energy is equal in magnitude to this gravitational potential energy, then your total energy is 0 and you can escape.
If your kinetic energy is less than your total energy is less than 0 and you can't escape.
The only way in which directionality is important to escape a gravity well is to make sure you don't hit anything.

As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

You are aware basically nothing of man's has gone into interstellar space?

And again, WHO CARES?
All this means is that there is less resistance to motion higher up.

You are just spouting the same refuted garbage again and again, while ignoring the very simple question which shows it all to be BS.
Your so called elephant in the room is pure fiction.
Meanwhile this very real elephant remains:


WHAT IS CAUSING THE GAS TO MOVE?
It needs a force to be applied to it in order to move.
This force needs to involve an interaction with another body.
This interaction will apply a force to this other body.

So what body is applying this force?

Deal with the reality of rockets working in space before changing the subject.

Either admit they can work in space and that you have been repeatedly lying to everyone or defend your BS.

Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective:

You dare post accusations like this when you prove your own deception by using "Photoshopped" photos and refusing to even admit to it when pointed out:

I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.

Now firstly please point out where either JackBlack or I made mistakes we should admit to and then answer why you, yourself, are so deceptive!.

But it would appear that you do not simply "make mistakes" you used at least two obviously "Photoshopped" images in one of the few of your videos I've bothered to watch, the EIFFEL TOWER PROOF:

EIFFEL TOWER PROOF :

It starts with the question, "How would earth look from the moon?" And at 0:30 in that video we find this image:

How would earth look from the moon by cikljamas

The inset in the lower right is obviously a composite of two NASA photos. Photoshopped "Earth from Moon", by odiupicku

Then at 5:56 in that video I find the following image which I know is a composite of two NASA photos[/size]. Of course the light comes from different directions! That is not a genuine NASA photo.

Now, Mr Cikljamas, you have two options either:

• YOU show me the originals of those photos in the official NASA archives (with AS numbers) or
  
  
• admit to your deception in using fake photos in which you deceive people in you vain attempt show that NASA are liars.

You continual ignoring of this just goes to show that you know you are being deceptive in your own videos!

Your response and apology would be greatly appreciated!

Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :

Rubbish! Your "particular perspective" is totally ludicrous as i show below,

DANSITY TABLE :


As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)

I am not answering all that in one go but first the total misoperation in you "density table". But why on earth do you use those funny cgs units and not SI units?

First of all your "density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> BLACK HOLES" is total garbage!
"Density differences" are quite irrelevant anyway. It is only "pressure differences" that matter though for gasses they are related.

And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.

It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space)  is simply only 10^-3 - 10^-24 = 10^-3 gm/cm³.

As far as a rocket's performance goes or the stresses involved in pressurising a crew habitat is make little difference if the pressure outside is one hundredth or one trillionth of normal atmospheric pressure.

And it makes you claim "In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)" totally ludicrous!

But the density gap/difference between AIR vs VACUUM is just 1 while the density gap/difference between "BLACK HOLES" vs WATER is 10²⁷ - not in the same "ball-park"!.

That doesn't have the emotional impact of your ridiculous and meaningless 10⁶⁰, does it?

But you talk of densities rather misses the point! It is external pressure differences that slightly affect the thrust.

And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.

It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space)  is simply only 10^-3 - 10^-24 = 10^-3 gm/cm³.

LOL

Rab, isn't it too early (in Australia) to drink so much?

So after 10 pages of meandering around every conceivable lame and doctored moon landing hoax argument, at the end of the day, it seems to have been shown overwhelmingly that yes, rockets do work in space. And quite well in fact. I'm glad we got that worked out. Carry on.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 27, 2019, 03:49:20 PM

And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.

It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space)  is simply only 10^-3 - 10^-24 = 10^-3 gm/cm³.

LOL
Rab, isn't it too early (in Australia) to drink so much?

You might post drunk but I don't drink and drive, drink and post and I even forget the the last time I drank any alcohol at all.

If you ridicule that the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space) is simply only 10^-3 - 10^-24 = 10^-3 gm/cm³ would you please post your own.

Maybe you could understand it better as 0.001 - 0.000000000000000000000001 =  0.000999999999999999999999 gm/cm³
I suggest that 0.000999999999999999999999 Is close enough to  0.001 for even you.

Any objections?

By the way do you still post deceptive videos with "Photoshopped" images in your attempt to prove that NASA posts deceptive photos and videos?

Pot, kettle and a very sooty black springs to mind, Mr Arithmetically Challenged Cikljamas!

Now, Mr Cikljamas, you have two options either:

• YOU show me the originals of those photos in the official NASA archives (with AS numbers) or
  
  
• admit to your deception in using fake photos in which you deceive people in you vain attempt show that NASA are liars.

PS Please learn that the difference between A and B is A - B and that A/B is A divided by B! Did you miss primary school or simply fail?
     

Quote from: cikljamas on July 27, 2019, 05:34:47 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 27, 2019, 03:49:20 PM

And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.

It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space)  is simply only 10^-3 - 10^-24 = 10^-3 gm/cm³.

LOL
Rab, isn't it too early (in Australia) to drink so much?

You might post drunk but I don't drink and drive, drink and post and I even forget the the last time I drank any alcohol at all.

Well, then you have to change your local drug dealer! lol

If you are a fan of density, why do you think a rocket can push off of air?

Cikljamas, your video about remembering hot days in 1969 and therefore it was too hot for Apollo 11 to go to the moon, so it was all hoaxed, is comedy gold!

You haven't seen the Apollo 11 documentary doing the rounds in cinemas? Do yourself a favor and go see it. All this silly moon landing hoax evidence will drop away as your jaw drops.

<<  >>

I would like some rational answers to the following, thank you Mr Photoshop Posting Cikljamas.
Failing that will be taken as a tacit admission that you admit to:

• you knowingly post Photoshopped images is your deceptive attempt to show NASA's non-existing deception and
• being totally ignorant of even the simplest arithmetic operations!

Now a rational reply to this please!

If you ridicule that the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space) is simply only 10^-3 - 10^-24 = 10^-3 gm/cm³ would you please post your own.

Maybe you could understand it better as 0.001 - 0.000000000000000000000001 =  0.000999999999999999999999 gm/cm³
I suggest that 0.000999999999999999999999 Is close enough to  0.001 for even you.

Any objections?

By the way do you still post deceptive videos with "Photoshopped" images in your attempt to prove that NASA posts deceptive photos and videos?

Pot, kettle and a very sooty black springs to mind, Mr Arithmetically Challenged Cikljamas!

Quote from: rabinoz on July 27, 2019, 02:52:27 PM

Now, Mr Cikljamas, you have two options either:

• YOU show me the originals of those photos in the official NASA archives (with AS numbers) or
  
  
• admit to your deception in using fake photos in which you deceive people in you vain attempt show that NASA are liars.

PS Please learn that the difference between A and B is A - B and that A/B is A divided by B! Did you miss primary school or simply fail?
     

Cikljamas, your video about remembering hot days in 1969 and therefore it was too hot for Apollo 11 to go to the moon, so it was all hoaxed, is comedy gold!

You haven't seen the Apollo 11 documentary doing the rounds in cinemas? Do yourself a favor and go see it. All this silly moon landing hoax evidence will drop away as your jaw drops.

I don't remember that one. Was it a ridiculous thermosphere "proof"?

I like this comedy better:

Was the Moon Landing FAKE? | COLOSSAL MYSTERIES by DreamWorksTV

This one:




Is this comedian actually you, cikljamas?

Do you really not see a problem with a bunch of elephants in your room :

Not in my room! And are you sure yours aren't mice or pink elephants. The Dunning-Kruger Syndrome sure is strong in this one.

Apart from an elephants in which direction you have been pointed in my two previous posts above, there are quite a few other huge elephants in your room :

For example :

1. Neil Armstrong and especially Michael Collins have pointed out many times that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars from the moon, or from the lunar orbit.

Where did they say "that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars . . . .  from the lunar orbit"?
And if you can't understand the problems of seeing stars on the moon through the face visors I don't hold out for your sanity:

Please bear in mind that the sun is about 16,000,000,000 times brighter than the brightest star!
The ability to see stars depends a lot on what is between you and the stars and even more on allowing the eyes to adjust to the dark conditions.

So I'll ignore the rest of your starry claims!

3. Is the Founder of Modern Rocket Science trying to tell us something?

Quote

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Psalm 19:1

Sure! He knew, as I do, that "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork" and why is that a problem?

4. Some more elephants in your room :

Really? You would know the difference between an elephant and a mouse! Don't you mean more points that illustrate your own ignorance?

The lunar ascent module engine had a 15000 N (3500 lb) thrust.  The attitude control thrusters for the Apollo C/SM and LM (which had four sets of quadruple thrusters) had 490 N (110 lb) of thrust each. In comparison, the 38 thrusters for shuttle orbit control each have a nominal thrust of 3870 N (880 lb), with a range from 3114 N to 5338 N. Why is the exhaust visible from the 3870 N shuttle thruster but not from the 15000 N lunar ascent module engine?

Point #1 illustrating your own ignorance!

Why should there be?

Why is there no exhaust from the LM’s ascent rocket engine?
IN A NUTSHELL: Because there shouldn’t be. Rocket motors don’t generate a fiery exhaust in the vacuum of space. Rockets that use the same propellant as the Lunar Module don’t generate a visible plume even in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Figure 6.12-1. Liftoff of the Apollo 17 Lunar Module on 14 December 1972, as shown by the live TV broadcast sent by the remote-controlled camera installed on the Rover.

It's impossible to find any images or video footage of any visible flame or exhaust coming from any of the four quadruple clusters used for attitude control of the lunar module, or from the main engines of the ascent and descent modules.

Because from rocket engines using those fuels there should be no exhaust plume!
The Ascent Module main engine used Liquid-fuel engine N₂O₄ (Dinitrogen tetroxide, often called nitrogen tetroxide) and Aerozine 50.
Even the Titan II missile burning the same fuel shows a quite colourless flame.


I would think that someone like you trying to prove NASA's non-existent deception might do a little research beforehand instead of showing yourself to be an ignorant fool.

However, official NASA artists' drawings do show a considerable amount of flame and exhaust emanating from the main engine :

I see no "official NASA artists' drawings" but if you do ask the artists. I would simply say "artistic licence" to show the engine is running.

In the films To The Edge And Back covering Apollo 13 and Apollo 13, animation shows the LM main engine emitting a bright flame for the various burns between the earth and the moon.  In Apollo 13, animation shows visible flame from the LM thrusters during SM separation from the CM and LM.

The LM descent engine used the same Aerozine 50 fuel/nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer as the ascent stage.
Go and ask the producers what was used in the film but films like that are not evidence and the Aerozine 50 fuel/nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer flame is very unimpressive in a film!

In the 30-minute documentary Houston, We've Got A Problem covering Apollo 13, an image of the service module shows the panel blown off :


The SM is bright and takes up a good portion of the screen. On the remainder of the screen stars appear to be indistiguishable from debris. Photographs taken from the surface of the moon do not show stars in the sky.

But exactly how bright is the SM? Whether stars show or not depends entirely on the exposure used.  Where in that video is the bit you refer to?

In For All Mankind by the National Geographic Society, astronauts are shown suiting up. In their launch suits, the astronauts do arm exercises and wave to the crowd.  From these scenes the Apollo suits do not appear to have bearings at the joints like the space shuttle extra vehicular suits, which do have bearings at the elbow, shoulder, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle joints.  How were the Apollo astronauts able to bend their joints, especially their finger joints, on the moon if their suits were pressurized?

APOLLO-PRESSURIZED-SUITS
Pressurized suits give a rigid balloon-like appearance which the moon astronauts did not appear to have

I believe that the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) used on the moon had a protective over-suit over the pressure suit.

The For All Mankind video shows the ground when the lunar module is landing.  As dust is being kicked up from the main engine, a dark shadow of the module appears.  The ground in the lunar module shadow does not show any reflection or brightness from any main engine exhaust flame.

Possibly because the engine was shut-off before touchdown and even before that was throttled right back.

Why were there were no emergencies or problems from the temperature extremes of -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit to +215F?  A study paper for a proposed moonbase uses a noon-time worst case of 375 K (102 C, or 215 F) for a lunar surface temperature.

Why should there be?

• They were not there at anywhere near the lunar mid-day.
• The equipment was designed for those temperatures.

In For All Mankind, ground control announced that the temperature in the shade was -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit.  Were the batteries of the lunar rover in the shade, and if so, how were they protected against these temperature extremes?

At temperatures less than -40F (-40C) a lot of materials start becoming very brittle. Electrical items do not work as well.  Batteries produce less current.  The extreme temperature variations from shadow to sunlight would cause significant material contraction and expansion and would make equipment breakdown and failure very likely.

NASA and any competent engineer knows far more than you about the temperatures reached and the material properties.
"Electrical items do not work as well" and "batteries produce less current" but only if actually subject to those temperatures.
The temperatures might have been extreme but a vacuum conducts no heat leaving only radiation and contact with the lunar surface.
Study up on what NASA and others have written on the temperature control of spacecraft and stop pointing out nothing but you own pathetic ignorance.

Why did the one-sixth gravity cause the astronauts to alternate between hopping and walking?  We all saw many sequences where an astronauts looked like they were flexing their knees pretty good to jump but they did not travel any higher than 40 cm. Why? The astronauts were not hopping any farther than what the typical person could hop here on Earth.

How far can you hop when wearing a bulky EMU with mass 115 kg that restricts movement?

There a number of times in Apollo footage when the astronauts were landing pretty hard on their knees.  Were they not running a huge risk of puncturing their pressurized suits? According to an article in the Dec. 1, 1969 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology, Apollo mission planners were worried about suit puncture and cutting.

It was obviously a concern but the outer suit was a protective suit over the inner pressure suit and the pressure was only 4.3 psi.

After an Apollo 14 astronaut sets up and lets go of the flag, the flag flutters, is still, and then flutters again.  This may be viewed on the Apollo Interactive CD-ROM by Simitar Entertainment.

You claim it does then you prove it.
I'm not wasting more time on these mice that you conspiratorial mind blows up into imaginary pink elephants.

HOW MUCH EXTRA ROOM HAS LEFT IN YOUR OVERCROWDED "ROOM"

There are no elephants in my room, not even tail-less mice.

This one:



Is this comedian actually you, cikljamas?

This is literally the best bit of video evidence posted here in a long time. "I remember, was it June? 1969...It was 84 degrees Fahrenheit, ummm, at 8 o'clock in the morning...it gets warmer the higher up you go...those things you pull down on an airplane window, hot sun...too hot for Apollo..."

cikljamas, give us more just like this!

Quote from: Sunset on July 27, 2019, 07:48:52 PM

This one:



Is this comedian actually you, cikljamas?

This is literally the best bit of video evidence posted here in a long time. "I remember, was it June? 1969...It was 84 degrees Fahrenheit, ummm, at 8 o'clock in the morning...it gets warmer the higher up you go...those things you pull down on an airplane window, hot sun...too hot for Apollo..."

cikljamas, give us more just like this!

Comedy gold! Why do we have snow on mountains? Why do people freeze to death on Mt Everest?
At least cikljamas tries to impress with Bart Sibrel's total ignorance of the thermosphere and the Van Allen belts.
It's funny how Bart Sibrel claims to know more about the radiation hazards of the VABs that Dr James Van Allen himself.

But I don't know that even cikljamas plumbs the depths of ignorance as deeply as James Donaghy .
Though he's trying lately, very, very trying!

A little interesting  extra on the appearance of rocket exhausts:

It's impossible to find any images or video footage of any visible flame or exhaust coming from any of the four quadruple clusters used for attitude control of the lunar module, or from the main engines of the ascent and descent modules.

Because from rocket engines using those fuels there should be no exhaust plume!
The Ascent Module main engine used Liquid-fuel engine N₂O₄ (Dinitrogen tetroxide, often called nitrogen tetroxide) and Aerozine 50.
Even the Titan II missile burning the same fuel shows a quite colourless flame.


This might be of interest to some:

Why Rocket Exhausts Look The Way They Do by Scott Manley

Hey, NASA paid shills, how many of you are freemasons?
All of you?
No wonder!

The Flat Earth Society is a controlled opposition group that mixes lies with satire to discredit genuine geocentric, anti-NASA research, a job they have been doing for a long time now.  Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas' University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate subject of our geocentric Earth. Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which, still true to form, purports extremely stupid flat-Earth arguments (in contrast to somewhat less stupid flat-Earth arguments) and treats the entire subject of geocentric truth (disguised in flat-earth theory), as well as of anti-NASA SPACE TRAVELLING FRAUD truth, anti-BIG BANG COSMOLOGY truth, anti-EINSTEINIAN PHYSICS truth, anti-DARWINISTIC truth, anti 9/11 OFFICIAL STORY truth, anti GLOBAL WARMING truth, etc... as a dead-pan joke.

I am here to laugh at you!!!

Feel free to read the pinned comment below this video :



Pay attention to what this guy says in the first sentence of this video :



We live in a Truman Show :



So, this video sums it up :

I am here to laugh at you!!!

Well that seems to be one of the few things you are capable of.
You are certainly yet to present any rational argument to back up your nonsense.

This one question destroys your position:
What force causes the gas to leave the rocket and what other body is involved?

The only options are to reject physics or accept rockets work in space.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 28, 2019, 03:39:33 AM

I am here to laugh at you!!!

This one question destroys your position:

Last time you destroyed me at page 11 (remember?) :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80229.300