NASA EPIC LIES

  • 1187 Replies
  • 228963 Views
*

rvlvr

  • 2148
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #690 on: July 01, 2020, 07:34:44 AM »
Wut?

*

JJA

  • 6873
  • +2/-6
  • Math is math!
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #691 on: July 01, 2020, 07:45:10 AM »
Just a few words now to put the icing on this particular "Gotcha". Seven paragraphs ago direct quote was used to describe how "they repressurized their cabin." They went on to tell how they did this long checklist. Here's the very next paragraph: "They removed their boots, slipped out of the backpacks heavy with life-support equipment that had kept them alive on the moon, reopened the hatch, and dumped them along with crumpled food packages and filled urine bags onto the surface."
Not a word about spending another two hours or so venting the LEM, or about hooking up air lines to stay alive once the hatch opened onto the vacuum of space. There was no airlock on any LEM! Gotcha , NASA!

It looks like your ENTIRE post is just a quote from some nut-job conspiracy book called "NASA MOONED AMERICA!" by Ralph Rene.

Full of lies and idiocy, like the part you quoted.

They took off their life support backpacks, and hooked their suits up to the LEM's oxygen supply.

Then they took off their boots, which are more correctly called Lunar Overshoes. They go on OVER the space suit feet.

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/boot-left-lunar-overshoe-cernan-apollo-17-flown/nasm_A19740133005

Again, a little bit of research easily disproves this.  Copy-pasting random garbage without even bothering to try and verify it just shows how little critical thinking abilities you actually have.

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #692 on: July 01, 2020, 08:04:39 AM »



The LEM consisted of an upper pressurized ascent unit whose function was to pilot the whole unit down to the moon using the large rocket motor in the lower unpressurized descent unit. To escape from the Moon, the upper ascent stage would then blast free from the lower part and ferry the Moon-walkers back to orbit to link with the command module. This ugly insect consisted of jutting angles and flat planes. Any first year structural engineering student would know enough to design a pressure vessel as a sphere, but the moron who designed the LEM didn't seem to know this.

So the NASA apologists can't claim that the LEM was not pressurized, we have this statement about the Apollo 11 LEM; "They worked their way to the ladder and squeezed into their "flight deck," and sealed and pressurized their cabin." On page 160, of The Illustrated Encyclopedia of SPACE TECHNOLOGY there is a cut away drawing of the LEM. It has been drawn to scale and from that I determined that there was at least one large flat panel with dimensions of 3 feet across and 4 feet high. Another section of the drawing shows that the ribs are on 6 inch centers. I assume this section to be typical and that the rest of the LEM was ribbed the same way.

Aldrin speaks of the LEM's ribs thusly, "...and there were ominous corrosion cracks in the LM's paper-thin aluminum ribs." 14 A tissue paper thought here raises its thin head. Since the support ribs of vehicles, vessels and structures are always much thicker than their covering, you can imagine what the hull thickness must have been.

Continuing with the dissection at hand, I shall assume that the designers correctly put the ribs across the shortest span. The LEM was pressurized in space to 5.2 pounds. That's the minimal pressure needed to sustain life on a long term basis. Such being the case, and since
there are 144 square inches to each square foot, the hull was under a load of 750 pounds per square foot. Compare this with 30 pounds per square foot allowed, and designed for on the floor of your home, or with the 200 lb/sq ft loading of commercial warehouses.

This simply means that each rib (6 inches on center) had to carry 1100 pounds. In structural engineering, loading is translated into a concept called the Maximum Bending Moment (MBM) which is measured in inch pounds. For a beam (rib) supported on both ends
and carrying a load the formula is W x L / 8, where W is the load in pounds and L is the span in inches. Therefore the Maximum Bending Moment for each rib is 1100 x 36 / 8 or 4,950-inch pounds.

The restraining moment needed to support this load is found by determining a thing called the Section Modulus (SM). This is found by dividing the MBM by the working tensile strength of the material involved. I don't know which particular aluminum alloy was used,
nor do I figure I will live long enough for NASA to answer my letters, but since all aluminum alloys have less strength than steel, I shall pretend that the paper-thin ribs he (Aldrin) spoke of were made of common steel which has a working tensile strength of
20,000 pounds per inch square.

The Section Modulus (SM) needed to hold this load is found by dividing the MBM by the tensile. Then SM = MBM / 20,000 or 4,950 divided by 20,000 which equals .2475. The proper size rib to do that particular job is 2 x 2 x 1/4 inch steel angle iron which has an SM of .25. Would you call a chunk of metal that is 1/4 inch thick paper-thin? Neither would Aldrin! Obviously, whatever ribs he was writing about would never, ever, hold the internal pressure necessary to keep men alive and breathing in space.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

JJA

  • 6873
  • +2/-6
  • Math is math!
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #693 on: July 01, 2020, 08:18:32 AM »
The LEM consisted of an upper pressurized ascent unit whose function was...

You have a point to this, or just going to keep posting random garbage from conspiracy books and sites?

"I don't understand how space suits work" isn't a valid argument.  Not from the guy who made it, and certainly not because you copied it.

*

SomeDutchGuy

  • 475
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #694 on: July 01, 2020, 08:47:36 AM »
Just a few words now to put the icing on this particular "Gotcha". Seven paragraphs ago direct quote was used to describe how "they repressurized their cabin." They went on to tell how they did this long checklist. Here's the very next paragraph: "They removed their boots, slipped out of the backpacks heavy with life-support equipment that had kept them alive on the moon, reopened the hatch, and dumped them along with crumpled food packages and filled urine bags onto the surface."
Not a word about spending another two hours or so venting the LEM, or about hooking up air lines to stay alive once the hatch opened onto the vacuum of space. There was no airlock on any LEM! Gotcha , NASA!

The following answers your "question".
Quote
1. Their "boots" were actually overshoes, and weren't part of the pressure suit. No problem removing them.

2. They plugged their suits into the LMs oxygen supply, so had no more need for the PLSS.

3. They re-opened the hatch after the LM had been depressurised, and dumped the rubbish and both PLSS.

4. They closed the hatch and re-pressurised.
Source: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11973-never-a-straight-answer/page/2/

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #695 on: July 01, 2020, 09:00:53 AM »
Just a few words now to put the icing on this particular "Gotcha". Seven paragraphs ago direct quote was used to describe how "they repressurized their cabin." They went on to tell how they did this long checklist. Here's the very next paragraph: "They removed their boots, slipped out of the backpacks heavy with life-support equipment that had kept them alive on the moon, reopened the hatch, and dumped them along with crumpled food packages and filled urine bags onto the surface."
Not a word about spending another two hours or so venting the LEM, or about hooking up air lines to stay alive once the hatch opened onto the vacuum of space. There was no airlock on any LEM! Gotcha , NASA!

The following answers your "question".
Quote
1. Their "boots" were actually overshoes, and weren't part of the pressure suit. No problem removing them.

2. They plugged their suits into the LMs oxygen supply, so had no more need for the PLSS.

3. They re-opened the hatch after the LM had been depressurised, and dumped the rubbish and both PLSS.

4. They closed the hatch and re-pressurised.
Source: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11973-never-a-straight-answer/page/2/

Sure, and the marmot was wrapping chocolate in aluminum foil like this:

Apollo Hoax - Smoking Gun on Steroids :
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

JJA

  • 6873
  • +2/-6
  • Math is math!
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #696 on: July 01, 2020, 09:09:01 AM »
Just a few words now to put the icing on this particular "Gotcha". Seven paragraphs ago direct quote was used to describe how "they repressurized their cabin." They went on to tell how they did this long checklist. Here's the very next paragraph: "They removed their boots, slipped out of the backpacks heavy with life-support equipment that had kept them alive on the moon, reopened the hatch, and dumped them along with crumpled food packages and filled urine bags onto the surface."
Not a word about spending another two hours or so venting the LEM, or about hooking up air lines to stay alive once the hatch opened onto the vacuum of space. There was no airlock on any LEM! Gotcha , NASA!

The following answers your "question".
Quote
1. Their "boots" were actually overshoes, and weren't part of the pressure suit. No problem removing them.

2. They plugged their suits into the LMs oxygen supply, so had no more need for the PLSS.

3. They re-opened the hatch after the LM had been depressurised, and dumped the rubbish and both PLSS.

4. They closed the hatch and re-pressurised.
Source: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11973-never-a-straight-answer/page/2/

Sure, and the marmot was wrapping chocolate in aluminum foil like this:

You keep posting this garbage, you keep getting shown how wrong it is, and you just keep posting new garbage.

Do you even bother to read any responses or just have a list of random quotes and stolen videos you post one after the other?

I feel we could start replying to you with random YouTube videos and you wouldn't even notice.

*

Smoke Machine

  • 3975
  • +19/-20
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #697 on: July 01, 2020, 09:25:20 AM »
Cikljamas, plagiarism and copying someone's copyrighted material without acknowledging where it came from, is an offence. Fix it up before I notify the dumbass author.   >:(

I've just watched about 4 hours of archival NASA footage, including the Apollo 11 moon landing. You are so far out of your depth with these stupid conspiracies, it is mind boggling.  :P

Why don't you do that lazy ass brain of yours a favor for once, and watch a proper NASA documentary or buy a book which explains how NASA made it all work? Unless you're too chicken to find out the truth? I'll bet your momma puts a saucer of warm milk down on the kitchen floor for you to lick it up every night.

I have a book all about the specifics of the LEM. What part do you think doesn't work properly?
For the overall shape of Earth to be flat, requires billions of people and billions of pieces of information about Earth to be wrong. Do the maths.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Cikljamas's EPIC LIES
« Reply #698 on: July 01, 2020, 09:34:46 AM »
<< Copied material deleted >>
You ask, "How were the Apollo astronauts able to bend their joints, especially their finger joints, on the moon if their suits were pressurized?"
Simple, the suits were not designed by someone like YOU!

The outer part of the suit is for protection from radiation, sharp rocks and micrometeorites etc with the pressure suit being hidden under that.

The joints were not bearings but were bellows type joints. Why didn't you spend a little time researching this instead is displaying your utter ignorance?

Read a bit about it yourself in: HISTORY OF SPACESUITS.

And more in:
Quote
A7LB Suit
From the skin out, the Apollo A7LB spacesuit began with an astronaut-worn liquid-cooling garment, similar to a pair of long-johns with a network of spaghetti-like tubing sewn onto the fabric. Cool water, circulating through the tubing, transferred metabolic heat from the Moon explorer's body to the backpack and then to space.

Next came a comfort and donning improvement layer of lightweight nylon, followed by a gas-tight pressure bladder of Neoprene-coated nylon or bellows-like molded joints components, a nylon restraint layer to prevent the bladder from ballooning, a lightweight thermal superinsulation of alternating layers of thin Kapton and glass-fiber cloth, several layers of Mylar and spacer material, and finally, protective outer layers of Teflon-coated glass-fiber Beta cloth.
There's plenty more if you care to look.

And I'll ignore the rest, which you could have easily researched yourself.

?

frenat

  • 3752
  • +0/-2
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #699 on: July 01, 2020, 11:11:21 AM »

Apollo suits had multiple layers of which the pressure suit was one of the closest to the skin. Your pic CLAIMS that a pressurized suit should have a rigid balloon-like appearance but none of the pics shown show that. Engineers aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are. They can design pressure suits that don't balloon out and allow maneuverability. Just because the source you copied this from (without attribution) doesn't understand this doesn't mean nobody does.

The LEM consisted of an upper pressurized ascent unit whose function was to pilot the whole unit down to the moon using the large rocket motor in the lower unpressurized descent unit. To escape from the Moon, the upper ascent stage would then blast free from the lower part and ferry the Moon-walkers back to orbit to link with the command module. This ugly insect consisted of jutting angles and flat planes. Any first year structural engineering student would know enough to design a pressure vessel as a sphere, but the moron who designed the LEM didn't seem to know this.
If you're keeping an external pressure out then you'd want a spherical pressure vessel but it is quite different keeping a partial pressure IN. Any first year structural engineering student would know that.

So the NASA apologists can't claim that the LEM was not pressurized, we have this statement about the Apollo 11 LEM; "They worked their way to the ladder and squeezed into their "flight deck," and sealed and pressurized their cabin." On page 160, of The Illustrated Encyclopedia of SPACE TECHNOLOGY there is a cut away drawing of the LEM. It has been drawn to scale and from that I determined that there was at least one large flat panel with dimensions of 3 feet across and 4 feet high. Another section of the drawing shows that the ribs are on 6 inch centers. I assume this section to be typical and that the rest of the LEM was ribbed the same way.

Aldrin speaks of the LEM's ribs thusly, "...and there were ominous corrosion cracks in the LM's paper-thin aluminum ribs." 14 A tissue paper thought here raises its thin head. Since the support ribs of vehicles, vessels and structures are always much thicker than their covering, you can imagine what the hull thickness must have been.

Continuing with the dissection at hand, I shall assume that the designers correctly put the ribs across the shortest span. The LEM was pressurized in space to 5.2 pounds. That's the minimal pressure needed to sustain life on a long term basis. Such being the case, and since
there are 144 square inches to each square foot, the hull was under a load of 750 pounds per square foot. Compare this with 30 pounds per square foot allowed, and designed for on the floor of your home, or with the 200 lb/sq ft loading of commercial warehouses.

This simply means that each rib (6 inches on center) had to carry 1100 pounds. In structural engineering, loading is translated into a concept called the Maximum Bending Moment (MBM) which is measured in inch pounds. For a beam (rib) supported on both ends
and carrying a load the formula is W x L / 8, where W is the load in pounds and L is the span in inches. Therefore the Maximum Bending Moment for each rib is 1100 x 36 / 8 or 4,950-inch pounds.

The restraining moment needed to support this load is found by determining a thing called the Section Modulus (SM). This is found by dividing the MBM by the working tensile strength of the material involved. I don't know which particular aluminum alloy was used,
nor do I figure I will live long enough for NASA to answer my letters, but since all aluminum alloys have less strength than steel, I shall pretend that the paper-thin ribs he (Aldrin) spoke of were made of common steel which has a working tensile strength of
20,000 pounds per inch square.

The Section Modulus (SM) needed to hold this load is found by dividing the MBM by the tensile. Then SM = MBM / 20,000 or 4,950 divided by 20,000 which equals .2475. The proper size rib to do that particular job is 2 x 2 x 1/4 inch steel angle iron which has an SM of .25. Would you call a chunk of metal that is 1/4 inch thick paper-thin? Neither would Aldrin! Obviously, whatever ribs he was writing about would never, ever, hold the internal pressure necessary to keep men alive and breathing in space.

So a non-engineer makes some comment or likely exaggeration and that means what exactly?

http://www.nordenretireesclub.org/level2/album_images/images/museum_2011/Grumman%20LTA-1,%201st%20functional%20Lunar%20Module.jpg

Doesn't look paper thin to me.

?

frenat

  • 3752
  • +0/-2
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #700 on: July 01, 2020, 11:12:03 AM »
The LEM consisted of an upper pressurized ascent unit whose function was...

You have a point to this, or just going to keep posting random garbage from conspiracy books and sites?

"I don't understand how space suits work" isn't a valid argument.  Not from the guy who made it, and certainly not because you copied it.
he'll keep posting random garbage. That's what he does. His only skill is the gish gallop.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #701 on: July 01, 2020, 02:37:58 PM »
Just a few words now to put the icing on this particular "Gotcha".
You mean to further distract the fact you are completely unable to defend any of your claims?
That rather than even attempt to defend your lies regarding Challenger you still spam the thread with garbage?
Where you just spout a bunch of baseless claims with no understanding at all?
If you want anyone at all to take you seriously, you would need to provide a reference from NASA or the like, rather than some crackpot trying to deny the moon landings.

Now again, care to provide evidence for your challenger disaster lies, or admit they are just lies?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • +2/-2
  • I am car!
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #702 on: July 01, 2020, 03:30:34 PM »
UPDATED: Just to keep a running recap tally and fill in some gaps so future humans don't have to go back and wade through all of cikljamas' conspiratorial flotsam:

- Challenger astronauts did not perish and are alive and well today - DEBUNKED, over and over, and over again
- Mice in space - DEBUNKED
- Lemmings on Mars - DEBUNKED
- Missing lunar rover tire tracks - DEBUNKED
- Claiming ’NASA’ is Hebrew for “to be deceived"…. - DEBUNKED
- Secret NASA Mars landscape in Canada - DEBUNKED
- Ring Laser Gyroscope doesn’t show earth rotation - DEBUNKED
- Claiming the State of Liberty is actually Apollo aka Lucifer aka Demonic Masonic Lying Lightbearer - DEBUNKED
- Not properly citing sources - CONSTANT
- Copious amounts of plagiarism - CONSTANT
- Cherry picking citations - CONSTANT
- Misrepresenting/misinterpreting sources - CONSTANT
- Not understanding the basics of a frame of reference - CONSTANT
- Grotesque and childish use of font size and color - CONSTANT
- Presenting images and claiming they are genuine and/or from NASA, when they are not - CONSTANT
- Presenting videos and claiming they are genuine and/or from NASA, when they are not - CONSTANT
- Antivaxxer - CONSTANT
- Conspiracy Theorist through and through - CONSTANT
- Repeating the same copy & paste walls of text over and over again even though they are debunked - CONSTANT
- Contacting and threatening a Professor - EGREGIOUS, SELFISH, and UNWARRANTED
- "I don't understand how space suits work therefore they don't work - DEBUNKED
- Truth seeker - NEVER
[/quote]

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #703 on: July 02, 2020, 06:48:37 AM »
As far back as 1969 various authors on space have come to the realization that NASA
was really in showbiz. For example: "The final accolade, proof that they would be showbiz
legends as well as nerveless technicians, was an exclusive contract for Life magazine for
their "personal stories."

"By the time Michael Collins entered NASA in April 1962 (as part of the second batch
of astronauts) NASA had already instituted a policy wherein each candidate had to attend, in
essence, a charm school before acceptance. Collins explains, "At any rate, like would-be
radio announcers, we read selected passages aloud, and these were critiqued at great length...
"


I may be just a bit cynical, but doesn't it sound more like preparation for a space opera than real exploration or adventure?

From the Mercury Program right through the Apollo hustle, we were led to believe that
such men with the "Right Stuff couldn't and wouldn't ever tell a lie. Some were graduates of
the top flight military academies including West Point and most everyone else was an officer
and gentleman by Act of Congress. They would rather die than lie. This we were told. This
we believed!

However, as one small counter illustration straight from the horse's mouth we have Buzz
Aldrin writing about his matrimonial problems. He states how he manfully used his military
academy honesty to resolve the situation caused by his extra-marital affairs. He writes, "And
what did I do, I lied.
"

Harry Hurt writes, "Although Project Apollo was one of the most extensively documented undertakings in human history, many of the earth's five billion inhabitants still refuse to believe that twelve astronauts really did set foot on the Moon. Exactly how many people cling to this preposterous heresy is unknown because there has never been a world wide opinion poll on the subject. But just as the Flat Earth society in London continue to dispute evidence that the world is round, untold numbers of serious and not-so-serious disbelievers continue to insist that man's first lunar landings were actually a series of government sponsored Hollywood hoaxes."

I wonder why he used the word "heresy". Is NASA's dogma now a part of a religion?

If so, I haven't yet heard about it. Does doubting a NASA (read CIA) pronouncement become heresy? Is it punishable by excommunication or by roasting? Mr. Hurt seems hurt by this "preposterous heresy" on a worldwide basis. Outside the fact that NASA showed him the same pictures we have examined here, he did appear to have inside information, not available to the rest of us. Although he had the inside track, he apparently never once questioned NASA about a single word or picture. Because of his lack of critical analysis it became my chore to question the whole production. It's not a pleasant or easy task. It may even prove to be lethal.

It is well known that some actors, even some who have spent decades treading the boards,
are susceptible to stage fright. They become unglued just before the show starts. Most
professionals, however, have the ability to reach deep inside themselves and take up a fast
hitch on the stomach butterflies, and when the curtain rises, hit the stage running. Many
amateurs quit performing because of stage fright. Why is it that, without a single exception,
the Apollo program astronauts are extremely adverse to public speaking and appearances?

They were much more so than other groups of such prominent men.

Many years ago Buzz Aldrin was being interviewed at a banquet in Lancaster, California. He writes, "The first question Roy Neal asked was, "Now that almost two years have gone by, why not tell us how it really felt to be on the moon?"

Buzz explains in his book, "If any one question was anathema to me, that was it. Roy, I
suppose felt he had no choice. Yet it has always been almost impossible for me to answer
with any sort of decent response. My throat went dry and I got dizzy."


He then adds that a little while later he bolted from the room, shaking uncontrollably,
and then began to cry. He never tells us why. I have heard that he had a similar reaction at
Edwards Air Force Base. This is definitely no longer a man with "The Right Stuff."
I am not a psychobabbler, but I've been on this planet long enough to recognize a man
who has a terribly troubled conscience. I doubt if infidelity or any other such common
problem caused it. To the contrary it strikes me as suffering from trying to live out the Big
Lie
.

The only possible question left is whether this ghost is known to him, or whether it lies
deeply buried in his sub-conscience placed there by hypnosis and drugs. If the ghost was
generated by governmental psycho-babblers using brainwashing techniques, he should be
more pitied than censored. Maybe time will tell which circumstances apply.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

JJA

  • 6873
  • +2/-6
  • Math is math!
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #704 on: July 02, 2020, 07:05:12 AM »
As far back as 1969 various authors on space have come to the realization that

...they are crackpot morons who have nothing better to do than slander and attack people.

And then there are those that read them.

What must it be like to look out at the world, and just feel hate and paranoia at all humankind's great accomplishments.  What a tiny mind.  Does anything get you pleasure, other than spreading lies and hate?  How very sad.

*

Smoke Machine

  • 3975
  • +19/-20
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #705 on: July 02, 2020, 10:16:02 AM »
Cikljamas, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong were both chosen for the Apollo 11 program because of their experience as pilots in the military. One was in the US Air force, and the other a US Navy pilot. They both fought in the Korean war.

They were chosen to pilot a rocket ship to the moon and to return to earth. They were the most obvious choice for the mission, because of their backgrounds. The program needed men who followed orders, were problem solvers with technical expertise, and who were fit for the task.

They were not actors. They may have been given tips on public relations, but never acting.

I feel sorry for you cikljamas, and I want to try and understand your point of view on this matter. I really do.

Out of curiosity, can you tell us which town in Europe you live in? I think this may help explain a few things. Maybe tell a few things about yourself?
For the overall shape of Earth to be flat, requires billions of people and billions of pieces of information about Earth to be wrong. Do the maths.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #706 on: July 02, 2020, 02:40:25 PM »
As far back as 1969 various authors on space have come to the realization that NASA
was really in showbiz.
You mean they just lied and asserted NASA was, with no actual evidence to support their wild claims.

Just like you come here, and lie, saying the crew of Challenger are all still alive.
Yet what proof do you offer of that?
Effectively nothing.

*

Smoke Machine

  • 3975
  • +19/-20
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #707 on: July 02, 2020, 08:37:45 PM »
Cikljamas, it's time for you to face the truth.

Let's start with challenger astronaut, Michael J Smith.

When he was killed in the challenger disaster, he left behind his wife Jane, and three children - Scott, Alison, and Erin. All who are potentially still alive today, for you to harass like a right royal dick.

Michael J Smith flew his first plane at age 16. All he wanted to be was a pilot. He subsequently became  a highly decorated Naval pilot from his time in the Vietnam war. He received the Navy distinguished Flying Cross, the Vietnamese Cross of gallantry with silver star, and thirteen strike flight air medals. He jumped in front of someone to take a bullet. Cikljamas, I believe he would have had a Naval funeral.

Cikljamas, you need to prove your Professor Michael Smith had a wife named Jane, and had three children named, Scott, Allison, and Erin, has a war injury from a bullet, and that the professor jumped from a highly decorated naval career of being a pilot, and then NASA pilot - his passion, to never being a pilot again and being a professor of behavioural science.

Your hypothesis is ludicrous. You can't prove any of this because your hypothesis is pure fantasy. They are two separate people with two separate lives and families.

Are you satisfied?
« Last Edit: July 02, 2020, 08:39:39 PM by Smoke Machine »
For the overall shape of Earth to be flat, requires billions of people and billions of pieces of information about Earth to be wrong. Do the maths.

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #708 on: July 03, 2020, 05:43:25 AM »
LUNAR ROVER HOAX :

Speaking at a press conference just weeks after returning to Earth, Armstrong said: “We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface, or on the daylight side of Moon without looking through the optics.

“I don’t recall, during the period of time that we were photographing, what stars we could see.”

Before Collins added: “I don’t remember seeing any.”



However, Michael Collins wrote on page 221 of "Carrying the Fire" :

"My God, 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."

« Last Edit: July 03, 2020, 05:52:45 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

JJA

  • 6873
  • +2/-6
  • Math is math!
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #709 on: July 03, 2020, 12:16:31 PM »
LUNAR ROVER HOAX :

Speaking at a press conference just weeks after returning to Earth, Armstrong said: “We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface, or on the daylight side of Moon without looking through the optics.

“I don’t recall, during the period of time that we were photographing, what stars we could see.”

Before Collins added: “I don’t remember seeing any.”



However, Michael Collins wrote on page 221 of "Carrying the Fire" :

"My God, 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."

You really can't read.

Armstrong said you can't see stars on the moon in the LUNAR DAYTIME because it's too bright.

Michael Collins was talking about seeing them from the capsule, in space.

That literally took me 30 seconds to Google and figure out, like all your conspiracy "theories" you just find on the internet and post.

Gosh you're dumb.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • +2/-2
  • I am car!
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #710 on: July 03, 2020, 12:41:40 PM »
LUNAR ROVER HOAX :

Who is this guy? Vsevolod Yakubovich, Russian special effects 'operator' for a handful of crappy iron curtain 70's films. And why is it that all the Apollo conspiracists feel the need to speed up the original footage? Disingenuous at best.

Speaking at a press conference just weeks after returning to Earth, Armstrong said: “We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface, or on the daylight side of Moon without looking through the optics.

“I don’t recall, during the period of time that we were photographing, what stars we could see.”

Before Collins added: “I don’t remember seeing any.”

You left out the second part of Armstrong's response deliberately (see bold). Why?

REPORTER: I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?

ALDRIN:   The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. The footprint would penetrate a half an inch or sometimes only a quarter of an inch and gave a very firm response. In other regions near the edges of these craters we could find that the foot would sink down maybe 2, 3, possibly 4 inches and in the slope, of course, the varlous edges of the footprint might go up to 6 or 7 inches. In compacting this material it would tend to produce a slight sideways motion as it was compacted on the material underneath it. So we feel that you cannot always tell by looking at the surface what the exact resistance will be as your foot sinks into a point of firm contact. So one must be quite cautious in moving around in this rough surface.

ARMSTRONG:   We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

ALDRIN:   I don't remember seeing any. (This was actually said by Mike Collins. See http://archive.org/details/VJSC_1425Q_Apollo11_F.A.C.T.S._PartQ.wmv at counter 44:42)


However, Michael Collins wrote on page 221 of "Carrying the Fire" :

"My God, 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."

He was referring to his EVA from Gemini, not Apollo. As in from a capsule, not from the Lunar surface:

"Approaching orbital dusk on the afternoon of 19 July, Collins opened the hatch above his head and poked himself into space for EVA-1. Known as a “Stand-Up EVA,” he set up a general-purpose camera to examine ultraviolet radiation emissions from distant stars, specifically from the southern part of the Milky Way galaxy. In total, he acquired 32 images. “The stars are everywhere,” Collins later wrote, “above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to the obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady.” Passing into orbital nighttime, he could see little of Earth, save for the blue-gray tint of water, cloud, and land."

I think somewhere Collins mentions seeing stars during Apollo. Again, he was in the capsule, not down on the hyper bright Lunar surface.

Get you facts straight.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2020, 12:47:00 PM by Stash »

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #711 on: July 03, 2020, 02:07:02 PM »
LUNAR ROVER HOAX :

Speaking at a press conference just weeks after returning to Earth, Armstrong said: “We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface, or on the daylight side of Moon without looking through the optics.

“I don’t recall, during the period of time that we were photographing, what stars we could see.”

Before Collins added: “I don’t remember seeing any.”



However, Michael Collins wrote on page 221 of "Carrying the Fire" :

"My God, 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."

You really can't read.

Armstrong said you can't see stars on the moon in the LUNAR DAYTIME because it's too bright.

Michael Collins was talking about seeing them from the capsule, in space.

That literally took me 30 seconds to Google and figure out, like all your conspiracy "theories" you just find on the internet and post.

Gosh you're dumb.

I am dumb? Look who is talking...lol
Michael Collins was talking about seeing them from the capsule, in space. EXACTLY!!!
Collins added: “I don’t remember seeing any.”

However, the same guy Michael Collins wrote on page 221 of "Carrying the Fire" :

"My God, 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."

Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys is the autobiography of the Gemini 10 and Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins.
The second quote above is in relation to the Gemini 10 mission.

So, the same guy who didn't see any star from the capsule (Apollo 11), in Earth's orbit (Gemini 10) all of a sudden, saw the stars everywhere : above him on all sides, even below him, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars were bright and steady, it was the best view of the universe that a human (non other than Michael Collins, the same guy who didn't see any star from the capsule in Moon's orbit) ever had.

Gosh, you are so smart...lol
« Last Edit: July 03, 2020, 02:09:11 PM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

frenat

  • 3752
  • +0/-2
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #712 on: July 03, 2020, 02:34:24 PM »
LUNAR ROVER HOAX :

Speaking at a press conference just weeks after returning to Earth, Armstrong said: “We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface, or on the daylight side of Moon without looking through the optics.

“I don’t recall, during the period of time that we were photographing, what stars we could see.”

Before Collins added: “I don’t remember seeing any.”



However, Michael Collins wrote on page 221 of "Carrying the Fire" :

"My God, 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."

You really can't read.

Armstrong said you can't see stars on the moon in the LUNAR DAYTIME because it's too bright.

Michael Collins was talking about seeing them from the capsule, in space.

That literally took me 30 seconds to Google and figure out, like all your conspiracy "theories" you just find on the internet and post.

Gosh you're dumb.

I am dumb? Look who is talking...lol
Michael Collins was talking about seeing them from the capsule, in space. EXACTLY!!!
Collins added: “I don’t remember seeing any.”

However, the same guy Michael Collins wrote on page 221 of "Carrying the Fire" :

"My God, 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."

Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys is the autobiography of the Gemini 10 and Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins.
The second quote above is in relation to the Gemini 10 mission.

So, the same guy who didn't see any star from the capsule (Apollo 11), in Earth's orbit (Gemini 10) all of a sudden, saw the stars everywhere : above him on all sides, even below him, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars were bright and steady, it was the best view of the universe that a human (non other than Michael Collins, the same guy who didn't see any star from the capsule in Moon's orbit) ever had.

Gosh, you are so smart...lol
And you missed the point. Read Stash's post and maybe you'll learn something (though I doubt it). They were specifically asked if they could see stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare, referring to a experiment performed on the trip. He does NOT say he couldn't see stars any other time.

*

JJA

  • 6873
  • +2/-6
  • Math is math!
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #713 on: July 03, 2020, 02:45:34 PM »
LUNAR ROVER HOAX :

Speaking at a press conference just weeks after returning to Earth, Armstrong said: “We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface, or on the daylight side of Moon without looking through the optics.

“I don’t recall, during the period of time that we were photographing, what stars we could see.”

Before Collins added: “I don’t remember seeing any.”



However, Michael Collins wrote on page 221 of "Carrying the Fire" :

"My God, 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."

You really can't read.

Armstrong said you can't see stars on the moon in the LUNAR DAYTIME because it's too bright.

Michael Collins was talking about seeing them from the capsule, in space.

That literally took me 30 seconds to Google and figure out, like all your conspiracy "theories" you just find on the internet and post.

Gosh you're dumb.

I am dumb? Look who is talking...lol
Michael Collins was talking about seeing them from the capsule, in space. EXACTLY!!!
Collins added: “I don’t remember seeing any.”

Are you dumb?  Yes, yes you are.

Once again you fail reading comprehension.

The quote “I don’t remember seeing any.” was from the discussion about being on the moon.  Later, the quotes are from space.

First half of your post is talking about being on the moon, the second half is talking about being in a capsule.  You're getting the quotes all mixed up, almost as if you're just copy-pasting stuff you don't read or understand.

Seriously, think before you press ctrl-c next time.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • +2/-2
  • I am car!
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #714 on: July 03, 2020, 02:48:18 PM »

And you missed the point. Read Stash's post and maybe you'll learn something (though I doubt it). They were specifically asked if they could see stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare, referring to a experiment performed on the trip. He does NOT say he couldn't see stars any other time.

cikljamas, you deliberately omitted the second sentence in Armstrong's response and skipped straight to Collins' response. Why did you do that?

*

Smoke Machine

  • 3975
  • +19/-20
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #715 on: July 03, 2020, 09:02:19 PM »
Collins couldn't see stars at a particular moment during the Apollo mission due to solar glare, but could see stars at other times. I believe he went around the moon 12 times whilst in lunar orbit, waiting to reunite with Armstrong and Aldrin. His view of the stars was not affected by solar glare for a lot of that time.

Be careful not to fall into the trap of taking astronaut's words out of context, cikljamas, to fit a moon landing conspiracy narrative. I suppose you thought this was evidence Collins had slipped up and not remembered his rehearsed lines when he said he didn't see any stars, ay? Sorry, pal, but not the case.

You're a truth seeker, remember?

Now, back to that professor you sent an email to.....
For the overall shape of Earth to be flat, requires billions of people and billions of pieces of information about Earth to be wrong. Do the maths.

?

Unconvinced

  • 4030
  • +48/-47
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #716 on: July 03, 2020, 10:27:03 PM »
cikljamas, you deliberately omitted the second sentence in Armstrong's response and skipped straight to Collins' response. Why did you do that?

Worse.  The key words have been taken out mid sentence:

ARMSTRONG:   
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics.
I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

CONSPIRACY THEORIST EPIC LIES VERSION: 
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics.
I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing what stars we could see.

Absolutely shameless.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2020, 10:33:52 PM by Unconvinced »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • +2/-2
  • I am car!
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #717 on: July 03, 2020, 11:44:07 PM »
cikljamas, you deliberately omitted the second sentence in Armstrong's response and skipped straight to Collins' response. Why did you do that?

Worse.  The key words have been taken out mid sentence:

ARMSTRONG:   
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics.
I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

CONSPIRACY THEORIST EPIC LIES VERSION: 
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics.
I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing what stars we could see.

Absolutely shameless.

Yep, even worse and more shameless than I had even initially thought.

Why lie cikljamas, why?

*

cikljamas

  • 2466
  • +1/-2
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #718 on: July 04, 2020, 02:54:15 AM »
cikljamas, you deliberately omitted the second sentence in Armstrong's response and skipped straight to Collins' response. Why did you do that?

Worse.  The key words have been taken out mid sentence:

ARMSTRONG:   
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics.
I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

CONSPIRACY THEORIST EPIC LIES VERSION: 
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics.
I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing what stars we could see.

Absolutely shameless.

Worse.  The key words haven't been pointed out:

ARMSTRONG:   
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics.
I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

CONSPIRACY THEORIST EPIC LIES VERSION: 
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics.
I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing what stars we could see.

Absolutely shameless.

"No stars memo problem" is elaborated in the first part of the following series of videos, as well as in the last few minutes of the third part, and once again, in the first half of the fourth part of this series, so feel free to watch them all, and at the end of the day everything will be crystal clear to you  :

APOLLO HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 1 :
APOLLO HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 2 :
APOLLO HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 3 :
APOLLO HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 4 :
APOLLO HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 5 :

And after all these mutually contradicting statements of various "astronauts" and even interesting examples of self-contradictions and sheer stupidities, the best part comes to those who are patient :

Apollo Hoax - Smoking Gun on Steroids :
« Last Edit: July 04, 2020, 02:56:13 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« Reply #719 on: July 04, 2020, 02:55:29 AM »
The (intellectual) dishonesty is mind-boggling.

Cikljamas, you are full of shit. And the worst part is you know it, and choose to continue.