Airlocks in the supposed LM's.

  • 405 Replies
  • 11887 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: June 17, 2021, 05:07:45 AM »
Apparently there were no airlocks in the supposed LM's on the moon.
I am told they didn't need them.

I looked at these questions and answers.


Take the following question from Gianni Berati in Italy, who writes: "I have read that [Apollo 11 astronauts] Armstrong and Aldrin, after their extravehicular activities on the moon, had to throw off everything superfluous onto the lunar surface, even the lunar suits, in order to get the lunar module (LM) lighter. Is that true? How could they do that without a depressurized LM cabin?"

Answer: Berati is correct—the LM cabin did not have a safe area where unclad astronauts could seek refuge from the vacuum when they opened the hatch. Before going outside, they had to first put on spacesuits, then depressurize the entire landing craft. After a moonwalk they reversed the process, only taking off their suits when the LM pressure had been brought back up to normal.

The next generation of moon lander will rectify this, adding an airlock as a "mud room" where astronauts can enter and exit while others lounge unprotected inside the craft.

Question:
So how did the Apollo astronauts manage to throw their spacesuits overboard?



For an answer, the good folks at NASA's history office directed me to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, which explains in detail the unceremonious discarding of equipment onto the lunar surface. It turns out Berati is only partly right. The lunar explorers did not ditch the suits themselves, but rather the 84-pound Portable Life Support Systems (PLSS). The PLSS units, worn like backpacks, supplied enough air for four hours on the surface.

Armstrong, standing inside the LM in his space suit, opened two valves to bring the cabin pressure down to zero, then opened the hatch to the outside. The astronauts took the boxy PLSS packages, which they'd detached from their suits, and pitched them out the door with gloved hands (later lunar explorers found it more effective to use their feet).

This is the beauty of a story. You can make anything up to play make believe and this stuff is no exception, in my honest opinion.







*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 7109
  • Flatness as in the shape of a water droplet.
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2021, 06:36:38 AM »
They didn't as their space suits are in museums on Earth.
Rabinoz RIP

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2021, 06:53:16 AM »
So someone thought they found a problem with what we are told happened.  But checking with the actual mission documents from the time shows that it was based on incorrect information and there was no problem after all.


This is the beauty of a story. You can make anything up to play make believe and this stuff is no exception, in my honest opinion.

Seems NASA (and all their contractors) thought of everything in advance.  They did all the calculations, designed the spacecraft, wrote all the procedures, the manuals, the training documents, the computer code, etc. for this fake so well that no one has ever found a real problem with any of it in 50 years.

Unlike your make-believe which is very obviously nonsense.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2021, 07:50:57 AM by Unconvinced »

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2021, 07:44:19 AM »
What exactly makes you believe that this story is made up? Do you have any other evidence except your ignorance? Which by definition is no evidence at all. And more important - how this particular "problem" proves any of your claims?

*

Mikey T.

  • 2882
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2021, 09:42:39 AM »
Explained a dozen times over, the backpacks were discarded, not the suits.  But you were told this and when it didn't agree with your fantasy or rather FE programming, you claimed that only the part your indoctrination disagrees with was a lie.  Amazing how the brainwashed mind can make such dishonest leaps. 

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2021, 01:51:38 PM »
Yes, that is the beauty of FE, even when there is no problem, you can still pretend there is.

Can you show any actual problem? No.
All you can do is make believe and pretend that they needed an airlock.

If instead of making up stories to invent problems, you just honestly analysed it, you would realise there was no need for an airlock at all.
Then when the obvious is pointed out to you, you just claim people are making things up to fit to pretend your question wasn't completely baseless.


What will your next question be? Why don't airlocks have airlocks?

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2021, 02:24:14 PM »
Better question is what is the massive tilt.
Should be an easy one to solve.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2021, 09:04:02 PM »
"We didn't have any problems," Aldrin recalled during a technical debriefing. "I didn't notice you (Neil) had any difficulty giving the packages the heave-ho. I think each PLSS bounced once on the porch before it went down." (The "porch" was a lip of the LM jutting out just outside the hatch.)

Seismic sensors left on the surface by the astronauts even recorded the thumps of the gear hitting the moon. As Mission Control radioed to the two explorers: "We observed your equipment jettison on the TV, and the passive seismic experiment recorded shocks when each PLSS hit the surface" Armstrong responded, "You can't get away with anything anymore, can you?"

 ::)

When you can smell it, you can smell it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2021, 09:20:55 PM »
Sooo, anyway, back to my questions and points.

They take off their back packs after depressurising the LM and it suddenly made their suits fine and dandy with no so called cooling system left running for that particular time.
They just sat in the open LM with their suit and helmets on whilst Neil threw out the back packs and they were fine in that apparent vacuum.

Does nobody see any issue with this? Of course not because I'm only dealing with the usual suspects.

Let's try and make it a bit clearer before I move on.

If anyone has ever broken off a nib of a thermos flask, you know what happens. A quick split second whoosh and the thermos cavity is refilled with air pressure. Anyone tried it apart from the usual suspects who obviously won't have or theirs didn't act like that?

I know I know...but this is a vacuum in a spacecraft . it's the opposite of down here on Earth, I can hear some of the usual suspects reason.

That's the entire point.
If they took their back packs off then all the air in their suits gets lost to the supposed vacuum because there's absolutely no resistance to arrest it.

So they spend the amount of time it takes to get those back packs off and depressurise the cabin and rid the cabin of those bulky back packs.

It's not a case of holding your breath or anything in this scenario we've been given.


Go and observe evacuation chambers on good old Earth and see what happens to stuff that's depressurised.

I'd love to see an answer for how they got by this.

Also remember there's now no supposed coolant running around their suits.
But it was only for a few minutes...right?

Like I said. It's not like holding your breath in that scenario we're given. It's not about "ahhhh it's only a few minutes against that vacuum...like they said, they didn't have any problems."

They sure didn't...but they would have if they were really in that environment.
Luckily for them it was just a cheap stunt on a movie set.


All those people with real and genuine thinking minds, pay attention to all this and you'll see it for what it was, which was the opposite of real.


I have more queries/questions.

*

faded mike

  • 2243
  • new world tattoo drill scar + I'm thinkin flat
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2021, 09:28:01 PM »
So someone thought they found a problem with what we are told happened.  But checking with the actual mission documents from the time shows that it was based on incorrect information and there was no problem after all.


This is the beauty of a story. You can make anything up to play make believe and this stuff is no exception, in my honest opinion.

Seems NASA (and all their contractors) thought of everything in advance.  They did all the calculations, designed the spacecraft, wrote all the procedures, the manuals, the training documents, the computer code, etc. for this fake so well that no one has ever found a real problem with any of it in 50 years.

Unlike your make-believe which is very obviously nonsense.
I heard the space suited astronot with backpack would not fit into the doorway. From a suppressed inventions book.
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

*

faded mike

  • 2243
  • new world tattoo drill scar + I'm thinkin flat
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2021, 09:57:52 PM »
To be fair, I possibly rememberred it incorrectly but a good possible point of enquiry.
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

*

faded mike

  • 2243
  • new world tattoo drill scar + I'm thinkin flat
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2021, 10:10:52 PM »
"With the backpacks on, the astronauts would need about 35 inches of clearance to crawl through the 30-inch hatch on the LEM (lunar [excursion] module) in the manner claimed by NASA. Awful tight fit! "

- from section - "Never a Straight Answer, A book review of "NASA Mooned America"", from th book "Supressed Inventions and Other Discoveries" by Johnathan Eisen.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2021, 10:14:42 PM by faded mike »
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

*

Gumwars

  • 783
  • A poke in your eye good sir...
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2021, 10:54:12 PM »
Scepti, because you enjoy finding controversy where none exists, did it ever cross your mind that the LM had a life support system too?  That the crew members could easily plug their suits into the LM, depressurize the cabin, doff the two PLSS units, and then pressurize the cabin once that operation was over? (source: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090015393/downloads/20090015393.pdf)

You'll note on page 4 of that presentation that the LM ECS has a port for recharging the PLSS and another that plugs directly into the spacesuit.  The LM ECS had the capability to interface directly with the suits or provide environmental control to the entire cabin. 
Quote from: Carl Sagan
We should endeavor to always keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.

*

Gumwars

  • 783
  • A poke in your eye good sir...
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #13 on: June 17, 2021, 11:06:06 PM »
"With the backpacks on, the astronauts would need about 35 inches of clearance to crawl through the 30-inch hatch on the LEM (lunar [excursion] module) in the manner claimed by NASA. Awful tight fit! "

- from section - "Never a Straight Answer, A book review of "NASA Mooned America"", from th book "Supressed Inventions and Other Discoveries" by Johnathan Eisen.

The book you are actually quoting is called Moongate and was written by William Brian II.  In it, Brian claims the moon has an atmosphere and gravity closer to Earth's, so NASA actually concealed an advanced antigravity propulsion project that powered the Apollo missions. 

Further, the LM forward hatch is actually 32", square.  (source: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf check page 4)

Each astronaut's suit is custom made for each of them, meaning the dimensions would vary slightly from person to person.  I highly doubt the claims of Mr. Eisen (who was quoted by Brian) or Brian.  Making sure the astronauts could get out of the LM would have been a fundamental requirement. 
Quote from: Carl Sagan
We should endeavor to always keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2021, 11:48:42 PM »
Scepti, because you enjoy finding controversy where none exists, did it ever cross your mind that the LM had a life support system too?  That the crew members could easily plug their suits into the LM, depressurize the cabin, doff the two PLSS units, and then pressurize the cabin once that operation was over? (source: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090015393/downloads/20090015393.pdf)

You'll note on page 4 of that presentation that the LM ECS has a port for recharging the PLSS and another that plugs directly into the spacesuit.  The LM ECS had the capability to interface directly with the suits or provide environmental control to the entire cabin.
What am I looking at?
I can't see anywhere where they say anything like you said.
Copy and paste it.


Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2021, 12:10:09 AM »
"With the backpacks on, the astronauts would need about 35 inches of clearance to crawl through the 30-inch hatch on the LEM (lunar [excursion] module) in the manner claimed by NASA. Awful tight fit! "

- from section - "Never a Straight Answer, A book review of "NASA Mooned America"", from th book "Supressed Inventions and Other Discoveries" by Johnathan Eisen.

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/814-wasnt-lunar-module-hatch-too-narrow.html?m=1

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2021, 12:21:55 AM »
Scepti, because you enjoy finding controversy where none exists, ...
What am I looking at?...

Sorry for the diversion, but I just couldn't stand it. In my native language there is a proverb - "Seeking for a calf under the ox". That is exactly what Sceptimatic is looking for.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2021, 01:20:30 AM »
When you can smell it, you can smell it.
We can certainly smell you are just pretending there are problems when you can't actually show any.

Does nobody see any issue with this?
No, because we don't have a paranoid hatred of the RE and science, and thus wont just have an issue with anything that comes from it.

That's the entire point.
If they took their back packs off then all the air in their suits gets lost to the supposed vacuum because there's absolutely no resistance to arrest it.
So your entire point is your standard wilful ignorance of how air works?

Their suit provides that needed "resistance".
Just why should all the air be magically lost?

It's not a case of holding your breath or anything in this scenario we've been given.
That's right, because the suit itself has a limited supply of air inside it, which would give you more, and because the LM itself can provide air.
After all, if the PLSS can only provide air for a few hours, and they were there for a lot more, they would need another source of air.

All those people with real and genuine thinking minds
All the people with real and genuine thinking minds see you are just spouting a bunch of garbage to pretend there is a problem.

Again, you cannot show any actual problems. Instead you can just make crap up and ask questions pretending they cause a massive problem.

You'll note on page 4 of that presentation that the LM ECS has a port for recharging the PLSS and another that plugs directly into the spacesuit.
What am I looking at?
I can't see anywhere where they say anything like you said.
Copy and paste it.
Perhaps you should try looking where he said.
On page 4 there is a simple image showing some key parts of the setup.
It is quite obvious for any honest person to find.

Does this help you:


Notice the part that says "To suit loop", nicely emphasised for you?
That connects from the LM to the suit. This allows the LM to directly provide oxygen to the suit.
So they don't need to hold their breath, or have the PLSS attached.

If you were honest and actually cared about this rather than just wanting to pretend there is a problem, you would look more, and on page 10 find more discussion about the line from the LM to the suit, allowing the LM to provide oxygen directly to the suit.

*

Gumwars

  • 783
  • A poke in your eye good sir...
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2021, 01:21:23 AM »
Sorry for the diversion, but I just couldn't stand it. In my native language there is a proverb - "Seeking for a calf under the ox". That is exactly what Sceptimatic is looking for.

I am definitely writing that one down!
Quote from: Carl Sagan
We should endeavor to always keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2021, 03:18:19 AM »

After all, if the PLSS can only provide air for a few hours, and they were there for a lot more, they would need another source of air.

Does this help you:


Notice the part that says "To suit loop", nicely emphasised for you?
That connects from the LM to the suit. This allows the LM to directly provide oxygen to the suit.
So they don't need to hold their breath, or have the PLSS attached.

If you were honest and actually cared about this rather than just wanting to pretend there is a problem, you would look more, and on page 10 find more discussion about the line from the LM to the suit, allowing the LM to provide oxygen directly to the suit.
And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?


Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?
« Last Edit: June 18, 2021, 03:22:47 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2021, 03:42:59 AM »
And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?


Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?
Again, no actual problem with the LM, just questions to pretend there is a problem.
Do accept that there is no basis to think there is a problem?

Or do you still want to pretend these questions show the missions need to be fake?

If you want to pretend it is all fake, start justifying it rather than just asking questions which anyone who honestly looks into it could easily answer. (especially as you already know that gas can be pressurised, and in your magic fantasy land, there should be no limit to how much it can be, as that limit comes from the actual physical size of the molecules, which you want to pretend instead just magically expand and contract)
If you want to ask such questions, cut out all that "supposedly" garbage and stop pretending it was all fake.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2021, 05:08:38 AM »

And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?


Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?

Now that the "issue" with the life support system is resolved, you jump to another one. How convenient! Better try to educate yourself, may be there is no issue at all. Or stop pretending there is any issue.

Do you have any idea how much oxygen is needed? Do you have any idea to what extent a gaseous oxygen can be pressurised? Reading your "competent" questions one may be led to think you know nothing about it. Please, do dispel these doubts by answering your questions yourself first.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2021, 07:16:44 AM »

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?

On the command module and lunar module obviously.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2882
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2021, 07:47:10 AM »
I'm not sure anyone has explained the difference in consumption need of humans from a pressurized source of oxygen to scepti.  If I knew it off the top of my head I would, but right now I'm on my phone.

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2021, 08:19:02 AM »
I'm not sure anyone has explained the difference in consumption need of humans from a pressurized source of oxygen to scepti.  If I knew it off the top of my head I would, but right now I'm on my phone.

About 800 g of oxygen is needed per person per day to survive   Specific gravity of liquid oxygen is 1.14 g/ cm3 so about one liter of liquid oxygen per person per day. 

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41963
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2021, 09:38:45 AM »
I heard the space suited astronot with backpack would not fit into the doorway. From a suppressed inventions book.
Some of the early mock ups of the lunar module had a round main hatch, but they found out fairly quickly that square backpacks don't fit through round hatches.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Stash

  • 8253
  • I am car!
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2021, 09:39:41 AM »
And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?

Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?

Pretty simple really, you just need to do a little reading and all of your questions will be answered. Here's a good source which I think has been referenced already:

"A scuba diver uses a tank of air in 60 minutes; in Apollo an equivalent amount of oxygen lasted 15 hours. Oxygen was not simply inhaled once and then discarded: the exhaled gas was scrubbed to eliminate its CO2 recycled, and reused.
Like a plumber's dream, the LM's environmental control system nestled in a corner of the ascent stage. Those hoses provided pure oxygen to two astronauts at a pressure one-third that of normal atmosphere, and at a comfortable temperature. The unit recirculated the gas, scrubbed out CO2 and moisture exhaled, and replenished oxygen as it was used up."

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-4-3.html

Not so much of a mystery.
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2021, 10:48:25 AM »
And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?

Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?

Pretty simple really, you just need to do a little reading and all of your questions will be answered. Here's a good source which I think has been referenced already:

"A scuba diver uses a tank of air in 60 minutes; in Apollo an equivalent amount of oxygen lasted 15 hours. Oxygen was not simply inhaled once and then discarded: the exhaled gas was scrubbed to eliminate its CO2 recycled, and reused.
Like a plumber's dream, the LM's environmental control system nestled in a corner of the ascent stage. Those hoses provided pure oxygen to two astronauts at a pressure one-third that of normal atmosphere, and at a comfortable temperature. The unit recirculated the gas, scrubbed out CO2 and moisture exhaled, and replenished oxygen as it was used up."

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-4-3.html

Not so much of a mystery.

Scuba gear also has to match the pressure at whatever depth you are diving, so you get through a tank pretty quick.

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2021, 11:42:12 PM »

After all, if the PLSS can only provide air for a few hours, and they were there for a lot more, they would need another source of air.

Does this help you:


Notice the part that says "To suit loop", nicely emphasised for you?
That connects from the LM to the suit. This allows the LM to directly provide oxygen to the suit.
So they don't need to hold their breath, or have the PLSS attached.

If you were honest and actually cared about this rather than just wanting to pretend there is a problem, you would look more, and on page 10 find more discussion about the line from the LM to the suit, allowing the LM to provide oxygen directly to the suit.
And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?


Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?

If only you devoted the same degree of scrutiny to your own beliefs as you do to the Apollo landings.

How about you spend some time probing your own belief of your magic molecules or offer some proof about how air molecules magically permeate metals and how pressurised containers stay pressurised under your system.
That would be time well spent.

It’s funny how you pour over the details of things like the Apollo mission and give yourself a totally free ride. Typical  flat earth believer demanding answers about this that and everything while unwilling and unable to supply any supporting information on any aspect of their own beliefs.

How about some balance Sceptimatic, how about being sceptical about what you believe?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2021, 12:12:30 AM »

Again, no actual problem with the LM, just questions to pretend there is a problem.
Do accept that there is no basis to think there is a problem?
I believe there's many many problems.
I absolutely know there will be answers.....but....it's about how those answers marry up as the questions go on.

Quote from: JackBlack
Or do you still want to pretend these questions show the missions need to be fake?
It's not a case of pretending. It's a case of using the questions as a sceptical set of queries to gain an insight.
You're under no obligation to answer the questions but I will certainly be adding them in and going through my own process regardless.
This is why I put this topic up.

Quote from: JackBlack
If you want to pretend it is all fake, start justifying it rather than just asking questions which anyone who honestly looks into it could easily answer. (especially as you already know that gas can be pressurised, and in your magic fantasy land, there should be no limit to how much it can be, as that limit comes from the actual physical size of the molecules, which you want to pretend instead just magically expand and contract)
Justifying it is exactly what I'm going to do. Not for you, for me. Not for you, for those who have the ability to want to think on it.


And as far as molecular expansion just magically expanding and contracting. You still took no notice after all this time.
If you want to come back to it and understand it you need to go to the topic on it.
This one is for the  supposed LM on a supposed moon.


Quote from: JackBlack

If you want to ask such questions, cut out all that "supposedly" garbage and stop pretending it was all fake.
No.
I'll use stuff like, supposedly because I don't accept the storyline and will be throwing questions up for my own and other people's mindsets who also question the supposed moon stuff.