Youtube comments of MRA (@yassassin6425).
-
52
-
34
-
18
-
16
-
@hairylittlewombat
Have you? So you, like the entire field of aerospace engineering worldwide, are fully familiar with the schematics and the technical specifications of the lunar module - and despite forensic scrutiny of every nut, bolt, switch, rivet, wire, circuit, and finding no anomalies or irregularities whatsoever, you however are "not convinced". Perhaps you should point out what they've been missing for over half a century? - and don't forget to mention that the University of You Tube sent you. Alternatively, is it just possible, that there are people on the planet that have greater expertise, knowledge and insight than a random, non-achieving gullible, Dunning Kruger afflicted conspiracy believer on the comments section of a video entertainment platform?
Just a thought.
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
"It just doesn’t make sense to me that we haven’t gone back ONCE?!?"
They did though - on five more occasions. It would have been nine or more, had it not been for the aborted Apollo 13 landing and the premature cancellation of the Apollo Programme and with it Apollo 18, 19 and 20.
"It doesn’t make sense."
It makes perfect sense when you understand the reasons why the Apollo Programme was cancelled and the emphasis that was placed elsewhere. Project Artemis that will return crewed missions to the surface of the moon was only approved as recently as 2018.
"Also all the evidence could have been planted there via shuttles & robots etc"
Could it? And how have you established this when you clearly know nothing about the science and technology of Apollo? How do you account for the ALSEP packages and in particular, The SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and the LPME? Also, the lunar rovers were designed to be unfolded and deployed by hand. Additionally, there is the third of a ton of moon rock returned within the space of three years which is utterly impossible by robotic means in such a time span. To date, there has been a total of 301 grams of lunar soil returned by robotic missions - the USSR's Luna 16, 20 and 24. Moreover, the Apollo 12 astronauts landed only 600ft from Surveyor 3 and brought the camera back to Earth with them which is now exhibited in the National Air and Space Museum. The astronauts also collected a scoop from the probe's soil mechanics-surface sampler.
11
-
11
-
"It’s impossible to have a vacuum (space), next to a pressurised system (the earths atmosphere) without a physical barrier separating the two. This is a law of physics and cannot be broken (and don’t give me any rubbish about the ‘theory’ of gravity being able to magically side-step the fundamental laws of physics)."
Conspiracy theorists and flat earthers that try to invoke the "laws of physics" whilst selectively ignoring "laws of physics".
Could you account for the decrease in pressure with altitude? Thanks
"If we somehow in someone’s dream did manage to break the above law of physics, how is it possible for a man in a pressurised space suit to remain and look perfectly normal as though standing on earth when he is in a vacuum? The suit would expand like a balloon and he would look like an over inflated Michelin Man. The astronauts look like they are just walking across a park in their Sunday best - no sign of any effects of a pressurised suit fighting against the 100% vacuum of ‘space’."
Because the internal pressure was only 4.3 psi whilst the near vacuum of of the moon's surface is simply the absence of matter. There is nothing to "fight against".
"The only people who believe we went to the moon are those that have never bothered to look beyond what their governments and propaganda arms (TV and news papers, etc), tell them."
Nope, that'll be entire branches of science such as astronomy and geology, related specialisms and cognate disciplines including aerospace engineering worldwide, Nobel Prize winning physicists, Pulitzer Prize nominated independent investigative journalists and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet to name a few. Also, known science is not a question of 'belief'.
Meanwhile, online conspiracy theory is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Ok then.
And at what point have you yourself "looked beyond" the conspiratorial nonsense that you consume and regurgitate?
"QI, in this instance is the perfect example of this. The renowned brain box, Mr Fry is here telling you why we went to the moon without having any means of backing up his comments other than hearsay from other sources. You are expected to believe everything he says without question because of his reputation. I suspect that Stephen knows the truth but part of his job is to make sure you don’t."
This is simply a light hearted and at times irreverent panel show. Everything that Fry says can be independently verified. The sole problem is that very simply, it isn't what you want to hear, just as you won't like my reply to you.
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@wasidanatsali6374
Where I am in the UK of course, most homes and many work places in the UK don't have AC - but while our summer temperatures continue to be driven up, the demand for it is bound to increase. In fact, it is anticipated that 75-80% of British homes will have it installed by the end of the century. This could increase the UK's current monthly electricity consumption by up to 15% in the summer. But this is already a global issue. There are already a billion single room air-conditioning units operating globally - accounting for about 20% of demand for electricity in buildings. By 2050 it is projected that there will be some four and a half billion AC units worldwide, ramping up energy demand. Since much of that currently comes from fossil fuels, it creates a vicious circle, but there is also another problem. As interiors are artificially cooled, the process pumps heat outside. Some years ago, I briefly spent some time at the Arizona State University and in Phoenix during the summer, you obviously can't function without it. I was intrigued to read a recent study that found the hot air pumped out of AC systems increased the city's nighttime temperature by 1°C. Worse still, the fluorinated gases used in these units can frequently leak out and these are something like 22,000 times more powerful at warming the climate that CO2.
Typical government myopia - when they outlined their strategy last year for net-zero carbon emissions, the huge oversight was the rising demand for cooling. Instead, the emphasis was upon insulation and keeping buildings warm focussing upon energy certificates as a sole measure of efficiency. Our buildings need to be designed for both - with good ventilation so they are not only well insulated during the winter, but cool for our increasingly hotter summers.
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"These guys are a mouthpiece for government propaganda."
Nope, they are simply participants in a panel based comedy panel show produced by John Lloyd and Talkback ltd.
"The moon landing was fake."
Yet another dumb conspiracy believer that thinks there was just the one.
"How did they get past the van Allen belts without getting fried"
Why should anyone "get fried" in the VABs. Perhaps you should listen to what science has to say instead of what a crap online conspiracy theorist tells you what to think?
"how can you conveniently lose all the technology to return there"
You don't and they didn't. Why do you think that they did? Oh that's right, give me one guess.
"they live streamed the moon landing 240000 miles away in 1969"
False. Unified S band radio signal broadcasts.
"when they didn't even have colour tv?"
Colour TV was was first demonstrated publicly by John Logie Baird on 3 July 1928. CBS had been experimenting with Baird's ideas for colour television for some time, and by 1946 were confident of obtaining a broadcasting licence. So confident, they began advertising the GE 950, the first colour television produced for the consumer market.
"Once you realize the challenges to land a man on the moon you will realizes there is no way the technology existed at the time to overcome them."
Specifically, what technology was lacking? And why is it that for over half a century entire branches of science and specialist technological fields such as computing, aerospace engineering and rocketry have failed to notice this, but a random, insignificant gullible believer in dumb conspiracy theory on the comments section of You Tube with no actual knowledge of the subject whatsoever claims to know better?
"The only thing they could do was fake it."
Really? How?
"We know the government lies, is it so hard to believe they told a big one here?"
Your belief is irrelevant, as is any government. The scientific, independent and third party evidence for the Apollo moon landings has a voice of its own and is incontrovertible.
"Why has NASA been deleting all the videos on YouTube exposing the moon landing as fake"
They haven't - and if you actually believe that, then you are even dimmer that you initially come across. You can still find plenty of this nonsense on You Tube. However, since the platform fears brand damage for previously supporting and being associated with misinformation (if you hadn't noticed, conspiracy theory is a money spinner), they have been forced to decrease the visibility of this crap. Many of the charlatans and con artists that peddle this garbage have moved to alt-right and more extreme platforms such as 'Odysee' and 'Rumble.' Others having been comprehensively debunked and discredited have removed their content. A quick google search enables you to find all the confirmation bias that you want - and guess who owns You Tube genius?
"It's sick the level of deception."
The unintentional irony at this stage is as hilarious as it is tragic.
"It's taught to little children in schools that's why it's so hard for many to confront."
So you think that Bart Sibrel should be on the curriculum instead? 🤣
6
-
@CCoburn3
To clarify. NASA did not lose the original telemetry tapes from Apollo 11 but rather the taped recordings of raw analogue video transmitted back from the spacecraft. The tapes were made using specially designed, high-capacity recording gear in order to capture the raw transmissions at the point of receipt in case anything should go wrong with the elaborate system used to convert them to a standard broadcast signal. Nothing did go wrong, and once the conversion and transmission was complete, the recordings were no longer needed for their original purpose. Any magnetic recording media has a limited life. The magnetic fields of the stored data decay over time. For this reason, and because high-grade tapes were very expensive, they were never considered an archival medium.
The data on those tapes, including video data were relayed to the Manned Spacecraft Center during the mission. The video was recorded there and in other locations; there is no missing video footage from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. There was no video that came down slow scan that was not converted live, fed live, to Houston and fed live to the world. So during the search, the team came across broadcast-converted tapes that were far superior in quality to anything previously seen. There were tapes recorded in Sydney, Australia, during the Apollo 11 mission. They also found kinescopes at the National Archives that had not been viewed in 36 years that were made in Houston. Sifting through the CBS archives they uncovered tapes that had been fed directly from Houston to CBS - the raw data as recorded and archived.
The relevant information from the telemetry was evaluated real-time and shortly after the missions, then the tapes were re-used. The majority of that information coming over telemetry was switch settings, voltages, tank volumes, etc., on a craft that will never be used again. Engineering data about performance of the various systems was sent back to the ground for analysis and diagnosis of any problem. Also, biomedical data on the astronauts. Today, such data would be measured by an analog-to-digital converter and transmitted digitally. At the time of the Apollo program, computers were heavy and expensive. Analog data was encoded in semi-analog formats—frequency modulation, phase modulation, pulse-code modulation—combined into a microwave signal, received on the ground, decoded with special equipment and recorded on large reels of magnetic tape. For viewing the data, the signals were often written out onto long charts with strip chart recorders. Data on magnetic tape that needed to be kept, such as telemetry data, was always printed out as a hard copy. So after each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the extracted telemetry data was analysed and presented as charts and graphs and tables. The telemetry for all the Apollo missions would be hours and days of details of obsolete equipment working normally. Nobody cares about that and the people who might know how to make sense of it are passing from the scene, as is the machinery that could read those tapes. Nowadays, vast quantities of data can be recorded to disk for negligible cost. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, that wasn’t the case. Data was recorded on big, heavy and expensive reels of magnetic tape that could only be read on big, heavy, specialised equipment. There are real-time recordings and transcriptions of all the missions and the data/confirmation can be found in the post flight mission reports. These are available in PDf format for download
6
-
6
-
5
-
"I’m going to have to call BS!"
Entire branches of science and the specialist field must currently be devastated at the news.
"So we’re supposed to believe these guys spent 3 full days on the moon in cramped quarters"
The submersible Alvin can dive to a depth of 14,700 feet and remain submerged for 72 hours. Presumably that's fake too? I'm guessing that you are also completely unaware that the Apollo 17 EVA totalled 22 hours? - So, no, they did not actually spend "3 full days on the moon in cramped quarters".
"in temps of 250F"
The temperature was not 205°F though. That is the surface equilibrium temperature that takes time to build up to. I'm confident that you have no idea that the length of a day on the moon is equivalent to 29.5 Earth days. That all the Apollo missions were timed to coincide their landings with the lunar dawn, that in a vacuum, there is no air temperature and therefore no convection, or the dual purpose of MLI.
"with life support run completely off batteries?? "
Because of the fuel-cell complexity, the development costs, and the schedule problems, the prime contractor was directed to convert to an all-battery system. In the dc system, five descent-stage batteries, rated at 400 ampere-hours each and two ascent-stage batteries, rated at 300 ampere-hours each, were used. Two electrical-control assembly (ECA) units were placed in the descent stage for the control and protection of all descent-stage batteries. One ECA was used for each ascent stage battery. The silver Zinc batteries made by Eagle Pitcher who have collectively amassed 2.6 billion cell hours in space without a mission failure. Would you like to discuss this in greater detail or are you happy to concede for the benefit of anyone reading this that you haven't got the remotest idea what you are talking about?
"They also seemed to have a never ending supply of oxygen!!"
The Lunar Module descent stage contained two oxygen tanks, each of which contained 48 pounds of gaseous oxygen at 2,690 psia. This supply provided the oxygen that they used during descent, and during their stay on the Moon, including filling their backpacks and re-pressurising the cabin after their EVA (“moonwalk”). The ascent stage contained two tanks, each of which contained 2.43 pounds of oxygen at 840 psia. This supply provided the breathing oxygen during liftoff from the Moon and rendezvous with the Command Module. This was later expanded for the J Missions. Again, we can discuss this further if you wish to learn more.
Personal incredulity is not a valid argument.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
_"What mixed bag of misunderstanding the issues, strawman arguments, untruths and dismissive analysis by the astronomer."
Well he is after all dealing with the same old obligatory junk conspiracy theory which specialises in strawman arguments, untruths and dismissal.
But then, online conspiracy theory is of course entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, disingenuous, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic, profiteering or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
The sole problem here is that he isn't saying what you want to hear.
1/ No it doesn't. It moves when disturbed either by contact with an astronaut or venting from the PLSS. And yes, the rod has everything to do with it.
2/ Incorrect. It was not possible to see the stars from the lunar surface due to the glare of the sun and the moon's albedo - just as is the case here on Earth during the daytime. And there are many accounts of the Apollo astronauts being awestruck by the stars, particularly around the far side of the moon during the lunar night time.
3. The moon does have a low albedo, but it was still bright enough to cast shadows, just as it can here on Earth. The shadows are entirely consistent with a single light source.
4. Absolute utter nonsense and highly ironic since conspiracy theorists and their gullible believers obsess over 'several feet of lead' not realising that this will actually produce secondary radiation when hit by charged alpha and beta particles in the VABs due to bremsstrahlung. In cislunar space the main danger beyond the protection of the earth's magnetosphere as you say, comes from CMEs and solar particle events. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The Apollo programme coincided with a solar maximum and the programme took a calculated risk. They were very fortunate, because between Apollos 16 and 17 there was an SPE. a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs.
Astronauts on the lunar surface absorb about 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. That's 5 to 10 times higher than the rate experienced on a trans-Atlantic passenger flight and about 200 times what we get on Earth's surface. Charged particles such as galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), which are accelerated to tremendous speeds by faraway supernova explosions, contribute about 75% to this total lunar-surface dose rate of 60 microsieverts per hour. So it wasn't an issue for the Apollo astronauts but any prolonged habitation would necessitate shielding because this can spike massively. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 - 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. The highest total dose recorded at skin level was the crew of Apollo 14 at 1.14 rads (due to the path taken through a denser region of the VABs). The Alpha and Beta particles within are easy to shield against. Total mission doses would have been in the region of 1 - 1.5 rems.
5. Yes there was a camera mounted upon the MESA bay - but the amount of people in these comments sections that are unable to comprehend this is staggering. It's absurdly one of the most commonly raised objections to the moon landings.
Ah, the compartmentalisation chestnut - again - and yet you hilariously refer to his rebuttal as a "trope". The US government couldn't even keep a burglary on a hotel secret or a b*** job from a summer intern quiet. "Compartmentalisation" is just a magic spell hand-wave favoured by conspiracy theorists. You can't compartmentalise a project of such complexity and consisting of so many interwoven parts and reciprocity. Any alteration/revision in any part of the production process or system affected all the other parts. NASA actually had to do the complete opposite of compartmentalisation and engender a culture of communication and openness. An entire department was charged with the task of nothing except version-keeping and distributing materials to all the contractors involved. Contractors forced engineers from different departments working for NASA to interact and talk - for example, separate canteens were discouraged and closed to encourage greater cooperation Had it have been attempted any other way (not that it could have been) such clandestine working would have meant that Kennedy's goal of placing man on the moon by the end of the decade would have been unachievable. Even defence contracts operate like that, and NASA was not a military organisation. Plenty of personnel were dismissed during and since the Apollo Programme and its employees were mostly civilians, free to move about, have beers with strangers and go on vacations. Yet no one talked or smuggled a bunch of smoking-gun documentation out, and the entire scam would have been blown wide open by investigative journalism - not to mention the resident/participatory press and journalists. The Apollo Programme was scrutinised by the entire world and was under a global lens. It was then and has been in the half a century since. Yet a community of online conspiracy believers with zero knowledge of the science, technology and history of spaceflight/the Apollo Programme claim to know better that entire branches of science, specialist fields and cognate disciplines such as aerospace engineering, Noble Prize winning physicists and Pulitzer awarded journalists that have collectively failed to notice these supposed 'gotchas' collectively consumed and regurgitated over comments sections and social media.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Biggest human feat in human history but yet no calendar day to celebrate"
There is though. July 20th, it's called 'National Moon Day'.
"face timing from the moon with no delay"
Facetime? I do hope you're joking. Nope. Radio transmission, it's a thing - newsflash, bloke called Marconi, 1895. And what on Earth are you talking about, there was a delay.
"riding dune buggies"
No, using purpose built lunar rovers during the later J missions, Apollo 15, 16 and 17, in order to extend the areas covered during EVA.
"playing golf on the moon in the 60s"
Wrong again - Apollo 14 1971. Al Shepherd, a keen golfer, smuggled a six iron head that was affixed to the shaft of his sampling tool and hit three balls. He scuffed the first two shots owing to the fact that there was obviously no tee, was restricted in movement due to his spacesuit and had to use on hand. So what?
"brainwashed people believe that crap"
Said the gullible junk online conspiracy believer with demonstrably no knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@neferpitou5163
Because, very simply, the bike went backwards developmentally.
No, that isn't how you define talent, but as I said, Rossi would not have won a title on the same bike. Ben Spies summed up the difference very well in saying when he followed Rossi, he could understand what he was doing, he couldn't do it himself. With Stoner, he couldn't understand what he was doing or how he was doing it, which is something that the many of his competitors at the time have echoed.
Rossi benefitted from ludicrous advantages throughout much of his career that simply were not availed to the rest of the field. He also engineered many rule changes and forced through many demands when things didn't go his way, that no other rider would have been able to influence.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The technology of Apollo was largely retired with the premature cancellation of the programme in 1972. The bespoke tooling, production processes, plants, hand built expertise was abandoned and the Saturn V was no longer required. With the political lobbying for the Space Shuttle and the subsequent construction of the space shuttle, deep space exploration became the preserve of far cheaper unmanned probes and landers which carried less risk and for which a heavy lift capability was not necessary. All of this technology remains, but is understandably obsolete. Project Artemis is currently purposing new and contemporary technology to meet the demands, objectives and the very different mission profiles outlined.
They stopped going because, With the OPEC crisis looming, amid an expensive foreign war in Vietnam, a lack of public support and political will, Congress prematurely pulled the funding who saw little benefit in continuing to plough the 4% of annual Federal budget into something that had already been achieved on nine occasions with six landings. That meant, as explained, with the cancellation of the Programme, production of the Saturn V ceased and since no one built a replacement until now. Without the requisite heavy lift capability manned missions beyond low Earth orbit were no longer possible.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@carlhawkins-tu9yl
On the contrary, lunar resources encompass solar power potential, oxygen, and abundant elements including, among others, hydrogen , oxygen, silicon, iron, magnesium, calcium, aluminium, manganese and titanium. Also, non-radioactive helium-3 from the moon may one day power nuclear fusion reactors. Water can also be found in the poles. Beyond our near neighbour, measurements by rovers and satellites at Mars have also indicated massive amounts of water in the form of ice beneath and within the regolith. Mineral resources are in abundance as well, including iron, titanium, nickel, aluminum, sulfur, chlorine and calcium.
When the technology is put in place to extract this in an economically viable way, there will be a race to lay claim to different regions of the moon and later Mars and the scramble to exploit their resources will commence...in the case of the moon, likely in the latter half of this century as the lunar economy opens up.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Except they didn't. One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to.
The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
Why is it even necessary to explain this? - again?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yes, because after all, nothing says nothing says informed, honest, trustworthy and accurate like a former cab driver and convicted felon, ex stalker and religious cult member, one time advertisement maker that managed to get himself ostracised by the entire industry, turned career conspiracy theorist and a proven liar and fraud with absolutely no specialist knowledge of scientific expertise whatsoever.
What is hilarious is that you mention "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" and "Astronauts Gone Wild" in the same sentence as "complete hoax" and "utter nonsense" in the absence of even a shred of irony.
Sibrel is a conman and a grifter. He knows full well what he's doing, and his target market, which you are evidently part of, is outright gullibility and sheer stupidity.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Kyle_G1993
"it was the technology which Uncle Don referred to when he said that they destroyed it and it's a painful process to build it back again. He didn't specify so I don't need to either because I don't blindly believe stories from alphabet agencies."
Yeah right. Because the alt-right, dumb conspiracy theory that you consume and mindlessly regurgitate is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
Thought so, it's the Don Pettit quote...again. Jeez, how many times? It's the same thing over and over and over and over again.
Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context - the rest of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of its commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"He didn't specify so I don't need to either"
Yes you do since you made the claim.
"because I don't blindly believe stories from alphabet agencies."
🤣But that's precisely what you've just done.
You're not all that bright are you?
So why can't we replicate the technology necessary to go to the moon genius? Go ahead then.
Thanks for playing!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Eli
If you construe so called ‘chemtrails’ to be responsible, then instead of parroting anecdotal conjecture uncritically rote learned and regurgitated off a YouTube video, you will instead need to provide primary hard data yielding objective evidence demonstrating a causal relationship between ‘chemtrails’ and the ecological decline of said species. As yet, no one has - and as long as this continues to be the case then ‘chemtrails’ will remain the preserve of fringe agenda ridden bias of conspiracy websites and rebound aimlessly within the vacuous echo chambers of YouTube or vapid social media inhabited by the paranoid, the delusional and the scientifically illiterate. In other words – the inconsequential and the irrelevant.
Moreover, since this spraying has allegedly been taking place for over a quarter of a century do you not think it odd that no one has collaborated to fund an analytical study at source? There are plenty of erroneous and spurious claims about chemtrail deposits – but these invariably stem from Michael J Murphy’s fallacious, deceptive and sensationalist series of internet movies, in particular, the farcical ‘What in the World are they Spraying’ involving the slapstick soil sample attempts at Shasta. However, there are have been no efforts to obtain samples directly through active or passive means which would be a routine endeavor. Murphy pledged that his next project would involve flying a light aircraft into a contrail, but it appears that the funding has been allegedly embezzled or misallocated and for now, the protagonist has gone to ground.
Instead of shamefully scaremongering the vulnerable, gullible and the scientifically illiterate perhaps the ringleaders of this scam - Tanner, Wigington and Carnicom (amongst other bandwagon jumpers), should combine their resources and commission a legitimate scientific investigation. They should then publish their findings for the scrutiny of the peer review process adhering throughout to the scientific method instead of churning out random nonsense for the consumption of the naïve and the impressionable about ‘desiccated blood’ and high bypass jet engines being incapable of producing vapour. If chemtrails were real, even the most routine, cursory amateur scientific investigation could blow this wide open in an afternoon as an afterthought.
If you genuinely cared about protecting our environment as opposed to meaningless slacktivist online posturing, then you would perhaps be devoting your time championing a noble and worthy cause instead of desperately trying to assign purpose to your life pointlessly and fatuously protesting about suspended ice crystals at 30,000 feet via the comments section of YouTube.
If you wish to discuss the conditions governing the formation of contrails in terms of aviation, meteorology and atmospheric chemistry I would be more than willing to oblige. If you lack the requisite knowledge to do so and are unable to identify/eliminate the series of logical fallacies that hamper your argument, then on the contrary, I suggest it is pointedly you that should ‘shut the hell up’.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Even in the 1/6th gravity of the moon, the Apollo A7Ls and PLSS combined were bulky, quite cumbersome, rigid top heavy with a awkward centre of gravity. Despite the fact that the combined weight was 14kgs on the moon, this was still cumbersome and they a mass of 81 kilograms / 180 lbs which was quite restrictive.
You are also failing to factor in that in low gravity, none of your muscle memory works. Your sense of balance is completely shot. You essentially have to learn how to walk again, nearly from scratch, and while wearing that constrictive suit, with an unfamiliar top-heavy center of gravity. Such low gravity is deceptive in that while it feels like you are “only” carrying a 14 kg weight if you build up momentum in that, it will still act as an 80+ kg mass when you have to stop it from moving, or change direction. They did jump, and much higher than they would have been able to wearing the same gear on Earth, but they were unable to crouch or properly spring.
What we see in the footage is entirely consistent with the physics of an astronaut on the lunar surface.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@robinroberts7398
Honestly, where to start with this?
"They are as dumb as fuck"
To clarify, you think that there is no thrust in a vacuum?
"they say they did all these tests, well didn't they think it would have been a good idea to film them all"
They filmed what was pertinent to that particular edition of Mythbusters which concerned lighting.
"i have seen many tests proving their is no thrust in a vacuum, only nasa shits can show you otherwise"
Nope, nothing to do with NASA, that would be an entire branch of science known as physics, Newton's third law of motion together with mathematical axioms which have a voice of their own. What you have seen are a series of pseudoscientific junk videos on You Tube designed to dupe the uneducated, the gullible and the scientifically illiterate.
"Who the fuck gets on tv to spout their unproven beliefs"
Unfortunately, everyone from populist agenda driven anchormen and supposed pundits to evangelists to conspiracy theorists to politicians. No different to social media in that regard depending upon the editorial policy. Some favour free speech for all the pitfalls associated with it. Even lunatics such as Bill Kaysing were offered multiple television appearances.
In this instance, they are substantiating claims with evidence. Known science is not a question of 'belief' - that would be junk online conspiracy theory.
"how did they get the slot and why?"
The network would have booked them through their agent to fill a slot deemed to be topical discussion. They doubtless made multiple TV appearances to promote their series, which is completely the norm.
3
-
3
-
@coolnamebro
Ah, the online conspiracy theorist - self proclaimed expertise in aerospace engineering, rocketry, orbital mechanics, astrophysics, geology, economics, behavioural psychology, in addition to being historians, archivists and whatd'ya know?...cinematographers. Did you actually type this with a straight face? 'Parallax effect gives the game away" Seriously? Where do you get this junk from? There is no such technique evident in any of the Apollo footage.
I'd also be most intrigued to learn how continuous uncut footage and a sound stage in Area 51/Hollywood/Culver City/Shepperton/New Mexico/ Arizona (delete as applicable) replicated 1/6th g and recreated a vacuum. Remarkable that the 2D 'backdrop' precisely matched Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Pretty impressive props department too to fabricate over a third of a ton of moon rock entirely consistent with each of the landing sites and fashion a precise replica of the Surveyor 3 camera.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@prasadsahu3044
"Ask NASA, what I want to say."
What precisely do you want to say? You haven't typed anything of worth yet/
"NASA never went to the moon."
On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. There have also been a multitude of unmanned landings. Six nation's space agencies, Interkosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with un-crewed missions.
"Now they say they destroyed everything of the Moon landings of the 1970s."
No they don't. If that were true you wouldn't be able to view everything from a Saturn V, an unused LM to an A7L suit for example. One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context - the rest of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of its commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I"t's weird why 99.9% of videos of YT are just debunking videos
Not in the slightest, since the platform was facing imminent brand damage for nurturing and hosting misinformation and lucrative online conspiracy theories since its creation. And your claim of 99% is plucked out of your arse. Meanwhile, you can find all of this horseshit through the confirmation bias of a quick google search....and guess who owns You Tube genius?
"Armstrong wouldn't swear on the bible. Watch his reaction. Guilty as sin."
Why should he?
Why should anyone after years of harassment be forced to swear on a magic book brandished in front of them by that deranged stalker and conspiracy nutjob Bart Sibrel? Imagine that you did something truly revolutionary, at unimaginable risk to yourself. You did it on national TV, with the whole world watching. Hundreds of thousands of people can personally attest to what you did. Then some opportunistic grifter with a camera crew comes up to you - again - and demands that you go through some pseudo-formal rigmarole to “prove” that you actually did it. Now, not only is this charlatan insinuating that you faked your great accomplishment, based on half-baked theories and zero hard evidence, but he’s also arrogantly making himself the supreme arbiter of truth (i.e., “If you don’t pass my test, then that proves you faked it”). When Neil Armstrong was approached he retorted, “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” And why should he have sworn on it? he wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.”
However, Jim Lovell, Al Bean and Eugene Cernan all did. You therefore have no choice but to accept that - but you won't.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the Van Allen Belts and their spatial and energy distribution. The energies: electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being 600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts. That is why mission planners were able to calculate safe trajectories through them exposing the astronauts to as little as1 - 1.5 rems.
They also knew that GCRs both in cislunar space and on the surface of the moon would not present a challenge given the short duration of the Apollo missions. On the lunar surface astronauts were subject to a measured average of 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour from GCRs. That's only 5 to 10 times higher than the rate experienced on a trans-Atlantic passenger flight.
The main hazard was the possibility of a CME/SPE during one of the missions. The Apollo programme coincided with a solar maximum and NASA took a calculated risk. They were very fortunate, because between Apollos 16 and 17 there was an SPE. a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant, or having a headache.
There were plans in place to deal with a large scale CME. These storms would not have been instantly deadly, but could have caused a serious case of acute radiation syndrome. The plan was if such an event happened was to get home ASAP, and treat the ARS on Earth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
They did, five more times. It would have been nine had it not been for the funding withdrawn for Apollo 18, 19 and 20 and the aborted Apollo 13 mission. After 1972, to answer your question, because Apollo was cancelled due to the obscene cost of sending manned missions to the moon - and with it the necessary heavy lift capability. And many unmanned missions have been back - in fact the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has also imaged the sites which have also been confirmed by India's Chadrayaan 2 handrayaan-2 orbiter captured an image of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021) whilst China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2 has also confirmed the Apollo landing sites.
The emphasis shifted to low Earth orbit, the development of the shuttle programme and the construction of the ISS. Constellation only received trickle funding, and Project Artemis (which was only approved in 2018) has been similarly drip-fed from Congress, whilst Apollo was effectively a blank cheque. Significantly, Artemis 1 completed a 25 day mission last year, Artemis 2 will be manned and Artemis 3 pledges to return a crewed landing to the lunar surface this decade.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@spaceted3977
So instead of acknowledging my response to your question, you simply respond yourself with yet more incredulity.
NASA have never said any such thing and I defy you to find an original authentic quote at source saying such. You simply believe that because dumb online conspiracy theory has told you what to think.
You don't, lose technology in the sense that it is "forgotten", mislaid or mysteriously disappears. All the technology remained but rapidly became obsolete. You lose the capability and with the premature cancellation of the programme the production plants, the tooling, the specific expertise to mount such a huge project was all abandoned or left to lie fallow and became defunct. Most significantly, the heavy lift capability necessary to send crewed missions to the moon was also forsaken in favour of the folly of the Space Shuttle Programme and the construction of the ISS. It is a given in engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes rather than trying recreate old equipment which is obsolete. There is no longer the capability to fly passengers at supersonic speeds. When civil aviation eventually returns to supersonic flight (it's been nearly half a century since the demise of Concorde), it isn't about to roll a 1960s design, featuring 1960s hardware out of the hangar. Rebuilding such a complex project as Apollo on a similarly massive scale and utilising contemporary technology on a fraction of the budget of the Apollo Programme has been a long and protracted, painstaking process. Project Artemis was only approved in 2018.The blueprints for the Saturn V rocket are stored on microfilm at Marshall Space Flight Centre, and the Federal Archives in East Point, Ga., also house 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has archived dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program, which was initiated in the late ‘60s to document every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine production and assist in any future restart.
3
-
"I believe Bart Sibrel"
Possibly the funniest thing that I've read on the internet this year. You place your faith in a criminally convicted proven con artist, stalker and ex-taxi driving cult member with absolutely zero relevant knowledge and expertise?
"then through researching more information"
You mean you watched some more crap online conspiracy videos about a subject that you know nothing whatsoever about.
"I realised the Astronauts would not be able to get through the Van Allen belt"
No you didn't - you were told that be people as clueless as you are. Why don't you find out what James Van Allen himself had to day about that? or a branch of science called astrophysics? Also they are 'belts' in the pural, not the singular. You don't even know that, but expect to be taken seriously?
"the radiation wouldve killed them"
What radiation are you referring to? And do you mean the total mission doses recorded which ranged from 1 - 1.5 rems? Why?
"and then, and especialy regarding Gus Grissom and the other 2 Astronauts being killed made me doubt the moon landing"
Why? Because again crap online conspiracy theory told you that? The crew of Apollo 1 perished due to a stray spark in a pure oxygen atmosphere and a capsule full of flammable material which prevented egress to the pressure exerted on the inward opening hatch. There were many, many astronauts, engineers and contractors that were more vocal than Grissom in their criticism of the programme and specifically, the development of the CSM. The tragedy of Apollo 1 ushered in a sea change in management and a raft of technical changes and safety measured - had it not have happened, it is very unlikely that Kennedy's goal of placing man on the moon that decade would have been achieved.
Regarding a 'blast crater' at low gate and the point of contact on the surface the DPS was producing a mere 2,700lbs of thrust. The nozzle had a diameter of 59 inches which meant that equates to 11 psi chamber pressure and having an area of 2,700 square inches even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.5 PSI . Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure. The surface of the moon is solid rock. Now consider the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, which does not make a crater when it lands - even on grass!.
Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself? Why don't you learn about the actual science and technology instead of gullibly parroting what a social media meme has told you?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"It's a shame that all world leaders are in cahoots."
Are they? Tell that to Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin, or Benjamin Netanyahu and Ali Khamenei.
"The people with critical thinking know full well we've never been to the moon."
Whilst entire scientific disciplines; physics, mathematics, geology, branches of science such as astrophysics, astronomy, related specialist fields including rocketry, aerospace engineering, orbital mechanics and petrology - in short, all comprising highly skilled expertise, knowledge and individuals substantially more informed, accomplished and clever than a random conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube, do not? Ok then.
Incidentally, watching crap online conspiracy videos is the diametric opposite of 'critical thinking'.
"I've not mentioned this before"
Do you really think that you're that important or that the rational world gives two shits about your personal incredulity? You're nothing more that an insignificant self-aggrandising nobody on the comments section of a video entertainment platform afflicted by gross illusory superiority and a chronic case of Dunning Kruger syndrome.
"but that moon dust must be super heavy, while the astro nots were falling around and jumping and bouncing around they kicked up dust or sand that was not affected by the lower gravitation, it fell like sand at the beach while the astro nots were 'seemingly' relatively weightless"
Of course it was affected by the lunar gravitation, which is why it fell back to the surface. On the moon, the dust is just like a projectile motion. It goes up and it comes right down which is why there are no dust trails left by the lunar rover. It fell at the same rate of any other object but not necessarily at the same trajectory of the astronauts. Apollo 15's Dave Scott demonstrated that in the absence of air resistance a feather fell at the same rate as his geology hammer, as Galileo had concluded hundreds of years before - all objects released together fall at the same rate regardless of mass. This is precisely what we observe in the footage.
"what is probably the funniest part of this whole thing is people still believing anyone ever went to the moon"
Incorrect. What is "the funniest part of this whole thing" is people with zero knowledge about the topic gullibly consuming and regurgitating junk online conspiracy theory in the belief that they are informed and clever whilst deriding experts that are infinitely more accomplished than themselves.
Stick to making your crap comedy skits son.
3
-
3
-
@therocknrollguitarlounge7057
"are you a pilot?"
No, neither are you. I'm a climatologist specialising in ground based remote sensing. However, that has no bearing on this conversation. Your dispute lies with the fundamentals of atmospheric and meteorological science and basic aviation not me. Address the subject not the individual.
"Do you have proof those planes are empty? Send me video before you get on the jet of the empty jet. If not stfu you have no solid proof to debunk what is being seen here in California. Dont debunk what you have no proof of."
Sigh. Yet another conspiracy believer that fails to understand burden of proof. Since you are the one making the claim, the latter is incumbent upon you, the onus does not lie with myself or any other party to establish a negative/absent. Surely you are able to comprehend that? If not, I suggest you refer to a simple thought experiment to illustrate this called 'Russell's Teapot'.
If I were to claim to you that Mr.Ed had spawned a family of talking horses the responsibility would lie with me to substantiate that claim. I wouldn't expect you to scour the entire equine world on a mission to disprove it. Your dumb, childish chemtrails conspiracy theory debunks itself through being a physical and mathematical impossibility. That you are completely ignorant of atmospheric science and aviation is the sole reason that you have been duped by it.
Regarding "those planes" - do you have any comprehension of the weight of material contained in any of these trails that you are observing versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing them? Of course you haven't.
"and like I said get out once in a wile and observe."
And like I said, you'll find that's precisely what the fields of atmospheric and meteorological science and aviation do. It's also my line of work and I've spent the last two and half decades measuring.
"The science tou talk about has no relevance to what is being done up there."
You'll find that atmospheric chemistry, meteorology and aviation has everything to do with what's "being done up there". I suggest that you understand the process of contrail formation, dry and adiabatic lapse rates, dew point and relative humidity in addition to supersaturation in respect to ice. As I said, this information is free for all to access and governed by physical laws, mathematical axioms and therefore has a voice of its own. Nothing to do with me.
"It doesnt fit the observational proof."
The persistent contrails that you are observing have been witnessed, documented, recorded, measured and studied for in excess of eighty years and since the early advent of powered aviation. Your ignorance of the science behind it and your personal incredulity has no bearing whatsoever upon the real world.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Sigh.
1/ The 10¢ airmail stamp honoring the first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong, was issued on Sept. 9, 1969. No other person has been honored on more United States stamps during his lifetime than Neil Armstrong.
2/ By the time the capsule had reached the lower atmosphere, it had slowed to about 320 Mph, at which point they deployed the first parachute. The first “drogue” chutes were deployed at about 25,000 feet altitude. The main chutes would have been deployed at about 10,000 feet. The capsule had significantly cooled by then. The heat shield was ablative and the shell of the command module lost heat very quickly during its descent through very cold air in the stratosphere. Metal loses its hear rapidly after spending several minutes in a moving airstream that might be as cold as -80 degrees F.
3/ Because no government since has been prepared to sanction the huge budget required to place man on the moon. After years of drip-fed piecemeal funding from congress, we now have Project Artemis which pledges to return man to the moon this decade. There has been no supersonic passenger service since the cancellation of Concorde in 2003 almost two decades ago due to the expense and the fact it was unsustainable. It may be the same time or more until this is resumed. That does not mean that the technology has not progressed.
4/ Actually, to date, at least 47 NASA rocket bodies have crashed into the moon. None of these impacts suggest that the moon is 'hollow'. Following the planned impact of Apollo 13's S-IVB the moon was reported to "ring like a bell". This is because it’s much drier than Earth. Water weakens stone, almost acting like a sponge and deadening vibrations. When there’s an earthquake, the vibrations end quickly in comparison to bodies that are drier and more rigid—like the moon. therefore the seismic waves caused by the impact resonated and reverberated.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@shaencamara397
"you’re asking me why I feel the need to express my God given right to say what I want?"
No, I'm asking you why you felt the need to make such a worthless and valueless comment about a subject you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever or anything worthwhile to add about a video that you didn't even watch. This is everything that's wrong with the internet.
"You’re the one that felt some type of way about the comment I could care less. It’s just words."
In which case, why post in the first place and why reply?
"And I was talking about the title, as well as other videos."
So you said. And as I pointed out, your OP demonstrates otherwise and contradicts your claim - so don't try that again.
"You act like this is the only video on youtube that is titled this?"
Do I? How so? At what stage have I even mentioned this?
"Maybe I watched 3 other videos and decided to comment on this one. Maybe I comment on all the videos. Who cares ?"
About what you have to say? precisely no one - which is why I asked why you felt the need to comment in the first place.
"I say what I want."
Like I said, everything that's wrong with the internet in a nutshell.
"Also children may not understand orbital mechanics but the understand space machine."
What?
"Like I said, it is easy to “dumb it down” when you actually understand the mechanics."
And like I said, it depends upon precisely what it relates to.
"One more thing. You felt the need to break down a comment that didn’t need to be. It’s not like I went into some in depth philosophy about this, its just my opinion. And you have a right to disagree. But that isn’t what you are doing you are literally searching for an argument. Lol"
Well that seems to be precisely the rationale for your initial post. I break down the comments because that is the most efficient way to ensure that every aspect of the post is addressed.
"What you should’ve done is just expressed your opinion with maybe some evidence"
Known science is not a question of "opinion" (yours or mine). The evidence in support of the Apollo landings is manifest. The burden of proof is not therefore incumbent upon me, rather anyone seeking to falsify or question it. My reply was based upon your need to pass comment.
"but misrepresenting someone just shows a lack of understanding."
At no stage have I misrepresented anything that you have typed.
"That is all, thanks for your input tho"
Thank you for your civil and courteous response.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You mean the same things over and over and over and over and over again consumed and regurgitated by dumb conspiracy believers with zero knowledge of the science, technology and history of the Apollo Programme that have been comprehensively debunked on innumerable occasions? For your benefit, let's do that, let's mention them...again then.
"the radiation belts"
What about them?
The Van Allen Belts consist of diffuse toroidal volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
The Van Allen belts are no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Early probes enabled us to calculate, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to from one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO. The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii or 620 mi to 7,500 mi) above the Earth. As explained, the VABs are toroidal and trace the shape of the earth's magnetic field, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. To reiterate, a spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts, at high velocity and a very short period of time.
"and the fact that no ones ever left earth atmosphere"
Technically, no they haven't since observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, recently showed that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth (the geocorona), reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet - much further than previously thought. One of the spacecraft instruments, SWAN, used its sensitive sensors to trace the hydrogen signature and precisely detect how far the very outskirts of the geocorona extends. This is so thin on the lunar surface that it equates to 0.2 atoms per cubic centimeter. So what's your point?
"And the fact they said they destroyed the technology that enabled them to get there"
No, wrong again. One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"and they lost the tapes"
What does this even mean? Some of the magnetic back up tapes of the Apollo 11 EVA which were never intended for archival use and are now defunct anyway were erased. Others have been sold in auction. You realise that there were nine missions to the moon in all and a total of six landings? No, you probably didn't did you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"anyone who believes this shite needs their head examined."
So that'll be entire branches of science such as physics, astronomy and geology, related specialist cognate fields of expertise including aerospace engineering and rocketry, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning Physicists and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet. In short, areas and disciplines vastly more informed, clever and accomplished than a non-achieving, arrogant random gullible conspiracy believer over the comments section of a video entertainment platform.
"aldrin not to long ago admitted "we never went" on TV."
Assuming that you are capable of placing that into the intended context, you'll find that he then in the next few sentences describes being on the moon in addition to the subsequent missions.
"stop listening to shite from the world's biggest liars. the us government !"
Nothing whatsoever to do with the "US Government" - the scientific, third party and independent evidence has a voice of its own. So why not listen instead to junk online conspiracy theory? - which naturally is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda.
Righto then.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@seancoleman2388
"Closer, but no. I listened to an audio version of Dave McGowan's articles and then i followed it up with quite a few videos. I have done enough reading for three lifetimes b now and I am not anxious to add to it."
And there it is...well there you go. You relied on a conspiracy theorist with no credentials or relevant technical expertise to 'inform' you about the Apollo Programme followed by some conspiracy videos. A man that thinks that Apollo went to the moon on a "single tank of fuel" and can NASA design one for his station wagon?
"May I ask you the same question? My guess is that you have read science articles, quite a lot of them by the sound of it. Have you read any textbooks on the subject? You might list them and briefly explain how these have convinced you."
I am irrelevant here, because the science and the technology has a voice of its own and speaks for itself - but I will answer your question. Yes, I have read about and studied the Apollo missions in great detail for much of my life and possess large volumes of historical and technical literature on the subject. I'm not suggesting that you do that, but you can, at the very least, independently verify the claims of conspiracy theorists and online grifters. You'll soon find that they are inaccurate, ill informed, technically and scientifically wrong, atrociously researched and for the large part, ludicrous, deceptive all out lies. I can however as an antidote to this, highly recommend W David Woods' "How Apollo Flew to the Moon". This is the consummate technical breakdown about the Apollo lunar program for the nontechnical reader. It takes one of the most complex undertakings in the history of civilisation and makes it graspable, but still retaining the levels of detail that it deserves.
"I should add that I am an unwilling conspiracy theorist. I was happy with my earlier interpretation of what was happening which seemed to explain everything by collective fantasy. Now I have to admit that there is quite a lot of deliberate deception thrown into the mix."
If by "collective fantasy" you are referring to the conspiracy theory that you deferred to, then you are not a conspiracy believer, for the simple reason, you possess humility, the desire to challenge your preconceptions. Unfortunate, by "deliberate" deception, you mean the Apollo programme which I suspect you do, then the unintentional irony coming from one that subscribes to Dave McGowan is as hilarious as it is excruciating.
Incidentally, you can never do enough reading for a lifetime. If do you have integrity and are are brave enough to dissect McGowans' false claims, then can suggest that you obtain a copy of the book that I recommended to at the very least gain an appreciation of the sheer scale and intricacy and complexity of the Apollo programme if not the science and technology behind the undertaking?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"They're now saying there's "air" up there"
To clarify, what has been discovered is that the geocorona extends further than thought. Recent observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet. One of the spacecraft instruments, SWAN, used its sensitive sensors to trace the hydrogen signature and precisely detect how far the very outskirts of the geocorona are (a cloud of hydrogen atoms). On the moon this equates to a mere 0.2 atoms per cubic centimeter, so completely insignificant in terms of crewed missions and essentially a vacuum.
Explain the fast falling dust at feet, tyres of lunar rover"
What "fast falling dust at feet"? The tyres of the lunar rover send dust in a ballistic arc and a trajectory that is entirely consistent with 1/6th gravity. Other than that, all objects fall at the same rate as demonstrated by Dave Scott during Apollo 15.
"The horizon is tiny (like a studio)"
No it isn't as the panorama shots reveal and the panned camera footage. Have you actually looked at any of the photographs or the footage for yourself outside of what junk online conspiracy theory presents to you?
"and someone told me it would be more expensive to fake than carry out that mission."
Expense it irrelevant - it would have been impossible to fake.
"Hollywood certainly couldn't agree less as they did so on less budget"
Hollywoood? But...but - what about Cannon AFB New Mexico? Area 51 Nevada? The Utah or Arizona deserts? Devon Island Canada? Shepperton UK? This dumb conspiracy theory can't even get its stories straight. I guess it depends upon which conspiracy theorist or online grifter you allow yourself to be duped by?
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood studio' to convincingly replicate 1/6 th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This again? Seriously - how many times?
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to.
The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes.
Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?...again?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"dude you stupid!"
Said the chemtrail conspiracy believer.
"they been spraying chemtrails for decades!"
You mean those contrails that you don't understand. And who precisely are "they"?
"if anybody think our government wont lie to us,,,,,,Jump off a BRIDGE! YALL need t wake up"
What does "your government" have to do with the known science of persistent contrails?
"and stop wearing mask."
2020 update... instead of wearing masks to avoid chem trails, conspiracy theorists now avoid masks, even in the midst of a global pandemic.
"its about control, depopulation"
How's that coming along?
"mandate biometric vaccine with nanotechnology, it will alter your DNA. THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CONTROL EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU! You got 5G ALSO! WERE GONNA BE INSIDE A MICROWAVE! Ai, D Wave, Cern, Transhumanism, agenda 21, The Reset! All collides together."
The entire gamut of baseless junk online online conspiracy theory and paranoia related to what you don't understand then. Yep...my Alex Jones bingo card is full.
"And most of you still trust in these luciferian worshippers. You sleep realize that were living in the last & evil days. Rather you believe it or not! This is a spiritual war going on now! And its one thing they want more than contro and...thats ya SOUL. Rom.6:12, Rev.13:16"
This is a video about aircraft contrails - and placing "trust" in physical laws and known atmospheric science as opposed to online charlatans, conspiracy merchants, scaremongering quacktitioners, snake oil salesmen and pseudoscience.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jeromesevy1112
And back again. I thought you said that you were going?
"it's funny."
I agree, you're utterly hilarious.
"People like you remind me of these mask wearing fanatics who want to believe in Covid."
Only a chemtrail believer could insist that their government is poisoning them from the skies and at the same time mock people for wearing masks and respirators. You actually could not make this up.
"Even tho Newsom went to a party with no mask and no social distancing as if he is saying right in front of your face that covid is a hoax."
"as if he's saying"??? You mean, as if you want him to be saying.
"People like you will still say "oh no it's real"
No, measurable science says that it is real as does virology, immunology and epidemiology. As I explained, I am irrelevant, known science has a voice of its own.
"You go ahead and believe there are no chemtrails if it helps you sleep at night."
As I explained on innumerable occasions, science is not a question of "belief" yours or mine and at no stage in this fatuous exchange have I mentioned the latter.
"Who knows how much aluminum has already gone to your brain already."
Wearing a tin foil hat won't be helping you in that respect.
"Are you going to tell me that my eyes seeing the same plane go one direction and turn around are actually two planes?"
Your flawed perception an anecdotal personal incredulity does not substitute for evidence.
So back on the subject following another spectacular series of tangential non-sequiturs. In common with your equally clueless ilk, you still haven't been able to answer my very straightforward questions. You insist upon branding people that challenge your comments as idiots and dumb, but are yourself, incapable of answering the questions they pose to you. What are you so terrified of? You are the one arrogantly claiming authority and you are the one making these claims. Surely you are able and prepared to substantiate those contentions? Your inability to do so is becoming embarrassing. Let's try again shall we?
Could you name these mysterious chemicals that can linger, expand and increase in mass, just like - what d'ya know, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Also could you name any aircraft capable of depositing a horizon to horizon trail of chemicals? Any idea how much one of these trails weighs? Any chance you'll have the courage and conviction to address these questions?
Of course there isn't.
3
-
@jeromesevy1112
Ah you're back again.
"You are the kind of moron that will try any way to explain that beer drinking somehow will not make you gain weight."
What an utterly bizarre rand random response. You're struggling here aren't you?
"That's the level of idiocy that is in you"
Again, to reiterate, you subscribe to an online hoax that has managed to convince you that a cloud is a conspiracy theory. You think that your breath on a cold day is analogous to to a large turbofan jet engine rated up to 115,000 lbs of thrust, continually burning a hydrocarbon fuel at 1,100°C and 4 litres per second, emitting a stream of 600°C superheated exhaust in an ambient ice saturated environment < -60°C whilst travelling at speeds up to and occasionally in excess of 500 knots. You also believe that a communist army has been mobilised in association with a global infection of zoonotic origin? And your point about idiocy was precisely what?
"I suppose the next thing you are going to tell me is jet fuel also melts steel?"
The melting point of steel is 1510°C. The temperature at which jet fuel burns is between 426.6°C and 815.5°C. If you are referring to the WTC, the steel structure didn't melt. Additional combustion sources means that that the fires in the towers reached at least 1000°C in certain pockets. The point at which steel weakens is 593.3°C, at which point it will have lost about 50% of its strength. Heated to 1000°C, steel will have lost about 90% strength. It was this weakness in the steel that led to the loss of the buildings’ integrity. As the steel warped, distorted and buckled, the columns and steel beams holding the towers up were no longer able to support the weight of the buildings, leading to the pancake collapse of both towers
"Or that the closest distance between two objects is not a straight line?"
Why would I question Euclidian geometry?
"Everything that is nonsense and stupidity is something that you are trying to explain and you sound really ridiculous when doing so."
Again, the unintentional irony is excruciating. I should take a look at your own posts on here which remain as testimony for all to see. I am irrelevant. Everything that I have said is independently verifiable and supported by known physical laws and mathematical axioms - thereby having a voice of its own. Your contention does not lie with me, rather, known science which speaks for itself. Again I invite you to falsify it. No use saying it, demonstrate that it is "nonsense" and "stupidity". Go ahead then. Start with the science of persistent contrails outlined in my original reply to you. You have the floor - and all I can say is good...luck...with...that.
"Dream about the tooth fairy doing you in the ass. And try to explain that that is somehow not gay."
Come again?
"It's already funny enough when you look at the sky and two planes are flying in similar altitudes and one plane has nothing coming out of it and the other one has a Long trail coming out of it that covers the sky.Wait let me guess your explanation. One of those planes is burning a hotter fuel and therefore it's reacting with the antlers of a reindeer and the thrust is creating long white Tinkerbell fairy tail dust?"
And equally, I find your personal incredulity and scientific ignorance just as amusing. Not my explanation. The scientific explanation however is that the atmosphere is neither homogeneous in terms of humidity and pressure, nor is it isotropic. Similar altitude? The latter can change in a matter of seconds and mere metres. Are you similarly perplexed by patchy cloud? Added to which aircraft are subject to separation minima. Why is it necessary to even explain this?
"Idiot"
Indeed. Pretty much sums it up.
So in view of that, could you name these mysterious chemicals that can linger, expand and increase in mass, just like - well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Could you name any aircraft capable of depositing a horizon to horizon trail? Also, could you tell me how much one of these weighs?
As you'll demonstrate yet again - of course you can't.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jeromesevy1112
"ok mr "y-ass-ass-in" believe what you want."
So the ad hominem logical fallacy commences straight away? Spare me, I've heard it all before - completely impervious to your predictable jibes, concentrate on the content of my response, not the individual. Oh, and known science is not about belief...that would be baseless online conspiracy theory.
"That name itself suggests you take it up the ass."
Does it? Nothing to do with the Turkish for 'long live' or the third track of The Lodger then? Right you are. And so what if I did, as you say, "take it up the ass" - what bearing would my sexual preferences have upon the meteorological science that you are both ignorant of and blindly in contention with?
"The evidence could be right in front of your face as it is and you will still be in denial."
Denial of what precisely? This "evidence" - do you think you could get around to presenting it at some stage?
"I honestly believe that Satan's zombie army has awakened and are pushing this Marxist agenda through covid."
Why does that not surprise me in the least.
"People like you that cannot be reasoned with that have no brain that will abandon all true science"
😆 😅 😂 🤣 Again, is this irony intentional? Perhaps at some stage you should apply some of this "reason" and 'true science' to your deranged, irrational and unhinged posts yourself? No use saying it, refute the contents of my reply to you. Everything that I have said is independently verifiable - ignoring it won't make it go away. I notice that you are completely unable to answer my questions either. Let's start with the atmospheric science behind persistent contrails. Go ahead, let's hear the "true science".
"and believe whatever nonsense you want to believe."
To clarify, you said this, yes? "I honestly believe that Satan's zombie army has awakened and are pushing this Marxist agenda through covid"
😆 😅 😂 🤣
And to reiterate, known science is not a question of 'belief'.
"Sorry pal you lost me right when you said that CO2 is a toxic gas. So apparently humans are toxic and all life is toxic. Because all animals exhale carbon dioxide and all plants inhale carbon dioxide."
Strawman anyone? I said nothing of the sort. I said that CO2 is a "dangerous greenhouse gas", so is water vapour. You're not the sharpest tool in the cutlery drawer are you? You do realise that toxicity is a function of concentration, time and exposure? CO2 itself is not poisonous, and as you say is necessary for life on Earth. However, carbon dioxide acts as a simple asphyxiant; in other words, as CO2 levels in a closed room rise, carbon dioxide replaces the oxygen your body needs. When your body can’t get oxygen, it slows down and does not function properly.Elevated levels of CO2 are indeed lethal, concentrations of more than 10% carbon dioxide may cause convulsions, coma, and death. Saying all that, I was referring to CO2 as a greenhouse gas which can trap heat in the atmosphere. Although CO2 only comprises a little over 0.04% of the atmosphere, Before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 288 ppm. We have now reached about 414 ppm, so we are on the way to doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the end of this century.
"You've been brainwashed "
Said the online conspiracy believer.
"and I'm not going to waste my time trying to deprogram your stupid ass."
Why have you bothered replying with this complete and utter drivel then?
"I'm not going to answer any of these it'll be a waste of time trying to argue with a zombie."
How convenient.
"by the way there have been cases where the government admits to spring toxic chemicals."
Such as?
"YouTube has just been deleting them now."
So You Tube is your sole window to the world? You can google all of this nonsense and false equivalence in seconds...and guess who owns YT genius?
"Yeah freedom is gone buddy."
Assuming that was the case, at least in such a scenario you wouldn't be at liberty to post total horseshit over a public comments section then.
"Welcome to the new communist republic of America."
I don't live in America.
"I know how my body feels. And each and every time when they are spraying I feel like shit. I get headaches and mucus etc. So it's not a coincidence anymore."
Of course it isn't...like I said, because the sole and only possible explanation can only be, those long white trails that have been observed, measured and studied for the best part of a century and that you don't understand.
"My manager at work always gets and I mean always gets migraine headaches on days when they spray."
Damn!! That settles it then.
"So something is going on"
Because you and "your manager" said so? Righto.
"your ball game is over"
Indeed it is. We just hammered Stoke City 4-0 in the fourth round of the FA Cup
"go spew out your nonsense you zombie"
Squawked the delusional and paranoid online conspiracy parrot.
"and may the deepest circle of hell await you"
You believe in that too? Hardly surprising I suppose. Tell me, why should challenging a scientifically illiterate online conspiracy believer over the comments section of a video entertainment platform consign me to your fictitious eternal damnation?
3
-
@jeromesevy1112
"Contrails will disappear in a matter of minutes"
Yeah, reading this I thread, I notice that you keep saying this, (but then you also think that a jet engine is comparable to the exhalation of your lungs on a cold day). So what if you were to at some stage to discover that this is simply not true and that contrails can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading - or actually may not even form at all? What then for the entire basis of your conspiracy belief and this false premise that it is predicated upon?
"Chemtrails on the other hand will not disappear."
Fascinating. Could you actually identify these mysterious 'chemicals' that when released form a cloud which not only lingers but can expand and increase in mass, just like...well you know, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Actually, while you're at it, could you also name the precise aircraft that is able to deposit one of these horizon to horizon trails? Any idea how much these weigh? Of course you haven't.
"A jet engine sucks air and blows out air. Carbon dioxide and water vapor is what it blows out. Both of those things should dissipate"
??? Both of which are ejected as a gas. CO2 remains in the atmosphere and is a dangerous greenhouse gas, as is water vapour actually - but if the superheated exhaust of the airliner encounters frigid air at a high relative humidity and differing vapour pressure, then the water vapour will condense forming a cloud. In such conditions, the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (invisible water vapour). If the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the trail will not only remain, but expand and spread almost entirely composed of the available atmospheric water vapour - hence the growth. No different to cirrus clouds which they become indistinguishable from.
"There have already been tests done."
No there haven't - there have been deceptive claims made by the perpetrators of this hoax about analytical results which are then lapped up and regurgitated by scientific illiterates that believe in this nonsense.
"Are you aware that the pH of soils have become much more alkaline than before?"
What??? Link? Surely if you are alleging al, then that should be the reverse?
"are you aware that the aluminum in the soil has doubled in the last 10 years?"
No it hasn't. That's an outright lie. Soil acidification and the mobilisation of aluminium has been a known problem for farmers for centuries.
"Are you aware that there was a test done on Mount Shasta the snow had 61,000 micrograms per liter of aluminum?""
Of course he is aware - it's more of Dane Wigington's claimed nonsense. Are you aware what ICP MS is and why this is significant?
"Where the hell is all that aluminum coming from?"
The fact that it is the most common metal on the planet and third most abundant element in the earth's crust may well answer your question.
"are you aware that our aquatic insects and even our terrestrial insects are at 20% the normal population? When I was a child going camping in the early nineties if you so much took out an apple to eat there would be bugs and bees all over you. Now the bugs and bees have somehow disappeared. And the fish in our rivers are borderline gone as the aquatic insects population have shrunk down"
And sole explanation can only possibly be, those white lines six to eight miles above your head that you don't understand.
"Are you aware that Alzheimer's has become rampant lately?"
Yes. A greater awareness and understanding of the condition mean more people are now receiving a diagnosis. Also, age is the biggest risk factor for any form of dementia, so as we are living longer the number of people developing dementia is increasing. Furthermore, now if a person dies with dementia, doctors can report it as the main cause of death on their death certificate. Previously, the immediate cause of death would be listed, such as a fall or an infection like pneumonia.
"Yeah go indulge in your fantasy world thinking that your government is not spraying you"
The irony. What government? Oh hang on...
"A government that couldn't even be honest about 9/11 or this covid hoax"
The usual online 'truther' nonsense. Wait, you also think that a studied and measurable zoonotic disease that is claiming people's lives, originating from a known family of viruses is a hoax? And your point about fantasy?
"And I don't know what sort of planes spray these.""
Of course you don't. Nothing whatsoever of course to do with your utter ignorance concerning anything connected with aviation.
"But I do know it's a military operation because passenger planes would not fly one direction West and then turn around and go back east and then back to West again""
Why do you think that they do? Evidence?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@elijah5993
Why are you people almost invariably utterly incapable of consolidating your irrational emotional impulses into one response?
"one question do you believe the government has ever tested on the citizens?"
You refer to "the government" as though it was one single entity. It's not a question of 'belief' - there are known examples of biological dispersal tests and covert experiments throughout history. However, simply because these have occurred that does not afford legitimacy to chemtrails or any other random conspiracy theory of your arbitrary choice or devising. Moreover, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the misidentified contrails discussed in this video that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"and there only goal is to cover up what the bible says so noone looks toward God"
And you think that's what contrails are doing?
"i dont need fancy words to see the truth"
If as you claim you genuinely wish to see the truth, you certainly don't need junk online conspiracy theory or the exploitative frauds that perpetrate it.
"you probally dont believe in the mark of the beast either"
Known science is not about unfalsifiable beliefs.
"where you work does not matter everything is on a need to know basis why would they tell you"
Firstly, you said the following - "do your research before you speak on something". I simply pointed out that research capability is what I do and atmospheric science is my background. I notice in common with all of your ilk you avoided the question. Given that "research " does not involve self-proclaimed overnight 'expertise' following squandered evenings watching junk You Tube videos, quote mining and searching for cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias, false equivalence or self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites....do feel free to share - how did you do yours?
Secondly, known meteorological and aviation science is governed by mathematical axioms and physical laws and has a voice of its own - irrespective of whoever "they" may be.
"one more conspiracy question for you... Do you believe in subliminal messages?"
Again, not a question of 'belief'. Subliminal messages appeal to our subconscious mind. They work through a process in which external sensory stimuli work to trigger reactions without us noticing the signals - which is why they are commonly employed in advertising.
"and im not here to fight with you if you can prove it wrong I'll believe you"
Again, not a question of 'belief'. Chemtrails are simply misidentified contrails. They can be nothing other that this since the notion that they anything other that the product of condensed water vapour is a physical and mathematical impossibility. Your conspiracy theory therefore debunks itself. Moreover, the burden of proof is incumbent upon those making the claim - it does not lie with me or another party to establish a negative or an absent. There is not one shred of evidence in support of the chemtrails conspiracy theory, simply deception, false equivalence and pseudoscience.
3
-
@elijah5993
"Why does he say there trying to inject us with Viagra or turn us into half human half monkey hybrids when ive never heard such a claim about chemtrails that type of deflection only happens with paid individuals or companys."
And what do you base that on? There are plenty that mock and lampoon conspiracy beliefs - in particular one as asinine and comical as chemtrails - which are simply misidentified contrails.
"They use comedy and outrageous claims to make people seem crazy when theres senators that know there's chemtrails"
Oh Jesus wept, you're right up to the eyeballs in this aren't you? There have been those in politics that have attempted to pander to conspiracy believers to gain popularity and I can cite many examples. Senators? Surely, surely you can't be gullible enough to be referring to Dennis Kucinich?
"do research before you speak on something"
Said the chemtrail believer.
Firstly - atmospheric science is my background. Secondly, I now work in research capability, it's my job. Thirdly, I absolutely guarantee that I'm infinitely more familiar with the origins, history, the background, the false equivalence and the perpetrators associated with your crap conspiracy than you. Fourthly and finally, appreciating that "research " does not involve self-proclaimed overnight 'expertise' following squandered evenings watching junk You Tube videos, quote mining and searching for cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias, false equivalence or self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites....do feel free to share - how did you do yours?
"You can do a barium test after it rains to see the proof"
Proof of what precisely? Any rainwater test would need to detail the full sampling methodology together with the means to differentiate from existing sources of both natural and anthropogenic origin in addition to demonstrating causality with your supposed aerial spraying. Moreover the international analytical laboratory test standard is ICP MS, can you tell me why that is significant? Of course you can't. Let's see your results, data and full methodology then - I absolutely guarantee what you'll come back with, because I've seen it over and over and over again - the same self-referencing nonsense batted endlessly around your vacuous echo-chamber.
If you want 'proof' ask yourself why in supposed two decades of this alleged spraying there is not one in situ analytical study of one of your chemtrails at source and why independent atmospheric and environmental monitoring remains oblivious to these operations?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Wow what an idiot."
Said the chemtrail believer.
"Totally happening"
Persistent contrails? Indeed. You'll find that they have been observed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation.
"I have seen the airports they fly from"
Aircraft? - Clever lad.
"I have seen stuck open sprayers on jets landing"
Of course you have. You mean that ludicrous appropriated You Tube footage of a Cathay Pacific Boeing 777 producing aerodynamic contrails at LAX, deceptively titled, "Pilot Forgets to turn off Spraying During Landing"?
"Do your homework before you pass judgement on other people"
The tiresome trope and mindless meme of the conspiracy believer. Appreciating that "research" does not involve a squandered evening in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked, click-bait confirmation bias or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites...how precisely did you do yours? No coincidence that you people omit the actual atmospheric science, aviation and aerospace engineering from this so called 'homework'....much easier to claim overnight 'expertise' from some crap conspiracy video that you have mindlessly consumed and regurgitated.
"You sound like an ass"
The lack of self-awareness at this stage is on par with the top tier levels of unintentional irony.
"Look up haarp. While you are at it"
The High Activity Auroral Research Programme? - the one that isn't actually active at all? That HAARP. What about it? Would you like to discuss it in detail?
"And the people you get your so called information from. Is doing the spraying"
Known science is self evident/axiomatic and speaks for itself. Incidentally, I think you meant to type "are doing the spraying".
"Do you think they would tell you😂so nieve"
And the 'people' that perpetrate your baseless online conspiracy theory that you gullibly accommodate are of course entirely honest, agenda free, not in the slightest bit deceptive or manipulative, and unfailingly historically and scientifically accurate? Ok then.
Not only do you round this nonsensical diatribe off by hilariously accusing someone else of being naive - but you can't even spell it correctly. And coming from someone that said this:
"I have seen stuck open sprayers on jets landing"
You actually couldn't make it up...only someone did and you fell for it. You absolute, utter fool.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Eli Many thanks for your civil and courteous response.
“I'm parroting facts from a YouTube video? How about talking from personal experience in my forest on my property.”
I am not casting aspersions over your “personal experience” or your observations which are perfectly valid as is your outrage. There are and always have been many, many pests and diseases that affect trees. There are also many environmental stresses, including those due to relatively recent human causes (such as pollution), which can both affect trees directly and cause them to be more susceptible to opportunistic pests and pathogens. However if you or anyone else believes that the ecological damage that they testify to is solely a result of aerosols sprayed at 30,000ft then in order for this hypothesis to be validated it needs to be tested and a causal link established. The first stage towards accomplishing this is to analyse your so called ‘chemtrails’ at source. Contrary to your contentions, no one has done this. I do however invite you to prove me wrong.
I witness a world beset by rising global temperatures, Nitric Oxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Hydrocarbons, Ammonia, ground level Ozone and other photo chemical oxidants, Nitric Acid, Fuel Ash, Sulphur Dioxide, Metallic Catalysts and particulate, deforestation and loss of habitat – a consequence of mass industrialisation and our disposable consumer lifestyles. Evidently, you choose to overlook the sources of primary and secondary pollution, instead attributing all this ecological damage to the trails that you see in the sky.
“You think nobody has tried to investigate this?”
Legitimately, through application of the scientific method? No they have not, but again, please feel to provide the published findings or the objective empirical data that proves otherwise – I would be fascinated to see it.
“Any attempts have been squashed, ignored”
Specifically, what “attempts” are you referring to?
“And without the msm and then enough people fighting for this, the government will keep on doing as they have been, the populous oblivious to it.”
My apologies, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
“Scientists seem too scared to even respond to questions about this”
Examples? I think it’s more the awkwardness of how to effectively broach or respond to fringe internet conspiracy theory and the growing anti-science movement prone to disingenuous behavior and dishonestly manipulating facts and quoting out of context. For those schooled in science, I think it’s more a case of bewilderment and disbelief than fear.
“Now, yes, please tell me how these contrails form, citing older non government-modified resources.”
Perhaps start by reading the excellent 'Flight to Arras' was a book published by Antoine Saint-Exupery detailing his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". - which was obviously not in the interest of a covert operation. This was a story published in 1942 about a flight in 1940.
Professor Ulrich Schumann, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 4(2000) 391-401 "Influence of Propulsion efficiency on Contrail Formation” although this has been subject to subsequent revision.
Following registration, you can read this particularly informative study:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6138/1320.full
The following is a seminal scientific study into contrail mass:
http://cires1.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/knollenberg72.pdf
This - Peter Kuhn, " Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970)
And here is the link...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1970)027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
An interesting excerpt from the following link:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometres is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails.”
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/knollenberg72.pdf
Quick question to ask yourself - and please employ some objective critical thinking to challenge your preconceptions. Given a typical commercial heavy, say a Boeing 777 powered by two GE90 jet engines jointly capable of 188,000lbs of thrust assuming a cruising speed of 550 knots and an altitude of FL35F, in an ambient temperature of -50C travelling through supersaturated air and a crosswind of 35knots burning a hydrocarbon fuel within a combustion chamber...what would you expect to observe?
Thanks again for your reply and I am sorry for any offence caused. Although your post was suffused with logical fallacies, I hold my hand up and concede that argumentum ad hominem, as one of the most commonly encountered in these situations is neither helpful or conducive to constructive discourse. For that, I apologise Eli.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@luis-sophus-8227
"Haha, consume and regurgitate goes for you fellow"
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
I am irrelevant to this exchange. The scientific, technical, independent and third party evidence in support of the moon landings is axiomatic, manifest, and has a voice of its own.
You can observe precisely the same effect here on Earth - that's what uneven terrain can do. And yes, this has been addressed, over and over and over and over and over again, most amusingly when David Percy was exposed for dishonestly cropping pictures.
Do you have anything new or perhaps an original thought that you could share? I'm genuinely interested. Something other than diverging shadows, the Apollo 11 astronauts looked glum in the press conference, the flag moves, NASA forgot to add the stars or there should be a crater under the lunar module?
Go ahead, I'm sure you can muster something relating to your own observations.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"whoever you are."
I thought that you knew?
"And No, you qualified in none of the things you listed. Checked"
Impeccable logic given that you don't know who I am.
"I'm tired of all the troll emails asking me to prove,prove ,prove."
Here's a revelation for you which you seem unable to comprehend. In making a claim you need to substantiate it. Also, as the one visiting this video and typing "Bullshit" then the troll you refer to will be none other than yourself.
"I don't have to prove anything."
Then your claims are baseless.
"Like I told the other guy,..go to the U.S.patent and trademark office."
Patents are proof of absolutely nothing. What's your point?
"Type in weather modification"
What does weather modification have to do with the chemtrail hoax which is the erroneous belief that contrails in the wake of commercial airliners are evidence of global sprayng.
"days of reading complete with plane schematics and layout."
Which "plane" in particular? What did you discover?
"You'll find the type of sprayers used."
Link?
"Sad day when you can't just say, I saw a plane sitting on the runway after landing spraying something from nozzles not even attached to the engines."
But you didn't "just say" that did you? To recap, what you actually said was that you video taped an aircraft at Tennessee Airport which was spraying a chemical substance whilst stationery on the runway and as a consequence the passengers were detained, whereupon subsequent examination undertaken by your Dad revealed that their clothing had traces of aluminium oxide and thorium oxide. I have simply asked you, not unreasonably to produce this video that bizarrely in spite of your beliefs, you have not elected to share - in addition to details of the flight, the airline the make of aircraft and the time and date.
It's a sad day is it when someone calls you for bullshitting over the internet?
"I suppose folks don't believe in crop dusters either,.."
What does crop dusting have to do with commercial airline operations?
"Just go read "ALL" the documents"
What documents?
"They will explain much better than I"
That wouldn't be hard would it.
Why don't you produce your video instead? Which reminds me, back to my questions which you have conveniently sidestepped.
1/ This flight that you refer to, what was the date, the airline and the make of aircraft?
2/ Your supposed video. Why did you not post it to YouTube?
3/ Do you regard the footage in this video as being evidence of your chemtrails? The answer to that question will explain much.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hoanglinhle4468
"So NASA claimed they were on the moon and confirmed it with their own station? Do you have any idea what "Third Party" mean?"
Did you not read my reply to you? You seem to ignore 99% of content of responses and just blithely plough on. No, these stations were provided by different governments and countries and staffed by their own nationals. Have you any idea what Independent Nations means?
"Do you have any idea what "Third Party" mean?"
Yep. Read my reply again in which I have provided multiple examples that you chose to disregard.
"Also copying Wiki doesn't help man."
No copying from Wiki, but you'll no doubt find that the same information is available since it is independently verifiable.
"They always "We confirm this and that" but fail to give evidence."
There is a an abundance of verifiable objective scientific and independent evidence that the moon landings are real. You requested the third party proof, I gave it to you and you chose to ignore most of it.
"If you think NASA can't lie just because it requires some high authority, remember Iraq's bottle of salt."
NASA are fully accountable. Regarding your Iraq non-sequitur, although no WMD production was discovered, in the Halabja massacre, Saddam Hussein orchestrated the biggest chemical attack on a civilian population in history - even exceeding the crimes of Assad.
And meanwhile, the online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly defer to is of course is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. The words metric, ton and salt immediately spring to mind.
2
-
@hoanglinhle4468
"Which exactly "third party evidence" told you so?"
By the time of The Apollo missions, and actually, by Shepherd's first Mercury flight, NASA had already established at least 30 ground stations on five continents; several islands; and aboard ships sailing the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans. This required the complicity of foreign nations and governments. However, countries such as Australia were eager to directly participate and the U.S. encouraged them to take the helm of the DSN communications stations. NASA selected the Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Australia, to receive the remote Apollo 11 moonwalk readings, or telemetry, whilst the 85-foot antenna at Honeysuckle Creek to the south tracked the LEM and the moonwalks. If the USA was going to fake the videos, it would take the cooperation of those other countries to do it. Spain for example, offered Robledo and Fresnedillas. There were also independent institutions and facilities most famously Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, which was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik. At the same time as Apollo 11, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15 which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings that Sir Bernard Lovell's team had made. But there are also many, many others, such as Pic du Midi Observatory (in the French Pyrenees), The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy and the Catalina Station of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies. This in addition to thousands of amateur radio operators/technicians and astronomers across the globe. NASA released information to the public explaining where third party observers could expect to see the various craft at specific times according to scheduled launch times and planned trajectories. The TLI burn was visible in the sky from the Apollo 15 mission. There was even a group at Kettering Grammar School who using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits. In addition to this, academics in the Soviet Union published a paper in 1978 measuring coordinates with the various sectors of the RATAN-600 telescope. The selenographic coordinates of the ALSEP transmitters deployed on the lunar surface by the Apollo 12 and 14-17 crews were measured to an accuracy of 1.0 to 1.5 deg of arc (or 12-15 arcsec in alpha and delta) with a 1.5-arcmin x 1-deg beam. ALSEP was designed to be assembled and configured by hand and could only have been placed there by manned landings. Also, independent geologists and mineralogists worldwide have examined the Apollo moon rocks using petrological analysis. Planetary scientists at The Open University in the UK are spearheading a microscope collection of over 550 rocks collected during the Apollo missions. BRGM in France were one of the first independent laboratories to analyse a moon rock from Apollo 11,. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2.
These are just some of the examples of the top of my head.
"All I have seen so far are "trace of Apollo", not anything solid yet."
Then stop looking solely at dumb online conspiracy theory to tell you what to think.
"People can discover water on the mood, collect moon dusk, scan the surface. But sending 1 robot to a specific location for high res pictures is too complicated?"
Three rovers have been sent to the moon. Future missions plan to explore the far side, whilst two are destined for the lunar polar regions.
Do you actually think that missions to the moon are predicated upon satisfying the demands of, and at the insistence and behest of a community of credulous cretins and scientifically illiterate conspiracy believers that can't be arsed to actually learn about the Apollo Programme, as opposed to science and exploration? NASA are neither obliged nor duty bound to respond to arrant stupidity.
2
-
@hoanglinhle4468
"Really? It's so well recorded to the point that the Soviets at their peak fail to understand and un-able to re-create in their space race?"
What? Firstly, clearly there was a degree of secrecy during the 1960s and the development of Apollo. However, it wasn't military grade and although the Soviets had information about this they were committed to their own moon landing programme and the N1 rocket/Zond which was very different to the Saturn V. What you need to understand it that the Soviet bid to land man on the moon was doomed to failure for the start. This was in part due to intrinsic, irreversible design flaws in the N1. Its clustered engine design. At the root of this was the deep personal conflict between Valentin Glushko chief rocket engine designer, and Sergei Korolev who originally lead Soviet Lunar program before his death.Glushko refused to work on powerful LOX/PR engines for lunar rocket. To avoid the spinning detonation or combustion instability associated with a larger more powerful engine (that the Apollo scientists solved with the F1s), clustered configurations of smaller engines were favoured. In spite of this, the Soviets couldn't solve the flow separation problem for large nozzle sizes. The Soviets never trusted themselves to build a thrust chamber beyond 500,000 lbf. That’s the rumor, at least. So trusting only smaller engines, meant clustering and that it a completely different paradigm. The complex plumbing necessary to feed fuel and oxidizer into the clustered arrangement of rocket engines was fragile and a major factor in its continual failure in addition to unsophisticated flight computers and software. The untimely death of Korolev in addition to the fact that the Soviet moon programme was operating on a fraction of the budget of Apollo meant that it was never going to be successful.
"The first step of learning is by copying. If you fail to copy a "well document" program, how can you take any lesson from it?"
Of course there are lessons taken from it. There is a huge amount of information and data yielded from the Apollo programme, but that does not mean duplicating the technology. Why should we build a vehicle that used 1960s technology when we could build far more capable, safer spacecraft today? Many principles remain the same and the J2X engines used for Project Artemis are essentially a derivation of the Apollo J2s. The SLS itself utilises much of the technology from the shuttle programme such as upgraded SRBs whilst Artemis 1 reused three of the Atlantis RS-25 engines.
"How can you be sure that the old program was even really worked or not?"
Because scientific, independent and third party evidence tells us so, in addition to the huge quantity of data and experimentation yielded from the nine missions to the moon.
"Copy => Study => Modify" is the key process for engineering as a whole. Unless you are a super genius who creates everything from zero."
Not when the technology is outmoded, together with the processed, plants, tooling and manufacturing all purposed for the 1960s it isn't. When we eventually resume a supersonic passenger service, (and it's approaching a quarter of a century now), they aren't about to dust off Concorde, or a duplicate and roll it out of retirement from a museum or hangar.
2
-
"But for some reason, nobody go back to moon."
Given that no one was paying for it, no, they didn't.
"Everybody who worked in the project completely forget how to go back there."
No one 'forgot how to go back there'. The plants, processes, tooling, specialist expertise was all retired or moved on, whilst the technology was left to lie fallow and become obsolete.
"Accidently nobody care enough to write down all the step to go to the moon."
What on Earth are you going on about now? The Apollo programme was fully documented. All of the technical details, the schematics, the mission planning, the technology is recorded and can be detailed in full. We fully understand how Apollo landed men on the moon.
"Also nobody know who actually work on the project that brought human to the moon, except some specific famous person."
What? NASA is a civilian organisation. The personnel involved in the Apollo programme was huge, but fully transparent. There have been books written and documentaries made about the astronauts, the engineers, the management, the computer scientists, the contractors, the consultants - right from the top tier upper echelons of the project down to those that stitched the flags or ran the catering. Where are you getting this nonsense from?
"50 years later, with all the technology advantage, yet nobody able to copy the technology that bring human to the moon, including the people that claim "We went to the moon"
That technology is largely defunct. You don't copy technology. It is a given in engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes rather than trying recreate old equipment. To reiterate, it is fully understood how to send crewed missions to the moon. Project Artemis was only finally approved as recently as 2018.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Can we go to the moon today?"
Yes, Artemis 1 returned last month.
"No, so htf did we go in 1969"
The Apollo Programme.
"anyone who believes this rubbish, is either stupid, deluded or in denial"
So that'll be entire branches of scientific disciplines such as mathematics, physics and geology, associated branches including astrophysics, orbital mechanics and petrology and such related specialist fields as aerospace engineering, rocketry and computing that collectively verify the authenticity and validity of the moon landings. All comprising acute expertise, knowledge and individuals far more informed and clever than yourself, a random nobody on the comments section of You Tube.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This again? Seriously? How many times?
Press conference three and a half weeks after returning from the moon landing to be more precise. Maybe you should watch it in its entirety, in which you see the same "happy enthusiastic" astronauts laughing and joking.
So you obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have this. Sigh, yet another online armchair self-appointed authority in behavioural psychology then.
Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. However astronauts such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Ron Evans and Eugene Cernan in particular were far more ebullient and outgoing in their nature. Perhaps you should find and watch the post mission pressers for the other five moon landings that you freaks never mention and are doubtless unaware of.
Frankly if that's all it takes to convince you, it's hardly surprising that people of your ilk are the target market for these conmen and frauds that perpetrate online conspiracy theory.
Can I suggest that you find pictures and footage of them beaming in the Mobile Quarantine Trailer immediately after recovery and when you've done that, as I suggested, find the post mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even the aborted Apollo 13 landing.
2
-
Firstly, you are referring to Apollo 17. The actual time spent on the surface was divided between three EVAs lasting a total of 22 hours, four minutes on the lunar surface. The first was 7 hours, 11 minutes and 53 seconds, the second, 7 hours and 36 minutes and 56 seconds and the final one lasted 7 hours, 15 minutes, 8 seconds. Maintaining temperatures in the suits wasn't the issue - it was shedding heat. Body heat of the astronauts was carried away from the water-cooled undergarment and in waste air, both of which passed through the PLSS (Personal Life Support System) backpack, where they were cooled by a water ice sublimator. Several gallons of water was contained in a pair of flexible reservoirs inside the backpack for this purpose. Astronauts could control the operation of the sublimator, and so the amount of cooling. No heat was ever needed, as the human body cranks out as much heat as an incandescent light bulb. Oxygen and water were rechargeable for multiple EVAs and power was provided by a lithium 279 watt-hour battery. For the J-Class missions, Apollo 15, 16 and 17, battery capacity was increased to 390 watt-hours.
The suits were only pressurised to 3.8 psi. This created only minor resistance, but the AL7 space suits were equipped with special joints or tapers in the fabric to help the astronauts bend and flex.
2
-
@LiamR90
"Waving flag"
It moved when disturbed or by PLSS venting.
"Operation Paperclip hired propaganda experts."
Such as?
"Astronauts fall and move like they're on ropes."
No they don't - their movements are entirely consistent with 1/6th g and the near vacuum of the lunar surface.
"Inconsistencies in the astronauts accounts. Saying they saw no stars in their interview 2 weeks later, then writing in their biographies that there were stars everywhere"
There are no inconsistencies whatsoever if you are capable of contextualisation. Some are answering questions on whether stars were visible in the lunar corona, others recounting passage around the far side of the moon.
"No movement in the moons surface when the lander lands or takes off."
Yes there is, that is blatantly false as evidenced by footage and the radial disturbance subsequently imaged by satellites.
"They were in a space race against Russia and needed to be first."
Indeed, which is precisely the reason why such an obscene budget was allocated to the programme.
"They have lied about worse in the past"
Of course governments lie and conspire - no one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that claims of faked moon landings any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
"Operation Northwoods"
Which had nothing to do with Apollo either in terms of motivation or circumstances.
"Gulf of Tonkin incident"
The first attack was indisputably genuine.
"Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"
No stockpiles were found but the invasion was predicated upon intelligence that indicated that they were being manufactured. Not to mention of course that through the Halabja massacre, Saddam Hussein executed the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.
"9/11 pentagon hit by plane"
Which it was.
"and tower 7 fell due to fire."
Which it was - raging out of control on ten floors, causing the steel support structure to weaken and collapse.
So you simply state more unsubstantiated conspiracy theory as fact in support of your belief in a conspiracy theory?
"Moon rock gifted to other countries was actually discovered to be petrified wood years later."
Incorrect. the supposed rock was a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees Jr in 1969. Drees had been out of office for 11 years, but was considered an elder statesman. When Drees died in 1988, the 'rock' was donated by his family to the Rijksmuseum without verification, and having been briefly exhibited was kept in storage for two decades until it was later discovered to the curator's great embarrassment to have been petrified wood. It had nothing to do with NASA or the US government. The Goodwill rocks given by NASA to the Dutch government are accounted for in other Dutch museums throughout the Netherlands and encased in Lucite as were all moon rocks officially distributed around the world as gifts. You could have established this for yourself.
"Pictures of Mars in recent years have proven to be actually taken on Earth and filtered. Just Google Mars Rat or Mars Mouse to see what I mean."
Is this actually serious? How gullible?
"Just looking at the lander, common sense tell you that thing wouldn't make it."
And the entire specialist field of aerospace engineering tells you that it would.
"Stanley Kubrick made a space movie the year before the landing which had sets looking similar to the Apollo 11 mission. Then in The Shining he left a lot of clues to suggest he might have been proud of directing the landings."
No it didn't, it didn't even remotely resemble the lunar surface or 1/6th g. And no he didn't, stop allowing dumb conspiracy theorists to tell you what to think.
"The body language and nervousness of the astronauts in their interview 2 weeks after returning."
Almost a month actually, and following over three and a half weeks of quarantine. Did you see their 'body language' in the rest of the interview that wasn't deceptively edited - the part in which they are laughing and joking - or their elation upon recovery on the deck of the USS Hornet? Or have you bothered to watch the post mission press conferences from the other five crews that landed on the moon? Of course you haven't.
"NASA have lost all of the Apollo 11 tapes."
No they haven't. They reused some of the raw data magnetic back up tapes from the EVA, that were never intended for archival use anyway. And what of Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17?
"Radiation belt around Earth"
Wrong again, they are belts, (two with a third that is transitory) consisting of charged particles (alpha and beta radiation) in differing concentrations and intensities. Apollo passed through the sparsest outer regions at high velocity and a short space of time.
"Space X can't get there still."
Historically, Space X have not had the objective of going to the moon. Their main preoccupation will be the completion of the HLS for Artemis 3.
"NASA have given up and just support others trying to do it."
Artemis 1 sends its regards.
"Shall I go on."
Mindlessly consuming and regurgitating dumb online conspiracy theory? You can if you like, but you only achieve your own humiliation. Instead, do you have any original ideas or observations of your own as opposed to blindly parroting the same old predictable online conspiracy videos and falsities about subjects that you clearly have no understanding or knowledge of whatsoever?
2
-
2
-
2
-
"I think they used puppets with strings to make it look like real astronauts :-D"
Because of course puppets with strings would naturally look like real astronauts.
"Or stop/motion technique?"
Filmed live in real time? Ok then.
"Many who has scrutinized the footage states it is the same scenery as they use when they are making puppetmovies:-D"
Many? Name just one together with their full credentials.
"As lunar module,they used a big washingmachine or two modules such connected,and used"
Ok then.
"thinfoil and ducked tape to reel around the feet."
No, MLI - mylar and kapton. What's 'thinfoil' and 'ducked' tape?
"Other evidence"
Other evidence? What evidence? You haven't presented any. You've said that you think that the Apollo astronauts were puppets, using 'puppetmovies scenery' (whatever that is) and that the lunar module was fashioned out of a washing machine.
"was a rock with a c on"
Nope, contamination of a later reproduction which under magnification reveals itself to be a fibre. How do we know this? Because your supposed 'C' isn't present on the original image, negatives or prints. And why in God's name would NASA inscribe the letter 'C' on a fake moon rock? You realise that the Apollo missions returned over a third of a ton of moon rocks - samples from which were subsequently analysed by a field of science called geology? Of course you didn't.
"and no stars in the footage:-D"
Do you possibly have the vaguest semblance of an original thought or observation even occasionally enter your vacuous cranium?
Why should you see stars during the lunar day and why should the aperture settings detect them? You seriously believe that NASA conceived and coordinated the byzantine levels of detail necessary to stage this hoax but forgot to place stars in the photos and footage? And now, over half a century later a random nobody parrots this over the comments section of You Tube and expects to be taken seriously, when of course, no dumb conspiracy believer has ever regurgitated this before.
"The reason:-Just to investigate how gullible people are :-D2
We have online conspiracy theory that serves precisely that purpose - and congratulations, you are the poster child and personification of that stupidity.
God bless the internet - exposing idiots since 1993.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Steveaustin007
Ha! You mean the ludicrous Eugene Akers story which as you would expect is completely unsubstantiated by Sibrel, who offers no supporting evidence as to his identity and is riddled with contradictions and historical inaccuracy. Because after all, nothing says honest, informed, reliable and accurate more than a convicted felon and stalker, ex cab driving religious cult member, former advertisement producer that managed to get himself completely ostracised from the industry and is now consumed by hatred and resentment, and proven liar and fraud with absolutely zero specialist knowledge or relevant expertise whatsoever. Righto then.
Cannon AFB? Really? But what about Area 51 Nevada? No, wait, the Utah or Arizona deserts? Or is it Devon Island Canada? Hang on, I completely forgot about a Hollywood studio or Shepperton UK? You goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Gotta say though, that must be some 'air force hangar' to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
2
-
2
-
2
-
This again? Really?...seriously, how many times? Nope, there is one video featuring a NASA engineer Kelly Smith discussing the (then) new Orion Capsule which has been quote mined and deceptively titled by conspiracy theorists and is mindlessly and uncritically consumed and regurgitated by their equally dumb following. Owing to the fact that this is a completely different craft from Apollo, Smith was saying in 2014 that the problems associated with the Van Allen Belts need to be solved before we send a crew into this region of space, (note the plural, since there are two, with a third that is transitory - why is it even necessary to explain that to you?)
The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation resistant. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics.The Apollo Guidance Computer utilised magnetic core rope memory, which is extremely radiation hard. Do you even know that that is? Of course you f*****g don't. The computers were responsible for a relatively small aspect of the operation of the spacecraft; a lot of tasks were performed manually. In contrast, modern spacecraft like Orion are controlled by very high-density computing, and single event upsets (SEUs) can cause major problems. This is read-only pre-written memory crafted by roping the needed bits into the circuit logic and its r/w memory was magnetic core, meaning hundreds of tiny ferrite rings were wrapped into fine cables. In the case of modern spacecraft, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the Apollo AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive.
In the same year (2014), Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts to validate its systems which were also tested to overwhelming success as part of last year's Artemis 1 mission.
They are talking about the six "fucking" landings that took place between 1969 and 1972. What are you "fucking" talking about you fool? You haven't got the remotest idea have you? Which is precisely what happens when you mindlessly parrot crap online conspiracy theory about subjects that you have no knowledge of whatsoever.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dansiwek3593
Ah right.
Yes you are correct. Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. So actually, the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what the contrails that you term 'chemtrails' are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Unfortunately, your comment was shadow banned, and so only visible in my notifications, so I have duly summarised it below
"So you are saying my digging was watching a crap online conspiracy video?"
No, you have probably squandered a large portion of your life watching multiple crap conspiracy videos. "Digging" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' frittering away your evenings consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours? Do you have anything new? Oh hang on...
"What about if I watched hundreds of videos and read 10+ books?"
Books? I'd say why don't you try it instead. Naturally, you'll ensure that the literature is objective, well researched and don't have the names Kaysing or Sibrel on the spine and cover. Why don't you start by reading up on the actual science, technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme instead of relying upon what dumb online conspiracy theorists tell you what to think?
"You assuming someone else’s intellect, ability, and determination to dig is ignorantly laughable. Why?"
Because clearly, you equate "intellect, ability and determination to dig" with junk conspiracy theory.
"Can I show you some areas to look into? Or do you trust the government agencies over your brothers?"
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that claims that the moon landing was faked, or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
The government is irrelevant. The science is demonstrable and the mathematics axiomatic thereby having a voice of their own. Meanwhile the independent and third party evidence in support of the moon landings is incontrovertible.
Areas to look into? What I'd like you to do instead is to present your singular most compelling piece of evidence that the six Apollo moon landings were faked. What do you regard as irrefutable evidence? I absolutely guarantee that I have heard it before over and over and over again, and I can tell you where it came from...that is of course unless you have your own original thoughts and observations, which I would welcome. I have invited this from countless conspiracy believers, but as yet, it has never happened. You could be the first.
2
-
2
-
Firstly, the main objective of the dummy was to equip it with the first-generation Orion Crew Survival System suit – a spacesuit astronauts will wear during launch, entry, and other dynamic phases of their missions. It was fitted with sensors to record gs and acceleration in order that engineers could compare Artemis I flight data with previous ground-based vibration tests with the same test dummy, and human subjects, to correlate performance. Accelerometers inside Orion yielded data for comparing vibration and acceleration between the upper and lower seats. It also evaluated the integration of the newly designed systems with an energy dampening system that the seats are mounted on.
In terms of radiation, Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo designed for longer duration and distance The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17 at 12 days - in comparison, Artemis 1 was 25 days (42 originally) and unlike Apollo reached an apogee around the moon of 40,000 miles. The mannequin was also testing a new radiation shielding vest, called the astrorad. Also the mission coincided with peak solar activity which was a tremendous opportunity to gain more data in respect of the crew cabin and its systems.
Secondly, the Russians did have a moon programme which actually continued after the cancellation of Apollo. Their aspirations to reach the moon were confounded by the continued failure of the N1 rocket, the untimely death of Sergei Korolev and a fraction of the funding of the Apollo Programme.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh for Christ's sake - yet another drive by dumb conspiracy theory believer parroting the same old nonsense that can't even punctuate a sentence.
Space exploration has not 'moved backwards' at all. The pace of technological advancement has been exponential. Mankind is unable to leave Low Earth Orbit because no one has been prepared to fund and build the necessary heavy lift capability since the abandonment of the Saturn V. Project Artemis sends its regards.
It has not been possible to fly a commercial passenger service to New York in under three hours for almost a quarter of a century - despite the technology being there to do so. By your skewed and fallacious logic Concorde must also have been a hoax - or could it possibly be, that no one has been prepared to pay for a replacement.
A TV studio genius? That's a new one. And where was that? I though it was supposed to have been filmed in a Hollywood film set? No, no wait...wasn't it Kubrick in a UK sound stage...Shepperton? or was it Elstree? I'm sure it was supposed to be Pinewood...surely it was Twickenham? Hang on a minute, what about Area 51, Groom Lake Nevada? No, it was definitely Cannon AFB, New Mexico...no, no, the Utah outback. Hold on, wasn't it Death Valley California. Nope, it was absolutely without doubt the Arizona desert. But then what about Devon Island.
You absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'TV Studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
Clever lad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Carl-mw3ft
Have they? You mean those entire branches of science, specialist fields/disciplines such as aerospace engineering, rocketry, computer science, Nobel Prize winning physicists, historians and investigative journalists, over 10,000 private sector initiatives and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet? Or are you referring to random, insignificant, scientifically illiterate, Dunning Kruger afflicted gullible online conspiracy believers and self proclaimed experts with no actual knowledge of the subject whatsoever?
2
-
2
-
@Juxtapositional
Why are you people utterly fixated upon and obsessed with NASA? Forget NASA.
The fact that the moon is a solid planetary body is independently scientifically verifiable. Are you actually suggesting that you don't understand the phases of the moon? You actually think that a portion of the moon is "obscured by blue sky"?
The composition of the moon and surface minerology can be measured by spectrometry. If you purchase a cheap telescope or even use binoculars you can discern the surface features and topography for yourself. Aside from Apollo, missions to the moon have been conducted by the following nations and organisations - the Soviet Union/Russia, Japan, the European Space Agency, China, India, Luxembourg, Israel, Italy, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates.
The moon exerts gravitational influence on the earth and is the reason that we have high and low tides.
As has been mentioned, 382kg of moon rock has been returned to Earth, in addition to meteorites of lunar origin. These have been studied and authenticated by an entire branch of science called geology and through laboratory petrological analysis.
Why are you and your ilk hell bent on returning to the stone age?
2
-
@blaze1148
So to remind you, here again was my caveat:
"Naturally you'll wish to avoid the same old obligatory, predictable junk online conspiracy theory that has been endlessly consumed and regurgitated over and over and over again by gullible scientific illiterates with zero actual knowledge of the science, technology and history of the Apollo moon landings. Do you have any original thoughts or observations or are you going to rely upon what some online grifter has told you to think that has been debunked and ridiculed innumerable times?"
And what do you do?
1. Traversing through the Van Allen Belts which btw they say they can't get through now.
No one has said that "they can't get through now". The VABs are toroidal and contain charged alpha and beta particles, you can shield against the former with a piece of paper. The new Orion capsule however needed to tested and validated. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive. Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. This was not a problem for the Apollo design. One engineer, Kelly Smith stated in 2014 that these challenges "needed to be solved" before we can send a crew into those regions of the belts and beyond. In the same year Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts and last year, to orbit the moon and return to Earth as part of Artemis 1, to overwhelming success. Why is it even necessary to explain all this again?
2. The shear distance of 238,000 kms [so we are told to believe] being exposed to all that radiation.
What radiation? The Apollo missions traversed the inner belt which consists of energetic protons in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft then took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Total mission doses were measured in the region of 1 - 1.5 rems.
Incidentally, the correct spelling is 'sheer'.
3. Docking the LM to the CM which was moving at 25,000 mph with 1960's tech
It was not moving at 25,000mph. Where are you getting this nonsense from? And what do you mean "60s tech" - what about it? The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) systems required very good accelerometers and gyroscopes, some of the very best that could be made. Fortunately, there’d been a lot of research and development on these devices for ballistic missile applications. On-board radar units provided very accurate measurements of the relative positions and velocities LM (Lunar Module) and CSM (Command and Service Module stack). All of these devices were state of the art for the day, and very expensive, but that wasn’t a big problem for the Apollo program.Both the Lunar Module’s AGC and AGS were connected to the gyroscope for inertial navigation and to the rendezvous and docking radar and were part of the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS). After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods. A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock.
4. Where exactly did they put the Lunar Rover - especially the first one with pneumatic tyres.
The lunar rovers were folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the LM descent stage equipment bay. There is ample footage of the loading and deployment of them - you could have established all this for yourself. What the hell are you talking about now? 'pneumatic tyres'? They were steel mesh, wrapped around a solid inner frame.
5. Air con / scrubbers in the LM ?
The LM did not use air conditioning, rather open cycle sublimation which is a passive process. And yes, scrubbing cannisters were used to remove C02. What's your point?
6. Rockets do not work in a vacuum.
The entire branch of science called physics demonstrates otherwise as does Newton's third law of motion.
7. The Moon is not a solid entity.
Said no astronomer ever.
Jeez.
We can measure the composition of the moon from Earth, by analysing its light via spectroscopy. We have landed on the Moon 29 times now. None of those landings reported anything other than solid rock. 4. 8 missions brought back samples (more than 380 kg), all rock. If the moon produced its own illumination and was not solid it would not have phases. You can discern the geological surface features, topography and relief of the moon for yourself using only a cheap pair of binoculars ffs. What's wrong with you?
"I could go on and on"
You could, if you want to continue making a complete tit of yourself.
"but many of the files are on my other PC when I researched the Moon Landings in 2015 ....will have to dig it out and repost as and when."
I didn't ask for you to regurgitate files on your other PC, I asked for your singular most compelling piece of evidence or original observations knowing that you wouldn't have any. Instead, as predicted, all that you have done is parroted the same old predictable and obligatory crap conspiracy theory based upon your own ignorance and personal incredulity.
When you researched it? Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following squandered evenings consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"The surprising thing about 25% of the UK not believing in the Moon landings is the 75% that still do believe it !!"
Known science is not a question of belief.
You'll also find that 25% of internet users are complete imbeciles such as yourself with no idea how to use it responsibly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The laughing is characteristic of those who try to ridicule people who have brains and question things in life"
Conspiracy believers such as yourself don't have brains and you aren't remotely interested in the answers to the dumb questions that you parrot.
"From the BBC, I only expect lies."
This isn't made by the BBC, rather the production company Talkback. They merely screen it. The BBC are fully answerable to the legal process and are regulated by OFCOM.
And meanwhile, the crap online conspiracy theory that you place your faith in is fully accountable, entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
2
-
@fendermarshallbluesbox3407
Seriously? How many times? It's the same things over and over and over and over and over again with you people in spite of how many times this has been explained to you. if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, intellectual honesty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, it's very clear what he is referring to. But no, instead, you fools moronically succumb to subjective confirmation bias and feeble minded quote mining.
You are referring to a 2014 video entitled 'Orion: Trial by Fire' in which an engineer called Kelly Smith discussed the challenges posed by the VABs for the then new Orion capsule. Because the computers aboard Orion are much more powerful than those carried by NASA’s Apollo moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s, such advanced high density electronics are more susceptible to the levels of radiation found in the Van Allen belts and beyond. This is a given and needs no further explanation. However, understand that the read only core rope memory used by Apollo is radiation hard. In contrast, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor - can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive. Orion's onboard systems/life support systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. This was not a problem for the Apollo design. Smith stated that these challenges "needed to be solved" before we can send a crew into those regions of the belts and beyond. In the same year Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts and last year, to orbit the moon and return to Earth as part of Artemis 1, to overwhelming success.
Why is it even necessary to explain all this again? What's wrong with you?
2
-
2
-
@TrevorCrook-c1s
"I am interested in your explanations"
Are you though? Let's see.
Firstly you listed "Operation Himmler , the burning down of the Reichstag , the sinking of the Lusitania, MK Ultra , Bohemian Grove, the Reichstag fire , Operation Northwoods" - None of these were conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.
"NASA claims that they destroyed the technology used in the Apollo missions . That makes no sense . Why would they do that ?"
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to when he said "destroyed". The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"NASA sending alleged moon rock to Holland which turned out to be petrified wood “ from Earth “
This again? Seriously? the supposed rock was a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees in 1969. Drees had been out of office for 11 years, but was considered an elder statesman. When Drees died in 1988, the 'rock' was donated by his family to the Rijksmuseum without verification, and having been briefly exhibited was kept in storage for two decades until it was later discovered to the curator's great embarrassment to have been petrified wood. It had nothing to do with NASA or the US government. The actual Goodwill rocks given by NASA to the Dutch government are accounted for in other Dutch museums throughout the Netherlands and encased in Lucite as were all moon rocks officially distributed around the world as gifts.
"Astronauts asked to swear on the bible that they had been on the moon and their response was to run away"
No they didn't. And why should anyone after years of harassment be forced to swear on a magic book brandished in front of them by that deranged stalker and conspiracy nutjob Bart Sibrel? Imagine that you did something truly revolutionary, at unimaginable risk to yourself. You did it on national TV, with the whole world watching. Hundreds of thousands of people can personally attest to what you did…Then some grifter with a camera crew comes up to you and demands that you go through some pseudo-formal rigmarole to “prove” that you actually did it. Now, not only is this charlatan insinuating that you faked your great accomplishment, based on half-baked theories and zero hard evidence, but he’s also arrogantly proclaiming himself to be the supreme arbiter of truth (i.e., “If you don’t pass my test, then that proves you faked it”). When Neil Armstrong was approached he retorted, “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” And why should he have sworn on it? he wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.” However, Jim Lovell, Al Bean and Eugene Cernan all did. You therefore have no choice but to accept that.
"Stanley Kubricks film showing many many anomalies"
What film? What anomalies?
"So you admit we did not see the moon landing live. All animation"
Surely, you are able to comprehend that it was not possible to film the moon landings, Apollo 11 or any of the other missions, live? Although there was a camera mounted in the window of the LM, it was not broadcast live and for obvious reasons, was not filmed externally. What people saw were animations created by TV networks for illustrative and continuity purposes. Why is it even necessary to explain this...again?
"What about film surviving such harsh temp on the moon or the radiation passing through the Van Halen radiation belt"
The surface of the moon is essentially a vacuum. Therefore in the absence of air there is no convection and heat takes time to transfer to devices that are not in direct contact with it through the radiative warmth from the sun. The camera film was derived from the ones used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which were designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and they were housed in aluminium magazines covered with reflective passive optical coatings. Moreover, the high temperature that you refer to is the equilibrium surface temperature not and air temperature - again, due to the fact that there is essentially no atmosphere on the moon. It takes time to reach this. All of the Apollo missions were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. A day on the moon is equivalent to 29.5 days on Earth.
"Van Halen" was a pioneering American rock guitarist. You mean 'Van Allen'
Seriously - why are you doing this to yourself?
2
-
2
-
@yomommaahotoo264
"Just because 0.2 bar partial pressure of O2 equals the AMOUNT of O2 a lung would absorb, doesn't mean the lung WILL absorb that amount of O2 without the remaining pressure of sea level Nitrogen that we all evolved to breath."
Explain why - then direct me to your sources.Or was that because a conspiracy theorist told you so?
Once again, because you are clearly struggling here. At 4 psi, pure oxygen is no more toxic than the 21% in the air around me right now (at 14.7 psi). Apollo astronauts actually breathed a somewhat elevated partial pressure of oxygen compared to the atmosphere (0.34, 34%, versus 21%, 0.21) in addition to the fact that they were breathing it at a reduced total pressure (0.34 bar versus 1 bar). At least in the mid-term (the Apollo 11 mission to the moon took a bit over 8 days), what counts is the partial pressure of oxygen (used by our metabolism), and this value slightly above the physiological normal is quite safe for humans for the short sprints to the moon and back.
"You can't even show us that a fly could live in 5psi and under of pure 02, let alone a human."
Who are "us"? Don't project your ignorance onto others. Your comparison is utterly absurd since fruit flies have been shown to survive for up to 12 hours without any oxygen. Would you like to venture why the respiratory requirements are totally different?
"STILL WAITING FOR ANY INDEPENDENT EXAMPLES OF HUMANS BREATHING LOW PRESSURE PURE O2....."
Why would they? Pure oxygen was used by Apollo because of a range of advantages. It meant that instead of building a pressure vessel that could handle 15 PSI (1,000 millibars) they could get away with 3 PSI (200 millibars), since that is the partial pressure of oxygen at sea level. That is, that is all humans need to breath normally. It simplified EVAs (going outside), since on Gemini and Apollo there were no airlocks, and the whole cabin had to be depressurised. (There was no provision for EVA on Mercury.) Also, even today spacesuits operate at 3 PSI, which means that before going outside one has to pre-breath pure oxygen for two hours to avoid the “bends" (nitrogen narcosis) from the depressurisation. In Gemini and Apollo that was unnecessary, since they were already breathing pure oxygen. However, using pure O2 as the cabin gas at the low pressures used puts limits on how long astronauts can breath it. Basically, pure O2 becomes poisonous and deadly when used for longer than about two weeks. This is a major reason that pure O2 could not be used for systems such as Skylab, Shuttle or ISS and why the planned longer duration Project Artemis missions will not use it.
Could you now provide a scenario in which it would be similarly advantageous to do so on Earth for a two-week duration?
"For all you non shills"
Seriously, how old are you? Grow up mate.
"think of an animal's respiratory system (no matter what type) as a valve. Until a pressure for which they evolved to breath and exchange gasses is approached, they will not exchange gasses effectively."
So why do you think it is that your supposed "gotcha" that you mindlessly parroted off some dumb online conspiracy video has eluded the attention of entire branches of life science, specialist fields such as respiratory physiology and medicine the world over for in excess of half century, yet you, a random nobody on the comments section of You Tube claims to know better?
Incidentally, your caps lock key appears to be intermittently malfunctioning.
2
-
@yomommaahotoo264
Your cut and pastes simply demonstrate like any other scientifically illiterate conspiracy believer you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about whilst your utterly predictable and cringeworthy use of the term "shill" shows that you simply cannot handle your emotional investment in conspiracy theory being challenged. As I mentioned, this nonsense is obviously currently trending which is why you goons have all suddenly started bringing this up - just as was the case with Torr units and the inverse square law of light. You people deny science, by attempting to use science without ever studying science. Why? because you think that parroting some dumb online conspiracy theorist can substitute for the education you never had under the illusion that it makes you sound informed and clever. It really doesn't - all that you succeed in doing it humiliating yourself. Such is the inevitable consequence of internet access for halfwits that don't know how to use it responsibly. And yet you stubbornly bludgeon on regardless and impervious to reason. The only person that you are fooling is yourself.
In the case of HAPE, lower oxygen intake at high altitudes causes your blood vessels to narrow, leading to this fluid buildup. this can happen because the atmospheric pressure is still in the region of 0.3 bar (approximately 5.1 psi).
To reiterate, the reason that Apollo and Gemini astronauts avoided oxygen toxicity is because the pressure was low. Oxygen makes about 20% of our atmosphere, which means that 0.2 bar of our atmospheric pressure is from oxygen, the other 0.8 bar is from inert nitrogen. This means that breathing pure oxygen at 0.2 bar is exactly the same for our bodies as breathing normal air at normal pressure. As long as the partial pressure of oxygen doesn’t stray too far above 20 kPa, then that is sustainable. In other words, you could theoretically survive in a 100% oxygen atmosphere, as long as the overall pressure of said atmosphere was only about 20% of Earth’s sea-level pressure which the Apollo missions maintained.Conspiracy theorists tell you otherwise and that appears to be sufficient for you people lacking either the will or the capability to verify their claims.
Here on Earth, for intensive underwater work; there are rebreathers that are designed mostly for use by special forces because they don't leave a bubble trail. Also, people being treated in hyperbaric chambers for the bends or for acute carbon monoxide poisoning will breathe 100 percent oxygen, and will be carefully monitored during their treatment. The reason that they can't sustain HBOT for more than three hours is because the pressure exceeds 0.2bar. Seriously, how many times?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"If you want to believe that a country that was about to lose the biggest war in its history to a communist population of farmers didn’t need a distraction or excuse"
What?
"AND were able to send people 240,000 miles to the moon using a computer that had the processing power of a pocket calculator, then you believe that."
Sending crewed missions to the moon requires a huge multi staged rocket, applied mathematics and something called a Hohmann transfer - in addition to Isaac Newton in the drivers seat.
Regarding the necessary calculations, the AGC was very compact and a brilliant piece of kit. What you people fail to understand is the fact that it was purpose-built, and did what was required incredibly well. It also could handle overloads by resetting itself without losing the instruction stack it had which was prewritten onto rope core memory, and would re prioritise those commands on the fly. IBM engineers also developed the mini integrated circuits that meant computers could be small enough to fit inside a rocket or spacecraft. It was a brilliant piece of technology for the time. You also likely had no idea that this was supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. It collected, processed and sent to Mission Control the information needed to direct every phase of an Apollo/Saturn mission. It computed what the space vehicle was doing and compared that with what it should be doing. RTCC worked in real-time -- so fast, there was virtually no time between receiving and solving a computing problem. IBM 7094-11 computers were used in the RTCC during NASA's Gemini program and on the first three Apollo/Saturn missions. Later, IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment, were employed. Two computers were used during a mission: one was primary; the other operated identically but as standby.
None of this is a question of, nor requires "belief" - the science and technology speaks for itself and is demonstrable. What you are referring to, is the dumb online conspiracy theory that those with no prior knowledge of the science, technology and the history of the Apollo Programme whatsoever mindlessly consume and regurgitate.
2
-
@BlackPrimeMinister
"6.000 people have climbed Everest since so I would be careful with your too-keen dismissal, because it doesn't appear that strong. Six thousand!"
7,000 actually, there are now commercial enterprises that specialise in hauling paying customers up to the summit and it is hardly a "commercial day trip"! It is also a liability for actual climbers and the queues at the Hillary Step become longer each year. Meanwhile in comparison, 700 elite climbers have reached the summit of K2.
"This supports my thesis: no technological endeavour resists commoditisation under capital making it easier, safer and less expensive over time. Sure - not a day trip (I withdraw) but my point is absolutely rock solid and one for which you have no answer."
But I did answer it: To suggest that sending paying customers to the moon is in any way remotely comparable to climbing Everest with the assistance of a tour company is utterly absurd.
To clarify again - sending crewed missions to the moon is not only obscenely expensive, it is fraught with risk, danger and technical challenges. It is likely never to be 'normalised' or routine until the far-flung future and at present, the scramble to return is not in the interest of space tourism, but in terms of exploration and exploitation of natural resources. Currently it is not economically viable to extract these and that will likely remain the case until next century.
The reason that no one has returned to the moon is because Congress withdrew the funding. The goal had been achieved and in the midst of the Vietnam War, the looming OPEC oil crisis and a lack of public appetite and political will the US was not going to continue ploughing 4% of the federal budget into something it has already done. The heavy lift capability necessary to send crewed missions to the moon in the form of the Saturn V was retired and no one built another until the SLS.
"I AM saying Sibrel and the skeptics are logical"
Sibrel, logical? Is this serious? And no, conspiracy theory believers are the diametric opposite of sceptics, which necessitates being critical in both senses of that word—willing to challenge what is widely believed rather than taking it on faith, but also committed to relying on careful analysis. Skepticism and criticism come from Greek words meaning, respectively, to examine or investigate, and to judge or discern. Bart Sibrel is about as far as one can get from this.
"and what we saw in that television clip is a smear: as basic and ugly as it gets."
What "television clip" are you referring to?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is John Lloyd's light-hearted comedy panel quiz show produced by the Talkback Production Company. That's all. I suggest that you defer to the incontrovertible scientific, technological, historical, independent and third party evidence in support of the Apollo moon landings instead and that you are completely ignorant of. Known science is not a question of 'belief'.
Because meanwhile, the crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself "believe" is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
Why is it that you goons are completely incapable of structuring and composing a simple sentence and almost always feel the need to attach a string of puerile emojis?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrismatthews768
"Contrails are crystallized vapor correct?"
Incorrect. Water vapour is an invisible gas. If it is crystalised, then it is a solid, and no longer a vapour.
"So you're telling me that if I were to take a long walk, say two miles, on a cold day where I could see my breath. At the end of my two mile walk I could look back and see my breath all the way from the start of my trip?"
Perhaps you could, assuming that the exhalation from your lungs were equivalent or analogous to a large turbofan jet engine rated up to 115,000 lbs of thrust, continually burning a hydrocarbon fuel at 1,100°C and 4 litres per second, emitting a stream of 600°C superheated exhaust in an ambient ice saturated environment < -60°C whilst 'walking' at speeds up to and occasionally in excess of 500 knots.
"It's normal for planes flying in criss cross overlapping circular patterns at 80,000 feet while turning the engines off and on to finally just glide on home"
This is hilarious.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mickstrichow3445
"the world's military deploy chaff ( aluminum)"
Chaff has been used as a radar counter measure since WWII. So what - and what does this have to do with the trails that you are observing?
"the chemtrail conspiracy is the government is spraying aluminum over the population"
False equivalence much? Strikes me your chemtrails are whatever you want them to be.
No, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. The reason believers in this hoax parrot nonsense about 'aluminium is because of the SRM association fallacy. The perpetrators of this conspiracy theory have intentionally conflated it with research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection in a feeble attempt to legitimise their claims, which has proposed aluminium oxide as a possible material amongst many others.
"military chaff makes it fact"
So therefore nothing to do with the trails that you are observing or this video about aircraft contrails then.
All of this, because an online conspiracy theory told you that your chemtrails contain aluminium? Guess what? So do fireworks - aluminium, barium, strontium - sound familiar? literally "chemtrails" and there are an estimated three quarters of a million tonnes detonated on or near ground level worldwide each year. Illuminati confirmed!
"Solar radiation management ( sponsored by kill Bill Gates) is also about spraying aerosol over earth"
Did you not read my response to you? Firstly, it is not "sponsored" by Bill Gates. He has leant vocal support to the concept and contributed funds towards the Harvard research initiative. Let's be honest, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
"Go research"
I absolutely guarantee I know infinitely more about the origins, history, background and perpetrators of your crap conspiracy theory than yourself. Regarding SRM, want to discuss it further?
Another question for you. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It makes no sense"
To you. Your personal incredulity has no bearing upon reality.
"that if they are going 24,000 mph. Why did it take 3 days to get to the moon. It's only 245,000 miles. That's a 11 hour trip...."
Trans lunar injection raised the orbit of Apollo to intercept the moon using what is known as a Hohmann Transfer. Burning for five minutes and 41 seconds, this increased the velocity of the S-IVB using it's re-startable J2 engine from 17,432 mph to 24,994.656 mph to send it to the moon - it's then a coast. Once the spent third stage had been extracted and the CSM docked with the LM, since the Earth's gravity continually exerts a force on the vehicle, Apollo was steadily losing speed until it fell into the lunar sphere of gravitational influence at which point it began to accelerate again. So they coasted away from earth, they slowed gradually to just under 3,292mph before the gravitational influence of the moon allowed them to pick up speed again. Imagine having sufficient initial speed to coast uphill on a bicycle, you are continually slowing but if you have enough energy you reach the crest and gather speed once more. Lunar orbit insertion was then achieved through a burn of the SPS engine which lasted 6 minutes and placed the craft in an initial elliptical lunar orbit and a second burn lasting just 17 seconds and eased Apollo 11 into a circular orbit of 69 miles at 3,600mph.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GoodGospel_
And you "literally believe" in a magic book that tells us a prophet born by a virgin, walked on water, could turn water into wine but not summon a fig, and rose from the dead two days after being nailed to a tree. Righto then "buddy".
There were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. There have also been a multitude of unmanned landings. Six nation's space agencies, Interkosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with uncrewed missions. Nothing to do with me or what I "think" - this is all independently verifiable - unlike your scripture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, in addition to attaches, advisors, consultants and military personnel and trainers. At the same time, Russian proxies were indiscriminately killing in East Ukraine under the guise of separatists. It was a Russian Buk missile that downed MH17. Once the Ukrainian government is toppled, this then comes down to his ambitions beyond Ukraine. The catastrophic escalation will come from encroachment into the Baltic, because once the government in Kiev is overthrown - all eyes will be due north...and that's NATO soil.
Without their NATO membership, gained in 2004, the Baltic nations would be in the so called grey zone whereby Putin might well have be immediately eyeing them as a potential next meal - after devouring Moldova and Belarus. In Russia’s eyes, a grey zone does not mean neutrality between East and West; it means Kremlin rule.
While Europe and the eyes of the world were focused on Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine, the Russian leader has silently annexed Belarus. Lukashenko has always been completely dependent on Putin for his political survival. That new Russian military presence in Belarus isolates Lithuania and the two other Baltic states from the rest of Western Europe. The Baltic states fear encirclement., Strategically only the Suwalki Gap, which is a mere 60 mile frontier with Poland, gives Lithuania an outlet to other NATO member states, a stretch that could be easily cut off by Russian troops in the event of conflict.
Chillingly, on the Belarusian border with Lithuania is a reminder...a memorial to seven unarmed Lithuanian border guards who were cold bloodedly shot in the head, executed by Soviet special forces in1991, as Moscow tried to crush Lithuanian efforts to protect their newly liberated borders. Russian troops are now deployed on that very border and Lithuanian's do not believe that they will withdraw once the occupation of Ukraine is complete. Precisely why Lithuanians have been expressing their fears to the rest of the world that in Putin's crusade to restore Russia's 'greatness' is no longer a 'grey' area.
1
-
No one gets "uptight", simply weary of debunking the same junk conspiracy claims over and over and over again. And Sibrel? Right, because nothing says honest and accurate like a convicted felon, former taxi driving cult member, stalker and proven liar and fraud with no specialist expertise on the subject whatsoever.
It doesn't show anything of the sort. What is does prove is that Bart Sibrel deceives gullible dullards such as yourself. If you watched the full length original footage that it came from that you are clearly completely oblivious to, you'd discover several things: In the longer footage, you can see that, after a while, the camera backs away from its position where it had been up close to the window so that you can see the square corner of the window with the shape of the Earth clearly in the distance on the outside. You can tell that the Earth is on the outside because the perspective of the view changes between the window and the Earth as the camera moves. This proves several key things about the narrated story: Sibrel’s account specifically states that the camera was “at the back of the ship” and not up close to the window. The narrator makes a distinct point of this because it is important to the rest of Sibrel’s story. The narrator even insinuates that the astronauts were lying about the camera being up close to the window. The camera backing away from the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story specifically states that the camera was looking through the “round window.” The square corner of the window also proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story claims that the shape of the Earth was created by the “round window” (or, in some later stories, hilariously, that there was a “template” of the Earth on the window that caused the “round” shape of the Earth. The change in perspective between the earth, which is clearly outside of the window glass, and the square corner of the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. So Bart Sibrel cut out the part of the video in which the camera backs away from the window, shows the square corner of the window, and clearly shows that the shape of the Earth is on the outside of the glass. You can clearly see that he cut this part out because the longer length video is continuous through to where the camera backs away from the window where Sibrel’s version makes a sharp cut at that point and transitions to another view. The video then transitions to a time after the interior lights of the space ship are turned on. At this point, you can see a blue glow from a window. (The CM had 5 different windows.) Sibrel’s narration at this point tries to convince you that the blue glow is not glare from the interior lights but is actually the Earth as seen from “low Earth orbit.If what you were actually looking at through that window were really “the Earth as seen from low Earth orbit,” all the features that you do see in the window would be flying past the window at nearly 18,000 miles per hour and only a hundred miles away. The blue glow comes up when they turn on the interior lights — just as glare appears in a window any time you turn on your interior lights at home. (It’s blue because the Apollo window glass is multiple layers of thick quartz glass with protective coatings.)
Perhaps most hilariously, Bart Sibrel puts a header at the front of the video that he has inserted to the original which claims that the video which follows is some sort of “secret.” And he claims that NASA must have sent it to him by mistake. Aside from this obviously being complete horseshit, this claim is utterly hilarious because at the time of release the footage in full had been available to the public for decades. Seriously, you couldn't make this up - only he did and fools such as yourself fall for it because you are the target audience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Your opinion. Live and die by It."
Science is not a matter of your opinion or mine. Rather it is testable, measurable and independently verifiable. And yes, I do live and die by the scientific method. Are you still seriously suggesting that this video is capturing inadvertent chemical spraying????
"What do Chemtrails have to do with Geoengineering? Maybe you missed something"
I can assure you I didn't. Chemtrails are the erroneous claim that contrails, either aerodynamic as in this footage, or exhaust are evidence of a programme of global chemical spraying. The inception of this nonsense can be traced back to Coast to Coast AM and the sensationalist whim of late night shock DJs such as Art Bell on a brief to increase listeners and raise advertising revenue. Since the advent of the internet, proponents on the coattails of this racket have duped the gullible and the scientifically illiterate with clickbait confirmation bias and in the process intentionally conflated this conspiracy theory with areas of geoengineering in order to gain legitimacy for their ludicrous claims.
Geoengineering is a broad umbrella term encompassing strategies as diverse as marine cloud brightening, carbon sequestering and albedo modification. Most funding and attention goes into ocean fertilisation however in March of last year Harvard rolled out their $16m project intended to research SAI aiming to understand the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption should a last ditch solution to global warming ever be required. Small scale trials commence this summer and will involve as little as 1kg of material - initially water, but if successful - likely calcium carbonate and aluminium oxide. As is the case with volcanic aerosols, these would be invisible and released in the mid stratosphere at double the height of the contrails that you are observing. This would also likely be in equatorial regions to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns. Once again, what does SAI/SRM have to do with the fallacious claim that a contrail is evidence of chemical spraying?
"and why not watch "What in the world are they spraying" for a start."
Because I am a meteorologist and atmospheric scientist and Michael J Murphy is an unscrupulous conspiracy theorist duping the gullible and naive with a series of baseless pseudo-scientific nonsense.
"If you are still angry at me (one has to wonder why)"
I bear you no ill feeling - rather pity.
"then check out Clifford Carnicom."
Cliff Carnicom? Why? - Like I said, I'm not interested in online self referencing profiteering conspiracy theorists. Got any real and reputable scientists and legitimate analytical studies/hard data in respect of your chemtrails? (This should be amusing).
"Also I might add that there are numerous craft landing in different weather conditions. Some of which produce contrails."
And you have established this how?
You mean these?
https://youtu.be/dfY5ZQDzC5s
It appears that you don't understand the difference between an exhaust and an aerodynamic contrail.
Look, "chemtrails"...
https://youtu.be/ZlDnd3B1rhs
You then bizarrely posted this....
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe_9gSO6TZA"
So you link me to a You Tube chemtrails conspiracy theory video, made by a proponent of the chemtrails conspiracy theory, about the chemtrails conspiracy theory as evidence of the chemtrails conspiracy theory? Genius.
So so far, your recommendations are the following...chemtrails conspiracy theorist, Michael J Murphy , chemtrails conspiracy theorist Clifford E Carnicom and chemtrails conspiracy theorist Ccrow 777 - an individual who will also have you believe that the moon is a hologram.
1
-
Please don't take this personally, because I have no doubt that your intentions are benign Greg - but you are without rival the most inept and incompetent wannabe conspiracy theorist that think I have ever encountered online - and on the comments section of YouTube that really is quite an achievement.
"The link has evidence on the aluminium count on Mt.Shasta snow. It is ten years old. I'm sure there are newer reports."
Unbelievably, your link is taken from "Contrail Science" which is a chemtrail debunking site set up by Metabunk's Mick West. Your confirmation bias is so desperate you didn't even bother to check your source. Here is their full summary of "What in the World are they Spraying" containing your extract in its full context which completely demolishes the Mount Shasta pond tests - one of the cornerstones of the movie.
http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/
And why Mount Shasta? - simply because chemtrails conspiracy protagonist Dane Wigington lives a few miles down the road in his seven acre ranch. You'll find that there is also a discussion about the ubiquity of aluminium, but allow me to explain a few things to you myself in the hope that you will avoid future humiliation. Please read the following carefully.
Aluminium and its compounds comprise about 8% of the Earth’s surface; aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and bauxite rock. Aluminium has combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
None of these supposed chemtrails tests have ever found aluminium in its "free form" as conspiacy theorists claim. On the few occasions that samples have been submitted to analytical laboratories (for example the pond sludge given to Basic Laboratories, Redding CA), they have simply done what they were tasked to do. It's also important to stress that the results do not mean that there is metallic aluminium present in the water. The international standard test method used is a technique called ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry). This works is by turning the sample into a plasma (essentially a very hot ionised gas, up to about 10,000 degrees C). This breaks down all the substances in the sample into their constituent atoms (ions, to be precise) and then analyses them according to their individual mass. So any substance containing aluminium, whether that is aluminium oxide, or clay, or granite rock, or whatever, will be broken down and give a signal for aluminium ions. This should only be used for (relatively clean) water samples. It is obviously not designed for such samples containing large amounts of solids and sludge. Further, rainwater can have random amounts of aluminium in it, depending on how much dust there is in it, and the type of dust. Plus the collection methods are crucial. If done poorly as in the case of the Shasta tests, then the majority of the aluminium can actually come from deposition - i.e. the settling of dust, and not from the rain. Again, to reiterate, Basic Laboratories simply tested what they were given....they are not privy to the flawed sampling, nor the diabolical methodology and the lack of adherence to the scientific method. The link that you provided shows the analytical report which has subsequently been annotated by conspiracy theorist and fellow charlatan Francis Mangels. Would you like to discuss his abortive rainwater samples while we're on the subject?
If you were to allege that "these" findings are a consequence of chemtrails which the perpetrators of this hoax do, you would not only need to demonstrate cause and effect but you would also need to detail the robust methodology to not only ensure discrimination of your samples but to differentiate them from existing sources of both anthropogenic and natural origin. Not one of them has.
"This is the end of my correspondence with you. I wish you the best. Thank you."
I think it is for the best given that all you have accomplished on this page is to humiliate yourself. However, I also wish you well and genuinely commend you on your courtesy throughout and civil replies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I'm gonna ask the questions."
As opposed to answering them? How convenient. Merry Christmas, this is for you...
https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1499/94/1499948393552.png
"Who do you work for, what is you interest in this subject?"
I work for an NGO my field is remote sensing and part time as a lecturer and researcher for a UK University.
"what is your interest in this subject?"
I have no interest in the pseudoscience that is the chemtrail hoax other than debunking a dangerous, deceptive and damaging fraud together with the online charlatans associated with it.
"Now, I'm done talking to absolute idiots"
So you are actually renouncing your belief in chemtrails and those associated with it?
"I dislike trolls like yourself"
As the one that originally visited this page and saying this
"Bullshit!!!!!" - conversely, you'll find that you are the one that is trolling this video not me.
"AND PEOPLE THAT ALWAYS ASSUME OTHERS ARE LYING."
You claimed to have shot footage onboard a stationery commercial aircraft of "chemtrail spraying during which PAX were detained from disembarking whereupon a team of doctors discovered chemical residues upon their clothing of which one of these was your Father. Oddly enough, no I don't believe you and I am asking you at the very least to produce the video. Easy to do - this is after all YouTube. (Incidentally, your caps lock appears to be intermittently malfunctioning).
"No wonder this planet is doomed, complete and utter thick headed people like you that assume everything is a lie."
Perhaps I should subscribe to unsubstantiated junk online conspiracy theory instead?
"More important things to do than, listen to rambling of the uneducated!"
As I mentioned, I qualified in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over two and half decades ago and currently work in the field of remote sensing and as a part time academic...will that do? And yourself?
Ok, I answered your questions - now once again, here are mine (again)...
1/ This flight that you were on, what was the date, the airline and the flight number?
2/ Do you regard the footage in this video as being evidence of chemtrails?
1
-
"Because one of the doctors "was" my dad. Believe it or not, I don't care if you do or not."
One of the Doctors was your Dad. Ok. And no one, not one person spoke to the press? How did he sample their clothing? What was his prognosis? I'm not interested in anecdotal tales over the internet and no, I don't believe you. Substantiate it, start with the video you claimed to have shot which you oddly, as an advocate of this conspiracy theory cannot produce and have not uploaded. What flight was it, what was the airline and what was the date? - thanks.
"You and yours are breathing this crap believe it or not."
No we are breathing measurable harmful ground based and airborne industrial pollution which you seem oddly impervious to.
"The fool is the one who would not even look into it because he or she just simply doesn't believe it."
I have looked into chemtrails and I'm confident that I know infinitely more than you do about where and when these claims began, precisely who the main protagonists are in addition to all of the fallacious supposed "evidence" which has been deceptively circulated by the perpetrators of this hoax. In the absence of empirical data demonstrating cause and effect your nonsensical conspiracy theory is eternally consigned to the echochamber of YouTube comments section, subjective social media and fringe online conspiracy obsessed clickbait confirmation bias.
"dare you to study it and then call anyone a lier!!"
I qualified in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over a decade and ahalf ago and my current field is remote sensing, which I can assure you is infinitely more useful in understanding and measuring the atmosphere than an evening in front of baseless You Tube conspiracy theory. I have "studied it" as you say and until you are able to prove otherwise, yes, I am indeed calling you a liar. (Note the spelling).
For the fourth time, do you believe that this footage in this video is capturing chemtrails?
1
-
"The plane sitting perfectly still on the runway. It was still spraying whatever is in this mixture."
Can you upload this video that you shot? You also claimed this...
"The passengers were delayed being able to depart the plane. Oh, and the doctors tested their clothing as well as themselves,.....they found; 1.Aluminum oxide 2.Thorium oxide, just to name a couple. The particles ranged in size from 10 to 100 microns"
How did you establish this and where is the official report or evidence?
"The patent numbers, sprayer types, all of it, can be found at the U.S. patent office."
Patents are proof of nothing, you can find almost whatever you want in the U.S. patent office irrespective of how absurd it may be. There are indeed patents for spraying devices and apparatus for a range of different application. What does this have to do with the flight that you were on, the erroneous claim that contrails are evidence of chemical spraying and why would a commercial airliner be fitted out for the purposes o weather modification?
For the second time of asking, do you believe that the footage in this video is also evidence of chemtrails? As I suggested, your response will explain much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You like to talk in circles don't you?
The only circuitous logic here is your own.
"As I pointed out (and you ignored yet again), you don't know what technology is being used so you cannot comment on the impossibility. "
Then you may as well speculate about whatever you wish - holograms, mysterious orbs, portals, cloaked aircraft, pixie dust, pink unicorn feces...oh wait, most of you do. Familiarise yourself with the concept of Russell's Teapot.
"You are basing your view point not on laws of physics"
Once again this is not about your viewpoint or mine - this is not about opinion. Such known laws of aviation and the atmosphere are immutable and until it can be demonstrated otherwise scientifically then anything else is pure conjecture. As I said, you can speculate about whatever you wish but that is precisely why your nonsense remains the preserve of fringe pseudoscientific websites and internet conspiracy theory.
"nice try, trying to sound scientific to dazzle the reader with your BS"
Please feel free to highlight any laws of physics that you deem that I have contravened in my posts in addition to highlighting anything that you identify as "BS". In order to do so you will need to summon independently the verifiable science that contradicts this in support of your contention - something that you evidently fail to comprehend. It's called the scientific method - and it's not on your side. Simply branding something on the internet as bullshit because it challenges your preconceptions will not suffice.
"you don't know what technology is being used so you cannot comment on the impossibility."
If it contravenes established and known physical laws of atmosperic chemistry and aviation then actually yes I can and will continue to do so. Anything else is unsubstantiated fantasised woo dreamed up by uneducated dullards and subscribed to by the grossly scientifically illiterate or extremely suggestible (almost invariably both).
"You let me know when you are privy to the delivery systems and we can further discuss this. Until then talking to you is like talking to a wall."
You can fantasise about whatever you want but as the one making these ludicrous claims, the burden of proof is entirely incumbent upon you - such is the fundamental principle of a criminal prosecution in a court of law, or the scientific method itself. This is precisely why you are afforded absolutely no credence outside of your conspiracy circles and are doomed to graduate no further than the comments section of YouTube. The only thing that you have convincingly demonstrated is your complete ignorance of meteorological science and aviation together with your continual susceptibility to logical fallacy.
1
-
1
-
"You can't have it both ways"
Precisely my point. Chemtrails are a baseless internet hoax.
"If I see a chemtrail you want me to fly up and capture some of it for a lab."
You don't see a chemtrail - you think that you see a chemtrail because you have allowed the internet to condition what you believe. It is not a question of belief, rather critically challenging your preconceptions with objective science.
Actually, it would be a routine endeavour to sample these supposed trails at source or through ground based mass spectrometry yet on the twenty years or so of this hoax no one has. Moreover, the skies are constantly monitored via remote sensing and were this spraying underway it would be blown wide open.
"yet you want me to believe everything you see is a contrail with no proof."
You obviously have no understanding of the burden of proof which, as the one making these claims, is entirely incumbent upon you. As I said, meteorlogical science is incontrovertible and axiomatic - the physical laws of aviation and the atmosphere are demonstrably not on your side.
"Frankey you are an asshat. I am done arguing with you."
This is the first and only time that you have engaged me on this thread and furthermore my name is not "Frankey".
"You and the other guy insist that it's a logistic impossibility and at the same time you have no idea what they are spraying or what systems they use."
Firstly have you any idea of the mass, volume and consequently the weight of these contrails that you erroneously ascribe to your "chemtrails"? The commercial aircraft that you people insist in posting as supposed evidence of this spraying have a typical MTOW of 200 - 280 metric tonnes max. A persistent contrail stretching over 100kms that you deem to be an irrefutable sign of a chemtrail would weigh millions upon millions of lbs.
Secondly, condensation of invisible vapour in the atmosphere creates visible clouds - aerosols of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystal acretion via hydroscopic nuclei either present in the atmosphere or the aircraft exhaust. Contrails (short for condensation trails) are formed by the same process, either triggered by the pressure drop on the aircraft wing (aerodynamic contrails) and/or the injection of extra water vapour into the atmosphere a principle byproduct of the hydrocarbon fuel combustion process. No other chemical has been shown to have similar properties in the Earth's atmosphere. Although other chemical compounds can be sprayed into the air, they will not linger there for long as a visible cloud; they will quickly dissipate - just as smoke vanishes if a smoke generator is turned off. Geoengineering which is frequently conflated with the chemtrail hoax involves the deployment of very small quantities of novel solid aerosols at 16 miles in altitude. This does not resemble a large opaque white cloud and would not be occurring at the substantially lower altitudes in your videos - coincidentally at the level that commercial air traffic cruises.
Until it is demonstrated experimentally, in laboratory conditions, that an alleged chemical compound or mixture can assume the behaviour of water vapour in the atmosphere, the hypothesis of some persistent trails being "chemtrails" can be rejected as lacking scientific basis.
"I would suggest you watch this guys videos as they tie into chem spray. Or? Don't, I don't give a fuck, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxyJl0WxqZ0"
As ever, the "evidence" of your conspiracy theories is a conspiracy video made by a conspiracy theorist about the conspiracy theory.
I would strongly recommend that you balance and challenge your views with true critical examination, objective scepticism and independently verifiable science.
Finally, why do you people respond so angrily and abusively when challenged? You elected to visit this page and the fact that you are utterly unable to substantiate your claims perhaps explains your indignance and indicts you and no one else. I was nothing other than civil to you in my response to your claim that this was a matter of opinion..
As much as they want your money, conspiracy theorists snare you with emotional investment hence your views are visceral instead of rational.
"I post here to talk past YOU to others who come to read. Thank you for the platform."
Which is precisely why this nonsense will always be the preserve of subjective YouTube conspiracy videos and forever remain sequestered on pseudoscientific fringe websites. Not one of the perpetrators of this fraud that you parrot will bring their claimed 'science' from out of this vacuous echochamber that you inhabit and into the genuine objective scrutiny of independent scientific examination.
Your posts achieve little more than your own humiliation and are testament to your abject scientific illiteracy and innate gullibility. The only case that you have convincingly made in the three years of exchanges on this thread is that you are a very silly man with a search engine that doesn't know how to use it and that online access should be means tested.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Before his death, Armstrong allegedly admitted, never landing on the moon."
"Allegedly admitted" - meaning a Tik Tok meme told you so.
"So did Kubrick, relating to direct it!"
No he didn't. Wait, you surely can't be that stupid that you fell for a social media excerpt from T Patrick Murray's ludicrous 'Shooting Stanley Kubrick' featuring an appallingly cast Tom Mayk, that doesn't even remotely look or sound anything like him? Admit it. You did didn't you.
"And why, did the astronuts never admit burden"
What does this even mean?
"passing Allen's Belt, while some orbiting around at 800 km above the Earth, seeing it as serious threat!"
It's the 'Van Allen Belts' - in the plural since there are two of them, with a third that is transitory. You couldn't even get that right. Let's face it, the only reason that you mention it is because dumb online conspiracy theory told you what to think. The alpha and beta charged particles in the belts are no hazard to a craft and its occupants travelling at high velocity in a short space of time through their sparsest regions.
Why are you making arrogant and ill-informed statements about subjects that you clearly have zero understanding and knowledge of whatsoever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why should he have done?
Why should anyone after years of harassment be forced to swear on a magic book brandished in front of them by that deranged stalker and conspiracy nutjob Bart Sibrel?
Imagine that you did something truly revolutionary, at unimaginable risk to yourself. You did it on national TV, with the whole world watching. Hundreds of thousands of people can personally attest to what you did…Then some grifter with a camera crew comes up to you and demands that you go through some pseudo-formal rigmarole to “prove” that you actually did it. Now, not only is this charlatan insinuating that you faked your great accomplishment, based on half-baked theories and zero hard evidence, but he’s also arrogantly proclaiming himself to be the supreme arbiter of truth (i.e., “If you don’t pass my test, then that proves you faked it”).
When Neil Armstrong was approached he retorted, “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” And why should he have sworn on it? he wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.” However, Jim Lovell, Al Bean and Eugene Cernan all did. You therefore have no choice but to accept that.
1
-
Studio? Really? Where? It must be Hollywood, after all that's what you people insist. No, wait, wasn't that supposed to be Shepperton UK? Or was it Pinewood? No, I'm sure it was Elstree...or maybe Twickenham? Hold on a minute, I thought it was supposed to have been shot in a converted aircraft hangar? Definitely Cannon AFB, New Mexico. Hang on, what about Nellis? And speaking of Nevada, it has to have been Area 51. But then many claim that it was filmed in the Nevada desert not in a studio or hangar at all. Actually, it was definitely the Utah outback, that was it. Non, no, the Arizona desert, that's the one. But then there was that claim about Death Valley....and so many point to Devon Island Canada. Perhaps you can clarify?Problem is, you absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
You haven't really thought this through have you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Studio? Really? Where? It must be Hollywood, after all that's what you people insist. No, wait, wasn't that supposed to be Shepperton UK? Or was it Pinewood? No, I'm sure it was Elstree...or maybe Twickenham? Hold on a minute, I thought it was supposed to have been shot in a converted aircraft hangar? Definitely Cannon AFB, New Mexico. Hang on, what about Nellis? And speaking of Nevada, it has to have been Area 51. But then many claim that it was filmed in the Nevada desert not in a studio or hangar at all. Actually, it was definitely the Utah outback, that was it. Non, no, the Arizona desert, that's the one. But then there was that claim about Death Valley....and so many point to Devon Island Canada. Perhaps you can clarify?Problem is, you absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
You haven't really thought this through have you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyhedgecock7472
Serious question - because I'm genuinely interested. Why do you feel the need to parrot uninformed nonsense based upon what an online conspiracy theorist has told you to think about a subject that you demonstrably have absolutely zero understanding of whatsoever? These claims have been consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again, but yet none of you attempt to verify them independently for yourselves. I'm curious - why wouldn't you? You claim to want the truth, and yet you either lack the capability or the will to find it and prefer to allow online grifters and con artists to tell you what to think and say. Very, very strange behaviour.
"funny how the original film of such a historic event is missing"
Here's a case in point. This again. Really? What does this even mean? Have you ever thought to question your own beliefs and actually verify this for yourself? Some magnetic back up tapes relating to the Apollo 11 EVA were reused. They contained raw analogue video transmitted via unified S Band and were made using specially designed, high-capacity recording equipment in order to capture the raw transmissions at source in case anything should go wrong with the process used to convert them to a standard broadcast signal. Once the conversion and transmission was complete, the recordings were no longer needed for their original purpose. Any magnetic recording media has a limited life. The magnetic fields of the stored data decay over time. For this reason, and because high-grade tapes were very expensive, they were never considered an archival medium. The data on those tapes, including video data were relayed to the Manned Spacecraft Center during the mission. The video was recorded there and in other locations. There is no missing video footage from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. There was no video that came down slow scan that was not converted live, fed live, to Houston and fed live to the world. Broadcast-converted tapes that were far superior in quality to anything previously seen were recorded in Sydney, Australia, during the Apollo 11 mission. There are also kinetoscopes at the National Archives that had not been viewed in 36 years that were made in Houston. Sifting through the CBS archives there have been tapes uncovered that had been fed directly from Houston to CBS - the raw data as recorded and archived. Meanwhile the original back up tapes are now long obsolete and defunct as a medium. Similar tapes from later missions have been sold off to collectors via auction. You could have established all this for yourself.
"and that with all our modern technology we can't go back"
With all out "modern technology" we can't go back to flying passengers between London and New York at supersonic speeds. Does that mean Concorde was also faked? - or could it be due to other factors beyond available technology due to cost, sustainability and political will?
Seriously, listen to yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Studio? Really? Where? It must be Hollywood, after all that's what you people insist. No, wait, wasn't that supposed to be Shepperton UK? Or was it Pinewood? No, I'm sure it was Elstree...or maybe Twickenham? Hold on a minute, I thought it was supposed to have been shot in a converted aircraft hangar? Definitely Cannon AFB, New Mexico. Hang on, what about Nellis? And speaking of Nevada, it has to have been Area 51. But then many claim that it was filmed in the Nevada desert not in a studio or hangar at all. Actually, it was definitely the Utah outback, that was it. Non, no, the Arizona desert, that's the one. But then there was that claim about Death Valley....and so many point to Devon Island Canada. Perhaps you can clarify?Problem is, you absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
You haven't really thought this through have you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spaceted3977
Of course your question can be answered, just as you could have done so for yourself. It's so staggeringly dumb, I actually needed to ascertain whether you were being serious. Unfortunately that appears to be the case.
When you wash nylon, you do so in a medium, which is water. Heat through this can break down the fibres and ruin the fabric of synthetic materials including nylon so when washing, it is advisable to do so at cold water setting or 30 - 40 degrees max. On the moon, there is no appreciable atmosphere and so therefore no medium - in this case air temperature, so no convection. Conduction through a pole is negligible to zero, and so the only way for the flag to be heated was through the radiative heat from the sun. Objects on the surface of the moon take time to reach their equilibrium temperature. The temperature extremes that you hear about are surface temperatures. All of the Apollo missions were timed to land at the lunar dawn. Daytime in the moon is equivalent to 15 Earth days. It wasn't the intention for the flag material itself to last. It was just to be there during the event - the landing and departing from the moon, for which it was perfectly adequate.
No, the flags wouldn't melt, even at the peak of the lunar day. However in the half a century and more since the Apollo moon landings the flags have been exposed to the full fury of the Moon’s environment – alternating 14 days of searing sunlight and heat with 14 days of numbing-cold -150° C darkness. But even more damaging is the intense ultraviolet radiation from the pure unfiltered sunlight on the cloth from which the Apollo flags were made. Even on Earth, the colors of a cloth flag flown in bright sunlight for many years will eventually fade and need to be replaced. So it is likely that these symbols of American achievement have been rendered blank, bleached white by the UV radiation of unfiltered sunlight on the lunar surface. Some of them that toppled have likely physically disintegrated under the intense flux.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SwatBeatsOfficial
Absolute utter crap. Besides, science and engineering are axiomatic, the disciplines have a voice of their own. And are you seriously attempting to suggest that entire branches of science and specialist fields/disciplines such as aerospace engineering worldwide have been collectively co opted and coerced by NASA?
And yet here you are, using a device that allows you to share that asinine statement simultaneously across the entire world. You live off the spoils of the scientific method, which affords you comfort and explanations for the natural phenomena that surround you. I assume that you post from some sort of device that manipulates electrons around etchings on a slice of rock the features of which can be measured in terms of 10's of atoms, that then wirelessly sends pulses of radiation that are picked up and sent through minuscule glass strands potentially halfway around the world, before the coming back the other way to display on a screen in front of me. Modern software and hardware that was influenced by Apollo itself. The staggering amount of scientific research over centuries to make this possible is something you trust to work, but when the same scientific method is applied to spaceflight or something that doesn't conform to your trammelled warped conspiratorial view, you brand it "science corrupted by agenda politicisation". You can't have it both ways.
And meanwhile, the conspiracy theory that you consume and regurgitate is of course entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
The greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate or as you intimate, institutional/political interest. Irrespective of any views upon the power wielded by either peer pressure or private industry, the incidence of fraud and malpractice in science is no more common - and harder to get away with than other professions. This is quite simply because we have the requisite tools and the mechanisms at our disposal to expose the facts through impartial and objective application of the scientific method - which if correctly employed would not only validate any findings, but act as a leveller. And the unfalsifiable junk conspiracy theory that you defer to? Where is the recourse or accountability for that?
You are a complete imbecile.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@avestaone-lo3de
"And I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Van Allen belt"
Which one? There are two, with a third that is transitory.
What about them? Let's face it, the only reason that you've actually heard of the belts in the first place is because some online con artist grifting junk conspiracy theory told you what to think about them. if you have a shred of integrity then I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions:
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself, (and his soviet counterpart Sergei Vernov) had to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you from humiliating yourself in the future on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject whatsoever.
"and the footage of your heroes FAKING distance from Earth from inside your beloved Apollo 11."
'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon'? Is this serious? You mean footage that had long been publicly and commercially available years before that renowned con artist, liar and grifter Bart Sibrel tampered with it? How gullible does it get? Can I recommend you watch the entire TV transmission rather than the 2 minutes that Sibrel allows the viewer to see. Also listen to the astronauts radio communication during this time, something again Sibrel doesn't allow the viewer to hear. Interestingly, if you can be bothered to view the entire footage (remember, this was available on DVD via Spacecraft films in the late 1990's well before Sibrel release of his claimed "never seen before" footage) you will see the image of earth was filmed through a rectangular window and not the circular window Sibrel claims. You will also note that we can see the entire west coast of America and much of the Pacific Ocean - something not possible for a spacecraft in low earth orbit. And finally, Apollo was easily the brightest object in the sky (bar the Sun and Moon) and if it had remained in low earth orbit for the duration of the mission it would have been observed by thousands - and yet it wasn't. However, what we do have is observations of the spacecraft in cislunar space. The whole low earth orbit claim is demonstrably false. Sibrel harvests stupidity for profit, and you are the target market.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No - the Apollo moon landings were all fraught with danger and plagued by technical issues which is why no one claimed anything of the sort.
I'm assuming you mean the covid vaccinations? Actually, they prevented 14·4 million 95% credible interval deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8 2021. Of these, 0.053% had an adverse reaction. In the EU alone, those that suffered a fatal reaction to vaccination represents 0.52% of the 2,169,191that died of coronavirus.
Death has occurred at a rate of approximately 5 cases per one million vaccine doses administered. This includes cases of anaphylaxis, a severe type of allergic reaction that can occur after any kind of vaccination. To put this into perspective, there are 120 deaths per million from road accidents per year on all those "safe and effective" highways in the USA. Presumably, you don't drive or allow yourself to be driven then?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Last time you checked? You mean the last crap conspiracy theory video you watched or junk social media meme that told you what to think? A studio is it? Where? Hollywood? or was it Shepperton or Pinewood perhaps? But wait, what of Area 51 Nevada? Hang on, wasn't it supposed to be the Arizona desert? Death Valley? or surely Devon Island Canada? No, no, surely it was Cannon AFB New Mexico? You goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends on which conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively fool an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@syedrabeeh
"Cut the crap / 1969 —- they said it was shot on a Leica and there is no way that camera could have been operated unman at that time , also how did you take the footage back without recovering the camera or the film."
I've read this several times - and I think you meant 'unmanned' yes? Could you explain precisely why remote control technology was impossible in 1971/1972? Since you haven't the first idea what you are talking about it's necessary to explain to you that the GCTA that captured the departure of Apollo 15, 16 and 17 was not used in any landings prior to this due to the fact that it was only the later J Missions that took the lunar rovers.
"also how did you take the footage back without recovering the camera or the film."
This comment is so breathtakingly stupid - even for you - I'll leave you to work out why.
"Bro take a deep breath and look at our atmosphere, no human have ever left exosphere"
Actually 24 human beings have journeyed beyond the boundary of the exposphere, which extends to approximately 6,200 miles from our planet.
Perhaps you are referring to the geocorona. A recent discovery based on observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet, far further than previously postulated. One of the spacecraft instruments, SWAN, used its sensitive sensors to trace the hydrogen signature and precisely detect how far the very outskirts of the geocorona are. These observations that have not been made before could be done only at certain times of the year, when the Earth and its geocorona came into view for SWAN.
You realise that by "atmosphere", this means 0.5 atoms per cc on the lunar surface? Of course you didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexledezma6811
".... fine...that's all on You"
Nothing to do with me - I am irrelevant to this exchange.
"I do have one question..., why is it that the globalists worry so much about theories that confront the status quo in science...?"
What do you mean by 'globalists'? A Globalist is an individual who supports the belief that economic and foreign policy should be planned internationally, rather than serving the interests of individual countries.
You get debunked because anti-science and misinformation are highly damaging. You are challenged to evidence your claims which none of you are able to do. Flat earthers conspiracy theorists are all crooks, not just idiots. petty crooks, true, but part of their business model is to create an environment of distrust of science and rational thought, and refusal to ever measure anything. and that is a serious problem for society. besides which, they spread so much malice that it's a good idea to pound them flat while they are small.
"P S ..the flat earth movement belief has been around since ancient times"
Same with dragons, pixies, faeries, ghosts and ghouls - so what? Known science is not a question of "belief".
"But after Galileo and his peers the Geo centric idea has been imposed."
Nope, wrong again. We have known that the Earth is a globe since antiquity.
"only until about 10 years ago has the flat earth movement is taken impulse"
And when you say "impulse" what bearing does any of this nonsense have on reality? You mean the grifters behind it make crap videos, host ridiculous conferences and profiteer out of the idiocy of others.
"and according to studies, about 30 to 40 % of people in the american continent question the Geo centric idea."
What "studies" would they be? The highest that I've seen is range between 9-12%, which is still shocking, but is simply a consequence of granting online access to exceedingly dim people that think that watching an Eric Dubay video makes them sound informed and clever and substitutes for the education that eluded them.
I went through school in the 1970s and 1980s. There would invariably be a couple of students who couldn’t quite grasp certain concepts in science. They were insignificant irrelevant and they'd live their lives in obscurity but live off the spoils of those that shaped the world through science and education. Today they find each other on the internet which they think compensates for their failings. They find validation for their lack of understanding, and then they embrace it. They’re fed the hook “you’re one of the smart ones, you always knew they were lying to you.” Facts don’t matter at that point, and yet another conspiracy believer is born. Throw in that special feeling conferred by adherence to conspiracy theory and an ample helping of illusory superiority/Dunning Kruger effect, and we have what we have. Adherents to these belief systems are impervious to evidence to the contrary, and prefer the company of like minded simpletons to that of people who try to educate them. The embracing of a conspiratorial narrative often helps loners to find a tribe in which they are welcomed. That social, tribal belonging is a very strong driver, and the fear of rejection or estrangement from a group that welcomed and accepted them is incredibly powerful.This is all just an unfortunate, yet understandable side effect of the internet. This is something we’re always going to have to battle in the interest of edification.
"To belive that almost half the population are idiots would qualify as being dumber than the actual issue..."
Contrary to your claim, half of the American population do not subscribe to a flat earth belief. That 40% of the American population are idiots is probably reasonably accurate as the next US election will doubtless demonstrate. Half the world is composed of idiots, the other half of people clever enough to take indecent advantage of them.
"The thing about smart people is that they seem like crazy to dumb people"
Those that perpetrate flat Earth theory are not crazy - they are simply extortionists that harvest stupidity for profit - and as such, you are the target market.
A wise man can play a fool, but a fool can't play wise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YAHsdaughter7
"oh they say they went to the moon but they just happen to destroy the ability to go to the moon"
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase - "destroyed". Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes.
"and now they say they meed new technology to go again"
Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"Sounds pretty fishy to me"
So because you know nothing about it and lack the intelligence to comprehend it you instead conclude that NASA are lying.
"Wheres the real proof ???"
The scientific, independent and third party evidence in support of the moon landings that you are completely oblivious to is manifest, demonstrable and has a voice of its own.
"Wheres the real proof the earth is not a globe ???"
What the hell are you talking about now? There is none whatsoever. We have known that the Earth is spherical since Eratosthenes measured it in 240BC. Why are you changing the subject?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why should he? Particularly since he was an atheist.
Sigh, this again? How many times? Why should anyone after years of harassment be forced to swear on a magic book brandished in front of them by that deranged stalker and conspiracy nutjob Bart Sibrel?
Imagine that you did something truly revolutionary, at unimaginable risk to yourself. You did it on national TV, with the whole world watching. Hundreds of thousands of people can personally attest to what you did…Then some shameless grifter with a camera crew comes up to you and demands that you go through some pseudo-formal rigmarole to “prove” that you actually did it. Now, not only is this charlatan insinuating that you faked your great accomplishment, based on half-baked theories and zero hard evidence, but he’s also arrogantly proclaiming himself to be the supreme arbiter of truth (i.e., “If you don’t pass my test, then that proves you faked it”). When Neil Armstrong was approached he retorted, “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” And to reiterate, why should he have sworn on it? he wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.”
However, Jim Lovell, Al Bean and Eugene Cernan all did. You therefore have no choice but to accept that.
1
-
1
-
@BadAtTeaDude
"Wasn't too expensive or dangerous with never before created or used tech."
Are you pissed? The Apollo project was obscenely expensive which is why it was prematurely canceeled.
"Now it's too dangerous and costly and nobody else has come close to the fraud landings nasa did 53 years ago with technology that "exists"."
It's always been expensive and dangerous - what the hell are you talking about? Bye the way, Project Artemis says hi.
"That time they did something with technology then couldn't repeat it."
They repeated it five times. It would have been nine more times had it not been for the aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the cancellation of Apollo 18, 19 and 20.
"Like the model T."
What?
"Or crossing the Atlantic in a wooden ship in a few months..."
Are you ok? Seriously?
"How about those Wright brothers? Or pennacylin.. Heart surgery."
What about it?
Don Pettit in 2014 was discussing the cancellation of the Apollo Programme. And he didn't say "lost", that is false, he used an equally unfortunate choice of wording in saying 'destroyed' which hoax nuts have obsessively fixated upon since. You don't, 'lose' technology in the sense that it is forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappears. All the technology remained but rapidly became obsolete. You lose the capability and with the premature cancellation of the programme the production plants, the tooling, the specific expertise to mount such a huge project was all abandoned or left to lie fallow. Most significantly, Pettit was referring to the heavy lift capability which was also forsaken in favour of the Space Shuttle Programme and the construction of the ISS. It is a given in engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes rather than trying recreate old equipment. There is no longer the capability to fly passengers at supersonic speeds. When civil aviation eventually returns to supersonic flight (it's been nearly half a century since the demise of Concorde), it isn't about to roll a 1960s design, featuring 1960s hardware out of the hangar. Rebuilding such a complex project as Apollo on a similarly massive scale and utilising contemporary technology on a fraction of the budget of the Apollo Programme has been a long and protracted, painstaking process. Project Artemis was only approved in 2018.
Why is it that this has to be explained to you freaks over and over and over again?
1
-
Sigh.
"OK lets start the journey from earth to moon........started from a gigantic rocket, then many parts of the rocket separated through out the journey and at the end become a small lunar module that landed on the moon."
The Saturn V was a three stage heavy lift rocket capable of placing 130 tons into earth orbit. The first stage (SI-C) was powered by a cluster of five F1 engines collectively producing 7.5 million lbs of thrust at lift off. These burned for 2 minutes and 41 seconds, lifting the rocket to an altitude of 42 miles and a speed of 6,164 miles per hour. The second stage (S-II) contained five J-2 engines. After the first stage was discarded, these burned for approximately 6 minutes at 1.2 million lbs of thrust, taking the vehicle and payload to 115 miles altitude and 15,500 mph. The Third stage (SIV-B) then placed Apollo in a circular parking orbit 1,640 miles downrange at an altitude of 118.8 miles (191.2 km) with an orbital velocity of 17,432 mph. Trans lunar injection was performed by the restartable J-2 engine in the S-IVB third stage of the Saturn V rocket. Apollo 11′s S-IVB burned for 5 minutes, 41.01 seconds achieving a velocity of 24,994.656 mph to send it to the moon - it was then a coast. The third stage was abandoned once the lunar module had been extracted by the CSM. It was this stack that journeyed to the moon. Since the Earth's gravity continually exerts a force on the vehicle, Apollo was steadily losing speed until it fell into the lunar sphere of gravitational influence at which point it began to accelerate again. So they coasted away from earth, they slowed gradually to just under 3,292mph before the gravitational influence of the moon allowed them to pick up speed again. Lunar orbit insertion was then achieved through a burn of the SPS engine which lasted 6 minutes and placed the craft in an initial elliptical lunar orbit and a second burn lasting just 17 seconds and eased Apollo 11 into a circular orbit of 69 miles at 3,600mph.
"Ironically that lunar module though small, was able to carry a moon rover the size of a normal car (how they fitted the moon rover in the lunar module, nobody knows)."
Yes they do - this is all accessible knowledge. The lunar rovers were taken as part of the later J Class missions - Apollo 15, 16 and 17. These were folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the equipment bay. You can readily find the full schematics detailing this in addition to the photos and footage of their stowage and deployment on Earth and the surface of the moon. Even if you claim that the Apollo Programme is faked, your statement is irrespective of this demonstrably false. Why do you people do this to yourselves?
"Now the return journey.......this supposed to be complicated. No more big rocket. The lunar module can surpassed the moon gravity (although moon gravity is 1/6 of earth)......but you still need a tremendous force to do that. Lunar module cannot afford to do that."
The force you exert on a surface due to gravity pulling you down is measured in Newtons (N) - this depends on the strength of gravity at a given location - in this case 0.17g. The ascent rocket expelled exhaust gases at Ve = 3.0 x 103 m/s. Its initial mass, including fuel, was 4800 kg. With no atmosphere, they could accelerate constantly, get up to speed very quickly and could reach orbit at very low altitude. That's a lot less fuel required. In 100 sec, the ascent stage was travelling over 600 mph. In under seven minutes, they had reached orbital velocity. The LM ascent stage weighed just about 1700 lb on the moon and had a 3500 lbf engine, so it had easily enough thrust. Ignition was hypergolic and the lunar lander's ascent engine used Aerozine 50, a half-and-half mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) developed for the Titan 2 and witnessed during the Gemini programme.
The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) systems required very good accelerometers and gyroscopes, some of the very best that could be made. Fortunately, there’d been a lot of research and development on these devices for ballistic missile applications. On-board radar units provided very accurate measurements of the relative positions and velocities LM (Lunar Module) and CSM (Command and Service Module stack). All of these devices were state of the art for the day, and very expensive, but that wasn’t a big problem for the Apollo program.Both the Lunar Module’s AGC and AGS were connected to the gyroscope for inertial navigation and to the rendezvous and docking radar and were part of the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS). After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods.
A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock. The ascent stage of the LEM, having lifted off and docked with the CM, was subsequently jettisoned. The SPS performed the TEI burn which lasted approximately 150 seconds, providing a posigrade velocity increase of 1,000 m/s (3,300 ft/s) sufficient to overcome the gravitational influence of the moon and send Apollo on its three day fall back to earth. This was again a coast and Apollo progressively increased velocity due to the influence of the Earth's gravity.
"NASA wants us to believe the lunar module was using RE/solar energy in 1969"
What on Earth are you talking about now? The lunar module didn't use solar energy, it was powered by storage batteries whilst the CSM relied on fuel cells to generate electricity. 1969? - the first solar device to produce electricity from sunlight was installed on a rooftop in New York in 1883 by American inventor Charles Fritts.
"It is just a BS story created by the American."
You'll find in life that before you write something off as a "BS story", it's advisable to familiarise yourself with at the very least, some basic knowledge of the topic concerned.
Or, you could make a complete tit of yourself through arguments from ignorance and incredulity and a deferral to junk online conspiracy theory about a subject that you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Photos prove nothing"
Actually, they prove a lot, particularly when they would have been impossible to fake.
"equipment can be placed with un manned craft."
It depends upon the equipment. The retroreflectors for example allow for greater accuracy than those placed by the Soviet Union, since they were deployed and aligned manually. Please feel free how the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME were "placed with an unmanned craft" and provide the details of the latter.
"Just because someone says there's lots of proof means nothing, talk is cheap"
It isn't about what "someone says". The scientific, technical, historical, independent and third party evidence in support of the Apollo moon landings that you are clearly oblivious to, is manifest, axiomatic and has a voice of its own.
The Apollo Programme is the most detailed and documented engineering projects of such scale and complexity in history. It was completely transparent - which is why it was infiltrated by the Soviets. For over half a century entire branches of science, specialist disciplines and fields of expertise worldwide have forensically scrutinised every mission profile, every schematic, specification down to sensors, rivets, nuts, bolts, switches and circuit breakers and the history and technology of the Programme has been exhaustively examined through thousands of books, journal publications/academic papers, technical authorships and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet.
Today, we have dumb online grifters selling horseshit to gullible conspiracy theory believers with zero knowledge of the subject that think a social media meme substitutes for the education that eluded them. Just because "they say" it was fake, that does not mean that it is. Talk is cheap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bigfist255
No it is not 'bull'. The deployment of the Apollo retroreflectors enabled far more precise measurements to be undertaken. Also, if you are claiming that they were placed there by unmanned landers, you then need to explain the ALSEP experimental packages that by design were conceived to exploit the benefits of manned deployment and thus could only be assembled, cabled and configured an astronaut. Go ahead explain the presence of the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME.
"the Greek mathemation measured the distance in 270bc"
Aristarchus of Samos (310-230 B.C) devised a novel method of finding the moon's distance, by careful observation of a lunar eclipse. However these and subsequent measurements were approximate and have nothing to do with the increased accuracy yielded by the Apollo retroreflectors. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
What's a 'Mathamation'? Oh, you mean mathematician you utter dimwit.
"but you keep believing the propaganda."
Because of course the online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly regurgitate is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. Carry on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@romeolarenzo3929
"It cost india a mere 75 million dollars to recently land on the moon. Are you seriously suggesting we can’t afford it"
No it cost India 75 million to place an unmanned lander on the moon, which is not what we are discussing here. Furthermore, the entire programme cost in the region of of $2.6 billion. And no, that was simply a strawman fallacy on your part - I did not say anything of the sort. To reiterate, Apollo was cancelled in 1972 due to the retraction of funding because Congress wasn't willing to pay for it anymore. The allocation of budget was diverted to low Earth orbit, the shuttle programme and the construction of the ISS, whilst deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned probes and landers that are substantially cheaper and carry far less risk. Crewed missions to the moon are far, far more expensive in part because they require a heavy lift capability. Although the Constellation Programme produced Orion, Project Artemis was only approved in 2018 at a fraction of the funding of Apollo.
"Apparently we accidentally destroyed the tech , but how do you accidentally destroy 25 billion worth of research and development."
Actually most of the technology still survives. This stems from one astronaut, Don Pettit, who speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. Again, the premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the cessation of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, and as I mentioned, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a piecemeal budget compared to Apollo.
"I’m saying this all respectfully"
I understand and you have my appreciation for that.
"it just doesn’t add up at all."
It really does if you learn about the science, technology and history of spaceflight/Apollo as opposed to listening to junk online conspiracy theory.
"I’m sure there’s a reason to why we are known as the empire of lies."
All governments conspire and have a history of deception. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that suggestions of a faked moon landing or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A syllogistic logical fallacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HexagonFL
The lunar sample building at Johnson Space Center is the chief repository for all the Apollo samples. This is where pristine lunar samples are prepared for shipment to scientists and educators. Nearly 400 samples are distributed each year for research and teaching projects - so this is ongoing and you can look into this yourself.
There are hundreds of peer reviewed publications over the last half a century that you could search for yourself. More recently, "Fresh look at Apollo Moon rocks reveals Solar System secrets" Witze, A (2019) Published in 'Nature' - a four star paper published in a Q1 journal which has an impact of 100. There's a very innovative project pioneered by researchers at the University of Chicago using atom probe tomography to analyse grains of sample 71501 from Apollo 17. The PI is geophysicist Jennika Greer, the paper is titled 'Atom probe tomography of space-weathered lunar ilmenite grain surfaces' and was published in 2020. To this day, Apollo samples are continuing to be analysed by geologists to provide important clues into the origin and evolution of the Moon. Planetary scientists at The Open University in the UK are at the forefront of much of the current work, and have been producing a microscope collection of over 550 rocks collected during the Apollo missions. You may also wish to look into the work of planetary scientist Erica Jarin who has specialised in the understanding of explosive volcanic deposits on the lunar surface which is why her work was based upon samples returned from Apollo 15 and 17.
As explained, after lunar rocks arrived on Earth, geochemists the world over analysed them for isotopes that decay over well-understood timescales and found that the moon samples were far older than most terrestrial rocks—between three billion and 4.5 billion years old. One of the first to receive these was the BRGM laboratory in France, the geoscience initiative affiliated with the French Geological Survery and one of the independent institutions selected across the world to take part in studying the components of various lunar samples. One of the world's authorities is Andrew Tindle a British geochemist who has conducted studies of the lunar mineralogy and petrology of Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 Rocks.
All such sample studies are authenticated by the field of geology. So what are you going to suggest next, that NASA has managed to dupe or collectively co opted and coerced an entire branch of science for over half a century?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So you declare something to be fake but then have questions? Sounds to me as though you aren't remotely interested in the answers.
1/ Cost. Manned missions to the moon are exorbitantly and to some, prohibitively expensive. This is precisely why the Apollo Programme was terminated prematurely in 1972. Nixon never liked it, it wasn't his brainchild and due to the lack of public and political will the unsustainable funding necessary to continue to send crewed missions to the moon was immediately cut and with it, the heavy lift capability abandoned. Nixon's baby was the commercial promise of the space shuttle, which in the event never delivered in terms of costing/returns or launch cadence. After which, the emphasis shifted to the construction of the ISS. Neither place a man on the moon. Similarly other space faring nations have favoured unmanned deep space exploration which is far, far cheaper and entails less risk. Crewed missions have also focussed upon low Earth orbit and duration over exploration.
2/ What on Earth are you talking about? Space X have conducted multiple missions delivering crews and payloads to space utilising the reusable Falcon boosters on the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy. Are you confusing this with Starship?
Lading a craft with substantially less mass in the absence of an atmosphere and in 1/6th gravity is a completely different proposition to landing a rocket booster on Earth. Yes, the LM was tested prior to Apollo 11 - both the ascent and the descent stages. Apollo 5 carried out the first validation, Apollo 9 was crewed whilst as part of Apollo 10 - the dress rehearsal - Stafford and Cernan descended to within 60,000ft of the lunar surface. The LLTV was also instrumental in the training of the astronauts as was the simulator in which crews amasses hundreds of hours.
the USSR's Luna 16 was the first robotic mission to land on the Moon, collect samples of dust and rock, and return those samples to Earth. This was followed by Luna 20, Luna 23, Luna 24. This amounts to 226.1 grams (0.5 lbs)whilst the Chinese have returned almost 4 lbs. This is the entirety of samples brought back by unmanned missions throughout the history of space travel. In contrast, Apollo returned 382 kgs (a third of a ton) of moon rock in the space of three and a half years - something that could only have been accomplished in such a short space of time by manned landings. Incidentally, seven rovers have been historically successfully placed on the moon.
'Belief' and personal incredulity has no bearing upon demonstrable reality.
1
-
@pvn2474
We can talk now. Perhaps you we can commence with precisely how the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME got on the lunar surface? In your own time, when you're ready.
Appreciating that "doing your homework" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
1
-
@highcard3027
"I'm still curious how they got through the Van Allen Radiation Belt."
They are belts since there are two, with a third that is transitory. Why are you "curious" about something that you clearly know absolutely nothing about and have only heard of by virtue of crap online conspiracy theory?
How about you ask yourself the following questions? -
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself have to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then perhaps obtaining the answers will sate your supposed curiosity? But let's be honest here - you aren't curious at all, otherwise you would have done so yourself instead of relying upon what dumb online conspiracy theory tells you to think.
"Then there is Buzz, and Armstrongs comments."
What comments? Can I suggest that you contextualise them instead of consuming online quote mined nonsense like a gullible moron? Incidentally, you mean "there are" not "there is" and 'Armstrong's needed apostrophising as such.
"2 died from "Accidents" after criticizing NASA"
No, wrong again. The Apollo 1 crew (Grissom, White and Chaffee), perished in a ground test due to the 100% oxygen rich atmosphere being ignited by a stray spark and the new capsule being full of flammables and an internal opening hatch which they were unable to escape through due to the cabin pressure. Hundreds of employees criticised the programme, Grissom was not alone - and many were far more vocal that he was. Indeed, a major redesign of the spacecraft was already in progress and NASA’s post-accident report stated openly that “deficiencies in design, manufacture, installation, rework and quality control existed in the electrical wiring... No design features for fire protection were incorporated... Non-certified equipment items were installed in the Command Module at time of test.”
"In Hebrew, Nasa means To Decieve"
No it doesn't. The Hebrew letter shin ש (the "s" in nasa) represents two different phonemes: 's' and 'sh' . The two are distinguished by a dot above the left-hand side of the letter for 's' (rendering the letter as "sin") and above the right-hand side for 'sh' (rendering the letter as "shin"). The letter shin has a dot on the right side indicating that the letter is pronounced "sh" and therefore rendering the word "nasha", not "nasa." Therefore, it is "nä·shä'. The letter s in nasa (dot above the left side of the letter) is pronounced like the s in side and means to "lift up". There is a rare verb in the Bible - “השׁיא” which means to deceive, but it’s pronounced HEY-SHEE. The verb ”נשׁא” as it appears in the dictionary does not appear even once in the Bible, and anyway as explained, it is pronounced NASHAA. It is completely not in use in modern Hebrew, and it is so rare that 99% of Hebrew speakers won’t even this verb exists.
Incidentally - it's 'deceive' not 'decieve'.
"Do your Own Digging. Or,,,Just believe the MSM Fake News lol"
Because the dumb online conspiracy horseshit that you have just moronically and naively parroted is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. Clever lad!
1
-
You Tube was facing imminent brand damage for propping up and nurturing online conspiracy theory. If you hadn't noticed, this is a profiteering racket attracting unscrupulous grifters and con artists. When you have sick people exploiting and making money out of the Sandy Hook shootings and the eventual serious ramifications that unfolded through QAnon then there is a serious problem and the lame argument that this stuff is "a bit of fun" or "harmless" is complete nonsense. Wait - you regard Alex Jones/Infowars as "in-depth"? Is this actually serious? If justification was ever needed for your 'choice' to be taken away from you.
I actually don't believe that it should. The issue is with the advent of the internet, not only do we have exploitative agenda driven opportunistic individuals harvesting the gullible and stupid, because that is their target market. We also have extremely dumb people availed with online access that don't know how to us it responsibly and have zero will or capability to independently verify the disinformation that they are fed, which the becomes misinformation where people would rather believe what they read on social media or regard Reddit as 'research', as opposed to actually learning about the topic itself. The internet has given every radical, extremist, nutjob and imbecile that would ordinarily be condemned and dismissed in the real world a platform and a voice - and idiots tend to shout the loudest. Free speech is the noose by which these fools eventually hang themselves, and I live in a forlorn hope that we have reached, or at least are approaching “peak bullshit”, when younger generations, who have grown up with the internet, can see through the twisted morass of nonsense they see online, having been inoculated against it through early exposure. The internet should be edifying and illuminating but where it can support and education, it certainly doesn't substitute or supplant for one.
If you wish to cherry pick and prop-up your preconceptions, a search engine will do that in seconds. All of the material that you mention can be found though a cursory search on Google - and guess who owns You Tube genius?
If you are missing your confirmation bias that much, then you always have alt-right conspiracy sites such as 'Rumble; and 'Odysee' or DuckDuckGo to reinforce your agenda and beliefs.
1
-
1
-
"What about that moon rock given to holland and turnes out to be wood"
What about it? The supposed rock was a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees Jr in 1969. Drees had been out of office for 11 years, but was considered an elder statesman. When Drees died in 1988, the 'rock' was donated by his family to the Rijksmuseum without verification, and having been briefly exhibited was kept in storage for two decades until it was later discovered to the curator's great embarrassment to have been petrified wood. It had nothing to do with NASA or the US government. The Goodwill rocks given by NASA to the Dutch government are accounted for in other Dutch museums throughout the Netherlands and encased in Lucite as were all moon rocks officially distributed around the world as gifts. You could have established this for yourself but I guess it's easier to parrot the same old dumb conspiracy theory off junk social media.
"no crater off jet engines"
Jet engines? On the moon? Is this actually serious? The rocket descent engine on the Lunar Module was throttleable and was only producing around 2,700lbs of thrust at the point of touchdown. This was sufficient to pick up dust and blast it laterally, but the surface of the moon is solid rock beneath. The nozzle had a diameter of 59 inches which meant that equates to 11 psi chamber pressure and having an area of 2,700 square inches even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Moreover, if you do want to mention jet engines, in comparison the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, does not make a crater when it lands - even on grass!
"no stars"
There are no stars visible in the footage and photographs on the surface of the moon due to aperture and exposure settings and the fact that it was the lunar daytime.
"astronauts on wires jumping to there feet from face down position"
Nope - wrong again. Propelling themselves upwards in 1/6th gravity. Incidentally, you needed to employ the determiner their as opposed to the adverb, there.
"in all the missions not one astronaut thought to take a picture of earth not one"
Another demonstrable falsehood. There are multiple images of the Earth captured in the Apollo footage and film, from cislunar space, lunar orbit and the surface of the moon.
"all photos of space are cgi nasa admits"
CGI in the 1950s, 60s and 70s? Why are you lying? NASA have 'admitted not such thing. They use composites and colour enhancement which is completely different.
"it goes on and on"
No, let me help you here. What goes on and on are imbecilic gullible conspiracy believers simply because you fools are ignored in the real world whilst the internet gives you a platform to air your lack of education, ill-informed stupidity and scientific illiteracy.
Mate, you are absolutely clueless. If you think that your naively consumed and regurgitated conspiracy theory about subjects that you demonstrably know nothing whatsoever about makes you sound informed and clever, you need to understand that all you are accomplishing is your own humiliation. It may make you feel relevant and special but since you can barely compose a coherent cogent sentence, I suggest that you have more pressing concerns to attend to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dalton-jon-f5791
"We are talking about motive means and opportunity to fake it and we don't know if the actual means for the descent existed for that mission but we do know there was a huge motive to do it and to do it before the Russians, which leaves the door open for fraud. There was a strong motive for fraud and that's undeniable."
No, there wasn't - there was a strong motivation to actually place a man on the moon. Faking it would have been impossible, not to mention keeping it a secret for over half a century.
"I don't mind discussing this with anyone except those blinded by pride and in a form of intellectual exclusivity which confines their rationale to points which support their world view. whilst we are all somewhat guilty of this as human beings we can refrain from insult or snark in an effort to come to the truth."
You just described online conspiracy believers to a tee.
"Also this,, The Russian space administration subjected the Apollo 11 photos to an AI analysis this past year and found them to be fraudulent. If you are of a mind that discounts this as Putin propaganda then perhaps link me to a stateside AI analysis which confirms them as real."
This again - really? No they didn't, that was a Russian conspiracy theorist.
AI is not intelligent, it cannot reliably distinguish true from false. for example, if you feed low-resolution, compressed scans of Apollo photos to Google AI together with flawed instructions as one grifter in Russia did, it will find the compression artefacts. It's the old computing adage of garbage in garbage out. It then got seized upon by other conspiracy theorists, circulated on social media memes and lapped up and regurgitated by the gullible believers in this nonsense always eager to parrot confirmation bias without having any understanding whatsoever of the subject that they wish to brand as fake. I have never, repeat never, encountered a moon landing conspiracy believer that is knowledgeable about the science and technology of space exploration or the history of the Apollo Programme. It's all the same old obligatory, prescriptive rote learned conspiracy theory that tells them what to think and say.
Last December AI provided Meteo-France with a forecast of 28° for Strasbourg as it was opening its Christmas market. This is just on example of some of the aberrations that are being thrown up by its reliance upon its new automated AI system. In fact disquiet over the replacement of meteorologists by artificial intelligence and the demonstrable decline in accuracy have resulted in industrial action and a legal case.
The scientific/technological and third party evidence in support of the moon landings however is incontrovertible.
What's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I think their problem is they can’t figure out how we went through the van Allen belt"
Firstly, there are two belts, with a third that is transitory. You need to understand that these are toroidal diffuse volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The Apollo craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. Electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being 600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts. This was all understood in the early 1960s. To quote James Van Allen directly:
"The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable."
"nasa’s space station astronauts keep saying they are trying to figure out how to get through the dangerous radiation without damaging equipment or killing them but will have the answer soon."
No 'space station astronaut' has said anything of the sort. Terry Virts and Don Pettit discussed the loss of a heavy lift capability following the cancellation of Apollo. Also, in 2014, prior to the test flight of the (then) new Orion capsule, engineer Kelly Smith in a video called 'Orion: Trial by Fire" discussed the challenges posed by radiation to the sensitive electronics and systems that are used in spacecraft today in comparison to the radiation hard Apollo spacecraft.
Stop listening to junk online conspiracy theorists and
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It has not been possible to fly on a passenger aircraft between London and New York in under three hours for 22 years. I don't think we have gone backwards in technology.
Man last walked on the moon 52 years ago (not 53) and Project Artemis has completely different technology, mission objectives and profiles to Apollo. All this needs development, testing and validation.
The USA stopped going to the moon because in the midst of an expensive foreign war, growing public apathy and disquiet, a lack of political will and the looming OPEC crisis, Congress withdrew the funding in 1972. They saw little benefit in continuing to plough such a high percentage of the annual federal budget into continuation of something that had already been achieved. The Apollo Programme was cancelled meaning that the manufacturing plants, the processes, the bespoke tooling, the expertise was either retired or moved on, whilst production of the heavy lift capability ceased and no one build a replacement for the Saturn V. Powerful lobbying for the folly of the Space Shuttle Programme shifted the emphasis upon low Earth orbit and the subsequent construction of the ISS meant that space exploration became the preserve of much cheaper unmanned probes and landers that did not require a heavy lift rocket. The old technology of Apollo has become obsolete and defunct.
We now have the SLS and Space X are developing Starship/Super Heavy Booster and new technologies are being applied, purposed and developed to return crewed missions to the moon and beyond, whilst also. like I said, fulfilling very different objectives and mission profiles to those of Apollo. Project Artemis was only approved as recently as 2018 and this takes time and money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh Jeez.
Firstly, David Keith's research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is entirely that. It is a hypothetical concept that has not even progressed beyond computer modelling and research paper and hasn't even reached the stages of small scale trial. It is highly unlikely given appreciable the challenges such as logistics, cost, environmental unknowns and international governance, that it would ever be employed - even as a last ditch measure to arrest global temperature increase.
Bill Gates has nothing to do with SAI beyond lending vocal support a decade ago and making a donation to Harvard's geoengineering research initiative.
I think you mean John Brennan, the former head of the CIA, whose 2016 voluntary address to the Council on Foreign Nations concerned 'Transnational Threats to Global Security' which was appropriated and dishonestly framed by chemtrail conspiracy theorists. Why don't you listen to what he actually said instead of gullibly falling for some sensationalist You Tube video strapline? I can provide you with a full transcription if you wish. Brennan doesn't advocate the idea of SAI, completely the opposite, he warns of the dangers that it poses to international relations and the environmental unknowns.
What does any of this have to do with a dumb conspiracy theory centred around the misidentification of aircraft contrails that have been observed, recorded, documented and studied for in excess of 80 years and since the early advent of powered aviation?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@80sbeginner
_"you said the word CALCULATED. to calculate IS NOT to measure. to measure something, means, it's a variable in itself that can be measured,
Spectacularly wrong. The measurement of force is derived by a simple calculation once we have obtained the values of mass and acceleration. Are you really this dim or are you simply a Poe?
"it's not a variable that is calculated using an imaginary and invented equation."
So at what stage are you gong to point that out to an entire branch of physics that have failed to notice this genius?
"in the pseudo-science you admire so much, you accept the word "calculate" as if it were real physics."
A calculation is simply to determine the amount or quantity of something.
"the rate of change of velocity with respect to time". in other words, "final velocity minus initial velocity, divided by time." why?"
So that we can establish the rate of change in velocity.
"your intellectual dishonesty is insane."
And as I have shown, you are neither intellectual or dishonest. You are simply a very silly man with an internet connection that doesn't know how to use it responsibly.
"our topic of conversation is force equal to mass times acceleration, as described in Isaac Newton's 1687 book."
Nope. To remind you, your original OP was the following.
"no one has ever been to the moon. no one has ever been in space. we don't live on a spinning ball. the heliocentric model is rubbish."
I have repeatedly asked you to explain your flat earth model through a series of questions that you don't know how to answer.
"the gravitation constant was calculated only in 1798 by Henry Cavendish, in an equation DERIVED FROM Newton's second law."
Newton's second law states that the net external force acting on an object is responsible for the acceleration of the object. If air resistance is negligible, the net external force on a falling object is only the gravitational force (i.e., the weight of the object). The first direct measurement of gravitational attraction between two bodies in the laboratory was indeed performed in 1798, Cavendish. He determined a value for G implicitly, using a torsion balance. Again, why aren't you out there falsifying all this?
(Incidentally, your caps lock key is intermittently malfunctioning).
"I have already proved to you that Newton's second law equation is rubbish"
Simply parroting a flat earth video over an internet comments section is not 'proof'. To reiterate again, I am irrelevant to this exchange. Why aren't you out there overturning centuries of evidence based established science as opposed to making a complete tit out of yourself on You Tube? We both know the answer to that one.
"but you ,of course, like all globist trolls and professional liars, simply ignore my proof and continue with your nonsense."
The only thing of note that you've managed in this entire thread is to misspell 'globalist' seven times now. And you wonder why I enjoy bating you so much.
"you are talking to me about what happened more than a century after the invention of the rubbish equation."
We can also talk about what has happened three hundred and thirty years later. Or the fact that as the bedrock of classical physics Newton's laws of motion have yet to be falsified. What are you waiting for?
"that's right, the same rubbish equation F=ma. the same rubbish equation that was already ready for further pseudo-scientific use by the cult of sun worshippers, the cult of liars, the cult of crooks."
Then what are you doing childishly, hopelessly and ineptly re-writing the lyrics to "Papa Don't Preach'? Step out of your internet bubble and take them all on. Go ahead then. You haven't even got the courage to answer my questions.
1
-
1
-
@80sbeginner
"Today there is no measuring device that works according to Newton's second law."
Yes so you keep saying. Doesn't alter the fact that indeed there is - it's called a force metre - the clue is in the name.
"*All you have are words, you have no proof."*
Do you have a black belt seventh dan in unintentional irony?
To reiterate, I am irrelevant. You are contesting known evidence based empirical science, mathematical axioms and observable nature. To reiterate, I'll go with that if it's all the same to you as opposed to a stream of drivel from a ludicrous dumb conspiracy believer, completely divorced from reality and seeking refuge from the real world by inhabiting and cowering within someone else's fantasies.
"I'm starting to wonder if you're a professional liar who knows the truth that we don't live on a spinning ball, but you're putting on some ridiculous show here with all these quotes."
I'm merely quoting your idiocy and your own words - so in that respect, yes, it is as you correctly say, a ridiculous show.
You have avoided my questions yet again. If you believe that you are able to falsify Newton's second law of motion, why haven't you done it? Why haven't you published your mathematics overturning this and claimed your Nobel Prize? In so doing, toppling the entire edifice, the very pillars of science and as a consequence the "most horrible lie in human history" will come crashing down. Just a hunch, but you're going to need slightly more than some ineptly adapted lyrics to 'Papa Don't Preach'.
Also, if tectonic plates don't exist, then how do you explain seismicity, volcanicity, the Mid Atlantic ridge, continental drift? How does your flat earth account for the magnetosphere or the geodesic which is fundamental to navigation? What are you so scared of?
All you have is words and no proof - but even those fail you when you are asked a straight question.
1
-
@80sbeginner
"no, he didn't understand it, he invented this garbage."
Incorrect. Newton's laws are observable, demonstrable and reproducible.
"it's a lie."
The Principia and the Scholium to Axioms? Go ahead and demonstrate it then instead of pissing about on You Tube writing shit alternative lyrics to Madonna songs like the child you are.
"Isaac Newton never measured 'force'."
Yes he did, and the full details of the experimentation demonstrates how. He measured acceleration as well, and we can do both today which fully validates his findings.
"there is no such thing as 'force', no such variable that is independent."
Er, ok, you need to understand at some stage that simply saying so on the internet accounts for nothing. Again, go out there and prove this.
"to know 'force' you must know both the object's mass and the object's 'acceleration'"
He was able to extrapolate both - again, just as we can today.
"mass times 'acceleration' is not 'force', mass times 'acceleration' is a meaningless result, and any intellectually honest person can easily understand this."
So, acceleration and force are different things; the former, a rate of change of velocity, the latter, a strength of an interaction on the other hand. Both are quantifiable and the way we calibrate our force measurements involves knowing about accelerations of known masses. This is basic high school material that any intellectually honest individual can comprehend. Unfortunately, you are neither intellectual or honest, you are nothing more than a gullible fool, indoctrinated by multiple You Tube channels of complete horseshit that harvest utter stupidity and those that naively the nonsensical content supplants and compensates for the education that eluded them and make them sound informed and clever.
"all you have are just words in a book written in Latin hundreds of years ago."
Nope, we have mathematics which has a voice of its own. The Principia is one of the most important works in the history of science. You maintain otherwise, stop being a useless clown on You Tube and go out there and falsify it.
"you don't have any proof and you never will."
Incorrect again - Newton's laws are supported by not only mathematics, but reality and observable nature in addition to an entire branch of science called physics. Personally, I'll take that over a hopeless troll and a clueless conspiracy addled cretin that thinks their You Tube channel makes them credible in life and compensates for their insignificant existence and lack of achievement.
You have avoided my questions yet again. If you believe that you are able to falsify Newton's second law of motion, why haven't you done it? Why haven't you published your mathematics overturning this and claimed your Nobel Prize? In so doing, toppling the entire edifice, the very pillars of science and as a consequence the "most horrible lie in human history" will come crashing down. Just a hunch, but you're going to need slightly more than some ineptly adapted lyrics to 'Papa Don't Preach'.
Also, if tectonic plates don't exist, then how do you explain seismicity, volcanicity, the Mid Atlantic ridge, continental drift? How does your flat earth account for the magnetosphere or the geodesic which is fundamental to navigation?
Go ahead.
1
-
@80sbeginner
That's six times now that you have failed to spell globalist correctly. This is so easy.
Isaac Newton understood that the force acting on an object is equal to the mass of an object times its acceleration. This means the more mass an object has, the more force you need to accelerate it. And the greater the force, the greater the object's acceleration. This is observable in nature. And you are incorrect again - he was able to measure force and the experiment devised to do so is detailed in the Scholium to Axioms and the Principa. Why don't you know this? Also for equations to be accepted, they must be axiomatic.
I'll ask you again - if you wish to "convince" people, then why are you cowering on You Tube wasting your time comically and ineptly rewriting the lyrics to Madonna songs? If you believe that you are able to falsify Newton's second law of motion, why haven't you done it? Why haven't you published your mathematics overturning this and claimed your Nobel Prize? In so doing toppling the entire edifice, the very pillars of science and the "most horrible lie in human history" will come crashing down. Quick tip though - might be an idea to learn to spell "globalist" before you do.
And you have yet to answer my other questions. If tectonic plates don't exist, then how do you explain seismicity, volcanicity, the Mid Atlantic ridge, continental drift? How does your flat earth account for the magnetosphere or the geodesic which is fundamental to navigation?
Go ahead then. If you can't address these simple questions then how are you going to defeat "the...freemasons!!! (insert dramatic music) and Satan's emissaries?
And your point about "fantasy" was?
1
-
@80sbeginner
"it's funny you call me a troll"
You are the very definition of one as your posts and behaviour on this video are testament to.
"the content of my channel shows that I can't be a troll. the amount of people following my channel shows that I can't be a troll."
That has absolutely zero bearing on your decision to act like one.
"the content of your channel and of hundreds of globist trolls like you that I have come across, shows what you know, which is basically nothing."
That'll be the third time that you've misspelt 'globalist'. Looks like you're also having great difficulty understanding privacy settings that a child could comprehend.
To reiterate, I am irrelevant. You are the one making the claims. Knowledge is not defined by whatever crap you choose to deposit on a You Tube channel, neither is the real world. So why are you squandering your time on a video entertainment platform when you could be out there falsifying science? You have yet to answer this question. Instead of your worthless channel, could you refer me to your publications?
"in the world of lies you live in, you can invent fake equations and say they are true, without providing a single proof."
On the contrary - in the real world science is evidence based and those equations that you don't understand are axiomatic.
Why are you so terrified of it?
"everything is opposite with you, everything is opposite from the truth."
Again, no use saying it - demonstrate how. If you are unable to do so, your statements are worthless. You claim that the Earth is flat. How do you account for known plate margins, seismicity, volcanicity and continental drift? How you reconcile plate tectonics and the magnetosphere with your flat Earth model and explain why the geodesic is fundamental to global navigation? Why aren't you out there proving this in addition to falsifying Isaac Newton instead of wasting your time posting bollocks on the comments section of a video entertainment platform? Why are you making claims that you are unable to defend or substantiate?
"keep quoting me."
Absolutely troll. I am relishing your humiliation. It's akin to a tortuous slow death. You should do the honourable thing and put yourself out of your misery.
1
-
@80sbeginner
"I don't have to answer any of your questions. I didn't have to answer you in my previous comment either."
No you don't have to answer my questions but your inability, incapability and unwillingness says it all. If you wish to suggest that Isaac Newton was incorrect or that tectonic plates don't exist then you need to demonstrate why, otherwise your claims are utterly worthless.
There is no debate about the shape of the world."
Correct, there is no debate about the shape of the world.
"you don't have one proof that you live on a spinning ball and you never will."
The evidence that the world is a spherical and revolves on its axis is manifest and ineluctable. As I suggested, you think otherwise - get your lazy trolling arse out of your armchair, off You Tube and overturn science. What are you so scared of? I am irrelevant to this exchange.
"you mistakenly think that you are running the show here in this thread that I created."
Get you! What you actually did was post a series of asinine parroted comments, troll that you are. Unfortunately for you, the You Tube comments section has a reply feature and don't you people simply loath that? The only thing that you have created here is an opportunity for your own humiliation - and I will continue to laugh at your expense.
"you have no proof that force is equal to mass times acceleration and you never will have such proof."
Again, to reiterate, I am irrelevant. Newton an entire branch of science called physics in addition to observable nature proves you wrong. What's stopping you falsifying this instead of poncing about on the comments section of a video entertainment platform?
"you are wasting your time responding to me obsessively."
You are wasting your time trolling obsessively. Don't you have papers to publish? Conferences to attend? A Nobel Prize to claim or are you content ineptly re-writing your childish alternative lyrics to Madonna songs instead?
"surely you have some hobbies, go and enjoy your hobbies that's good advice from me."
Said the online troll and gullible conspiracy believer.
You claim that the Earth is flat. How do you account for known plate margins, seismicity, volcanicity and continental drift? How you reconcile plate tectonics and the magnetosphere with your flat Earth model and explain why the geodesic is fundamental to global navigation? Why aren't you out there proving this in addition to falsifying Isaac Newton instead of wasting your time posting bollocks on the comments section of a video entertainment platform? Why are you making claims that you are unable to defend or substantiate?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@80sbeginner
"the right question is - why are you wasting your precious time on me?"
As I explained, I find you and your ilk hilarious. Don't underestimate your comic value, unintentional as it is. As I also explained, since you are the one that is making the claims, not me, I am irrelevant to this exchange. Don't you have an entire branch of science to challenge?
"if all I write is bullshit, then no one will pay attention to me, right?"
Correct - you're beginning to get it now. Which is why you are completely ignored accounting for nothing in the real world, have achieved nothing of worth in your miserable life and are forced to compensate through trolling comments sections consuming and regurgitating junk online conspiracy theory which feeds your illusory superiority, massages your ego and makes you feel special. I find that hilarious.
"it's a fact that my comments cause globist trolls/paid shills/professional liars to respond to me non-stop."
That's the second time that you've managed to misspell 'globalist'. Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself?
"I must be doing a good job"
Of making a complete tit our of yourself on the internet? That's the first thing that you've said that is correct.
"I'll keep up this good work. I'll continue to tell the truth in many videos similar to this one. I do everything for free, no one should pay me for this, the truth is very important to me and I will tell it all the time."
Get you! Brave lad. And rational people will continue to lampoon you. Next step, like I said, at some stage, grow some nads, stop pissing about ineptly trolling the comments section of You Tube, publish your mathematical data, falsify Newton and revolutionise centuries of evidence based science and our understanding of nature. What are you so afraid of?
"you will continue to type your arrogant comments and that's fine."
Is unintentional irony a national sport where you come from?
"I'm not excited about you at all."
Frankly, I'm immensely gratified to hear it. And to reiterate again, I am irrelevant to this exchange and your ludicrous claims, just as you are irrelevant to the real world. You think otherwise? Go our there, prove Newton wrong and undermine an entire branch of science called physics in the process. What's the problem?
While you're at it, reconcile plate tectonics and the magnetosphere with your flat Earth model and account for why the geodesic is fundamental to global navigation.
Off you go.
1
-
@80sbeginner
"I researched the subject of Newton's second law by myself, without anyone's help."
Of course you did, clever lad. Now forgive me if I defer to observable nature, an entire branch of science called physics and Netwon himself over a gullible conspiracy believer and jumped up egotistical nobody on the comments section of a video entertainment platform - the village idiot that found a voice through an internet connection that they don't know how to use responsibly.
"I haven't seen anyone in the flat earth movement talking about this issue. I'm the only one talking exclusively about this topic."
"The flat earth community". And through taking that seriously, you yourself expect to be taken seriously? These people are grifters. None of them believe the nonsense they spout. They are simply opportunistic con artists harvesting gullibility and stupidity for profit and their own gain - and you are their target market.
In which case, to return to my original question, why are you frittering your time away posting useless comments on You Tube? If you maintain that a force can't be measured or that f=ma is incorrect, then get yourself off your lazy arse, go out there, take on the world, publish and defend your findings, falsify Isaac Newton and in the process subvert and demolish the entire edifice and centuries of of scientific understanding. What are you waiting for?
"you are a liar, your response is complete garbage."
To reiterate, the unintentional irony is as hilarious as it is staggering.
And to also clarify for you again, simply saying something over the internet accounts for f**k all. You need to demonstrate why.
1
-
@80sbeginner
"I'm only talking about Newton's second law."
No you aren't. You're simply regurgitating what some online grifter told you to think in the deluded belief that junk online conspiracy theory substitutes and supplants for the education that eluded you in life. And thanks, but I'll stick to what nature, and entire branch of evidence based science and Newton himself has to say about that as opposed to listening to a very dim and impressionable individual trying to sound clever on the comments section of You Tube - if it's all the same to you.
"you got an answer"
No I didn't, you avoided it like the clap because that's what you goons always do.
"I don't need to talk about anything else to disprove the heliocentric model."
Let me help you there, because you're terribly confused. What you actually need to do, (as opposed to gorging on a junk diet of crap conspiracy channels that tell you what to say over social media or internet comments sections), is, in the first instance, undertake a doctoral thesis. Heads up - you'll soon discover that you're not going to gain much in the way of approbation, credence and progress in academic circles by relying upon the likes of David Weiss, William Guzmann and Nathan Oakley as your references, you will need to gain your own credibility generating your own literature and corpus of work. So, you are going to need to produce your own methodology, ontology, data and novel outputs yourself. While you're doing that, publish some papers in Q1 scientific journals, raise your academic profile, generate favourable peer review, present your work as a keynote speaker at conferences and concentrate on increasing your H-index. Defending your work through your ineluctable logic, adherence to the scientific method, integrity, rigour and reproducibility and mathematical axioms will then allow you to leverage your research and in so doing falsify Newton's second law of motion/F - ma, thereby overturning tens of thousands of experiments and the data yielded, and with it, the entire branch of science known as physics and in the process, toppling the very edifice of evidence based scientific knowledge that would then need to be rebuilt from scratch. And as I said - don't forget to claim your Nobel Prize.
Alternatively, you can continue to preen and posture on the internet, deluding yourself that your hopeless trolling has any meaning or impact on the real world or that a subscription to MarkKSargant makes you sound informed and clever in the walled garden that you cower in.
"you have trouble focusing on the topic of the discussion."
I am irrelevant to your contention. Like I said, go out there and prove physics wrong. Regarding the topic of discussion, the changes that a force can exert on a body is validated by Newton's quantitative description, and yes this is measurable is demonstrated by nature - as opposed to some feeble minded tool with an internet connection that doesn't know how to use it properly.
Now, in your own words, and without resorting to clowns like Nathan Oakley, explain how plate tectonics work on a flat Earth in addition to the magnetosphere. When you've done that account for the observed geodesic which is the foundation of global navigation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"FAKE!"
On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. In order to declare something as "fake", you need to actually be informed and knowledgeable about it.
"God knows whatelse we have been lied about!"
Because naturally the online conspiracy theory that you defer to is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Really? Still sticking to that old narrative?"
What "narrative" would that be? The scientific, technical, historical, independent and third party evidence that you are wholly ignorant of, is manifest, incontrovertible and has a voice of its own.
"And about 50 years later NASA begins to think about radiatzion issues."
"Radiatzion"??? You're not all that bright are you.
If you mean cosmic, solar and charged particle radiation, this has been studied by NASA since its inception and by astrophysics for decades before that.
"Nobody with a sound mind believes these narratives anymore."
Apart from entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet? In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever. And no, known science and technology is not a question of 'belief' that would be the the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly consume and regurgitate.
Quick tip. If you really insist on branding something as fake, it's an idea to learn even the most basic and rudimentary facts about it before you do.
"Radiatzion" 🤦♂
Seriously, why do you people do this to yourselves?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Juxtapositional
You only need the one reply, why is it that you people are virtually incapable of consolidating your ramblings into one comment?
"‘responding accordingly’ is not just effectively saying ‘nah ah’ without any tangible specifics to why the moon can be proven to be physical."
I didn't - read it again. Happy to discuss any aspect of it.
Said this -
"not just effectively saying ‘nah ah’ without any tangible specifics"
Says this -
"Try again, unlucky"
Like I said, the unintentional irony is as hilarious as it is staggering.
"if you were at all well versed in debate, you’d realise the schoolboy error of resorting to logical fallacies constantly - these are not arguments that have substantive meaning, just various emotively or disingenuously aligned statements"
To remind you, you said this -
"Amazing to think some people still believe this nonsense! How they would begin to deal with the true shape of the earth boggles the mind somewhat you could say…"
And this -
"If you’re not a bot, then you’re really terrible at this!"
And here is a list of yours in this thread alone - false premise, reducto ad absurdum, begging the question, false dilemma, strawman, argument from incredulity, hasty generalisation and hilariously, your trump card - The Tu Quoque. Add to that a large helping of illusory superiority and a chronic affliction of the Dunning Kruger effect.
To remind you, you said this too...
"Why for instance does half the moon get obscured by the blue sky on numerous occasions during the day if it’s a rock floating in space?"
I mean, I'm curious now. Do you actually share these these thoughts in the real world or in public? - and assuming that you interact with reality, people that you meet?
Shall we return to my response to you? You can't just hand wave it away, which is precisely what you dishonestly accuse others of doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"More ad hominem attacks in order to prop up/support the patently false narrative of 'moon landing'."
It isn't a narrative though - you people always say that whilst completely ignoring that the scientific, independent and third party evidence is demonstrable.
"Like many conspiracies, vilified at first and many years later, determined to be self evident and true...and all by the same 'vilifiers'."
Such as?
"Because...'government agencies' NEVER lie or mislead the public, obviously."
And meanwhile, online conspiracy theory is entirely and unfailingly honest, accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic, profiteering or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? - obviously.
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our governments are always up to something and can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.
Of course governments, agencies and organisations lie and conspire - no one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. However, simply because they do, it does not then logically follow that claims of a hoaxed moon landing or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice, devising or personal agenda must automatically assumed to be true. Lazy thinking and a syllogistic fallacy, affirming the consequent, through the undistributed middle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@schrapnellcotton3413
"There are lots of logical fallacies and yours here would be under ad hominem."
Actually, no. Everything in my response is independently verifiable including Mazzucco's propensity for fraud and deceit. Read my post again. What would you like to contest?
"Check out videos on logical fallacies for reference."
I don't need to. I am fully aware of them and if you are so au fait with the latter then why to you choose to ignore the fact that Mazzucco's 'American Moon' is replete with them? I can list them for you if it helps, because evidently, you didn't spot them for yourself.
"Not addressing the issue in the statement or theory or argument but attacking the person. To clarify and be more succinct, my point of view is that American Moon is a good documentary for the outlining of some of the concerns some disbelievers have on the moon landing. That is my comment. Please tell me WHY you do not agree with it and we can go from there."
It does not outline "the concerns that some believers have on the moon landing" - it promotes them from an entirely biased and one sided approach. There is no objectivity, no balance whatsoever. Like Sibrel, Mazzucco absolutely knows this, because that is his target market. Conspiracy believers, with zero prior knowledge of the science, technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme, seeking instant gratification in the form of confirmation bias and reinforcement. Moreover, these claims are either deceptive, historically incorrect/disingenuous or based upon fundamentally flawed science. Furthermore, it's simply the same material that has been consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again and debunked ad nauseum.
Perhaps you should select your singular and most compelling persuasive best example of one of the "concerns that some believers have on the moon documentary" and I'll demonstrate why this is so flawed...and we can go from there.
1
-
Have you ever thought to question precisely why it is in Odysee? (although I think it can be found on You Tube also).
If you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam.
It was made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artist and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's ludicrous and dishonest claims?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertdujin1365
"yeah it ‘happened’ a couple years later after they were fried to death"
The crew of Apollo 1 lost their lives due to a stray spark that ignited 100% oxygen atmosphere of the capsule, full of flammable material and being internally pressurised, it was impossible to escape through the then inward opening hatch. Grissom was not a lone voice - there were hundreds within the programme, including other astronauts, engineers, contractors and even management that were vocalising their dissent and concerns. Not only that, tragically, if it hadn't been for the Apollo 1 tragedy that ushered in a raft of technical changes and was a watershed in the implementation of safety measures and protocol, it's highly unlikely that NASA would have fulfilled Kennedy's pledge of placing man on the moon by the end of the decade. Stop mindlessly consuming and regurgitating dumb online conspiracy theory about subjects you clearly have zero knowledge and understanding of whatsoever.
"you probably believe that it ‘happened’ because the film was brought to you on TV - and believe science I believed it until I questioned my science teacher when I was 12 and his answers were illogical in hindsight - go figure it’s very hard to ‘disbelieve’ took me years !(!!)"
Because of course the conspiracy theory that you gullibly defer to is is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
Known science is not a question of 'belief'. It is evidenced, demonstrable and being axiomatic, has a voice of its own.
"Once I figured out that Governments can lie I was still not convinced that it was a lie don’t know who you are but hope you don’t get too upset when you realise the truth…maybe you just can’t have a nice day!"
Perhaps you should have invested your time figuring out how to punctuate a sentence instead? And yet, you haven't figured out that online conspiracy theorists can lie too?
Of course governments lie - it doesn't take any figuring out and no one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. However, simply because they do, that doesn't then follow that any random conspiracy theory of your arbitrary choice or devising must automatically be assumed to be true. Lazy thinking and a syllogistic logical fallacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NotJanine777
"If you want to believe we went to the moon, you carry on."
Known science is not a question of belief and at no stage have I mentioned either that or my own. Nothing to do with me, the evidence in support of the moon landings is demonstrable and incontrovertible so I'll go with that thanks.
"My points above still stand as you haven't 'debunked' any of them."
Your 'points' are simply ill-informed nonsense or pure conjecture on your part whether I or anyone else debunks them. On the subject of which, I addressed and summarised all of the content of your post, so let's see shall we?
Firstly you claimed it is impossible to have the vacuum of space next to the Earth's atmosphere, so from that I conclude that you are one of these deranged space deniers and flat earthers. In response, I asked you to account for the decrease in pressure with altitude. You failed to do so, so that's that.
Secondly, you asked how it is possible for anyone in a pressurised suit to "look normal" (whatever that means) insisting that "he would look like an over inflated Michelin Man". I pointed out to you that would not be the case as the A7Ls were only pressurised to 3.7psi (4.2psi current suits). I'd hardly call that "over inflated" would you?
You then insisted that "the only people who believe we went to the moon are those that have never bothered to look beyond what their governments and propaganda arms (TV and news papers, etc), tell them." To clarify again, in addition to entire branches of science and specialist fields/disciplines worldwide, the Apollo missions have also been examined with forensic detail by historians and investigative journalists whilst also bearing scrutiny from individual nations, independent third parties and each of the 76 other space agencies. In short, areas of expertise and individuals far more accomplished, skilled and clever than a random, insignificant, gullible conspiracy junkie that thinks that consuming and regurgitating junk online conspiratorial crap over the comments section of You Tube makes him sound significant, informed and knowledgeable.
Finally, you absurdly stated that Stephen Fry is unable to qualify his comments in spite of the fact that they are all independently verifiable, You then went on to say that part of his job is to make sure that people don't know the truth for which you have zero evidence in support of, so as the one making the claim, the burden of truth is incumbent upon you, not me.
Should you need any further clarification, then do not hesitate to ask.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This again? Jeez, how many times? Now please go and watch the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking. Sigh, yet another online armchair self-appointed authority in behavioural psychology Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. Characters such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans certainly weren't so reserved...perhaps you should watch the Apollo 12, 14, 16 and 17 post mission pressers too? - given that you didn't even know that they existed. Also, find photos and footage of the Apollo 11 crew immediately after their return in the mobile quarantine facility.
Frankly if that's all it takes to convince you, it's hardly surprising that people of your ilk are the target market for the opportunistic con artists, grifters and frauds that perpetrate online conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@real-eyes-realise-real-lie8888
This again? Seriously? How many times? Here, let me help you.
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
Why is it even necessary to explain this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"we all know Fry is a clever chappie - a bit of research by him on these particular points might, however, result in a humbling experience for “our Professor”.
Er - right. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
Firstly, heat and temperature are two different things. Heat is concerned with thermal energy, whereas temperature describes molecular kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy, whereas temperature is a property the object exhibits and describes the motion of molecules. Since the moon is essentially a vacuum there are very few of these to be excited So temperature is essentially a measurement of how excited air molecules are. The higher the temperature, the more frenzied molecules become and the more they bounce off each other-and this interaction between particles is what creates heat. The surface of the moon is virtually a vacuum. There are very few particles, and what particles are present are spaced far apart. This is why temperature is meaningless. In the absence of an atmosphere there is no convection whilst conduction is limited. Therefore the main source of thermal energy transfer is radiative heating from the sun - and the film was shielded from this. The temperature extremes that you mention are surface temperatures - extremes. Objects take time to build up to their equilibrium temperature and the length of the lunar daytime is 15 earth days. This is why all of the Apollo moon landings were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. The temperatures that you mention were never experienced.
Contrary to your claims, Hasselblad did significantly adapt and modify their 500EL cameras for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective silver body, the internal plastics were removed and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures. They also collaborated with Zeiss to produce a custom lens for the lunar cameras. The lens couldn't be used on a regular camera because Hasselblad removed the mirror mechanism and the viewfinder, The moderate speed and low sensitivity film types that were used were well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Also, as explained, heat transfer is not significant in the absence of convection.
Regarding the film itself in more detail - firstly radiation. X rays, which can be destructive to film vary in their energy. By way of example, a CT scanner will be 60KV, and airport baggage scanner 80KV - where in comparison the radiation produced by the sun is less than 5KV. Anything less than 10KV can't penetrate anything greater than 1mm of aluminium. 5KV can be stopped by a piece of paper. Kept within a metal container, the X rays from the sun simply weren't strong enough to damage the film. The only time that they would present a risk to film is during a solar flare/CME/SPE - and in that scenario, the main concern would have been the safety of the astronauts. The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv. On Earth, that dosage is 2.4 mSv, or higher, depending on where you are exactly. Bottom line, the few days in Lunar orbit and on the surface would have aged the film due to radiation between 50-150 days/ day in orbit maximum, thus it would be the equivalent of film that was aged a few years at most. The environment at the Moon is more likely to have high energy effects, and there actually are signs of radiation in some of the images, if you look carefully.
Regarding vacuum. A fallacious and flawed experiment found on the conspiracy website Aulis and frequently shared and referenced by conspiracy believers attempted to demonstrate the effect of this upon the film used by the Apollo missions...except is wasn't. The Kodak ektachrome used E-100 is off the shelf, whereas Apollo used ektachrome EF (S0168) and ektachrome MS (S0368) both of which were developed expressly for use in space utilising different emulsions due to higher UV and eliminate blue haze. In the 'experiment', the E-100 film was tested in a vacuum chamber for four days, before being pressurised and then a vacuum again. Yet if we take Apollo 11, the film would only have been in a vacuum for the duration of the EVA, which was around two and a half hours. The longest total EVA was Apollo 17 at 22 hrs for the three performed. The experiment also neglected to contain the film. The heat extremes that it was subjected to were as explained, never experienced. They also used the E6 process to develop the film as opposed to the E3 process used by NASA and ignored the fact that a calibration chart was used for adjustment at the end of the process, to correct for issues with the colour. The conclusion of the experiment actually illustrates that the colour shift was compromised not due to vacuum itself as they claim, but pressurisation cycling between a vacuum and atmospheric pressure and extreme heat which the Apollo film never experienced. Also, the LM and CM were pressurised by pure oxygen to 4.7 psi as opposed to the 14 psi nitrogen/oxygen that we experience on earth. The most absurd thing about this 'experiment' is that is was conducted by three people - the ludicrous self-appointed 'Apollo Detectives'. They set out to prove that film won't survive in a vacuum - but when you factor in all of their inaccuracies, it proves exactly the opposite.
It sounds like you've mistaken watching a Gary Fong video on You Tube for actual research.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidd8977
"do a YouTube search for - How bright is the moon let's have a reality check Anthony Bear. Short and simple real world experiments, simple mathematics to prove the brightness of the moon. Now please point me to the real world experiment that I can repeat that proves ANY of the rubbish you just spouted."
Anthony Bear? Is this actually serious? As if Bart Sibrel wasn't questionable enough.
No use saying it, what precisely is "rubbish"? Go ahead. This is established physics and reality that you are in denial of.
1/ We can measure the moon's albedo.
2/ Contrary to your claims, the new moon is indeed visible (you can observe this for yourself).
3/ The Earth does illuminate the moon. It's called Earthshine.
4/ Although the moon does emit thermal radiation in the direction of Earth, this is negligible, whilst light cannot be cold or hot. Temperature is a thermodynamic state that is applicable to matter. Light is not matter.
What do you mean "measured colder"?...that makes no scientific sense.
"I would wager that mot a single thing you talk about can be repeated and is pure theory just like everything in the broken model. Gonna fix the three body problem for me? How about the dark matter/dark energy issue that can neither be observed or measured and apparently exists in another dimension yet makes up 86% of all matter in ours. Haha, what a joke."
I'll tell you what is a joke - your deferral to internet grifters and con-artists such as Bear. Sibrel knows that the Apollo moon landings are real, just as Bear knows that the Earth is not flat. They harvest stupidity for profit and their own gain, and you are the target market.
On the subject of theoretical physics, I was very saddened by the recent passing of Sir Peter Higgs. Despite being such a modest and introverted individual, he nonetheless felt a calling and obligation to use the public profile his achievements brought him for the good of science, and he did so on multiple occasions. The particle that bears his name is one of the most overwhelming example of how ostensibly theoretical abstract mathematics can make predictions which turn out to have the most profound physical consequences since Einstein. His work culminated in him becoming a Nobel Prize winner. I respect and defer to that, but much like Neil Armstrong, I also venerate the dedication, humility and the brilliance that made such achievements possible.
You meanwhile are simply a very silly man with online access that doesn't know how to use it responsibly. Yet another village idiot that has found a platform and a voice from behind a keyboard that would otherwise be ignored in the real world and thinks that watching dumb conspiracy videos supplants, substitutes and compensates for the education that has eluded you.
So it transpires that you think that the Earth is flat?
Ok then.
1
-
@davidd8977
"I actually prefer a standing desk as it is better for my back, or if I'm out walking I'll have a device in hand."
Good on you, I concur, I have one at work.
"Noticeably not a single argument to any of the actual significant points being made other than an ad hominem attack, which is typical for NASA fanboys."
So you accuse me of "ad hominem" whilst committing an ad hominem logical fallacy yourself in the same sentence. Read my response again, I was highlighting elements of your post, not attacking you personally - although your view of yourself as a "critical thinker" is highly amusing. And no, you clearly don't have the remotest idea what you are talking about, otherwise you wouldn't be parroting such nonsense.
"I'm not a rocket scientist"
Well no shit.
"so how could I possibly have aaaany understanding of such complex things as thermodynamics, and astrophysics."
Well just a thought, but you could try learning the actual science instead of relying upon what dumb online conspiracy theorists tell you to think.
"I don't need to be a rocket scientist to be able to repeat a simple experiment to prove a basic law of physics and then use simple mathematics to translate that law based upon the figures given to us by NASA and their ilk. I can then either prove that what we are told about the moon is true or not, and we have proven that... it's not."
Said no actual aerospace engineer, astrophysicist or astronomer ever. Could you refer me to this "proof". Surely these assertions must have been published? I mean you can't be relying upon crap online conspiracy videos can you?
"When reality doesn't reflect what the theory and the numbers are telling us, the theory and numbers are wrong. The moon is NOT 238900 miles away. It is NOT a giant dusty ball of rock reflecting sunlight."
Turns out, reality disagrees with you. Oh well.
"Here's a question for everyone. If the moon, as a dirty dusty ball of rock 238900 miles away is able to illuminate the earth at night by reflecting sunlight, how is it that the Earth as a water covered ball many times larger than the moon is not able to illuminate the moon at all when it is new."
The Earth does illuminate the moon. The part of the Moon lit by the sun appears very bright. But take note how the dark side is still visible even though not lit by the Sun. That is called earthshine. The Earth is much bigger than the moon and has a higher albedo Of course the Earth is going to illuminate the Moonit is very dim by the time sunlight has gone from the sun to the Earth to the dark moon, If you look carefully at the New Moon, you can see what is called “The Old Moon in the arms of the New”. You can see the dark part of the moon dimly illuminated by earthlight. But it is far, far dimmer than direct sunlight.
"When we have a new moon it completely disappears from view. Completely, without a single trace."
No it doesn't.
"Not a single photo has been taken of the moon at this stage and yet it should be at least partially illuminated at some point by the Earth reflecting sunlight onto it."
Yes it has and yes it is.
This can be achieved by using a long exposure photography technique to capture the faint light reflected from the Earth onto the dark side of the Moon. Additionally, some advanced telescopes and space missions have the capability to capture images of the Moon even when it's not visible from Earth.
"Of course the other elephant in this room is that Moonlight is completely different to Sunlight. Laser thermometers measure it cooler than in the shade. It is cool by every definition and whilst sunlight is antiseptic in nature, moonlight is the opposite. As a reflector it shouldn't alter the light at all. let alone inverting the qualities of it."
Moonlight is reflected sunlight. Sunlight being visible and invisible electromagnetic radiation, including heat. The reflectivity of an object is known as its ‘albedo’. This is the measure of the reflection of solar radiation and measured on a scale from 0 to 1; the zero corresponding to a black body that absorbs all the incident radiation, to 1, corresponding to a body that reflects all incident radiation.
The moon’s albedo is 0.12 which means, the Moon reflects only 12% of the sunlight falling on it. Now you know the reason why moonlight is not warm like sunlight. And actually, this is based upon a false premise - light cannot be cold or hot. Temperature is a thermodynamic state that is applicable to matter. Light is not matter.
You say that moonlight is cold? Actually, the moon also emits thermal radiation towards the Earth but it is significantly weaker than sunlight for the reasons mentioned above. You may feel cold because you are exposed to the night sky and you are radiating heat.
Reading your last post it's not hard to see why you don't understand what a vacuum is and that you regard Bart Sibrel as a legitimate/credible source of information.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tommy2pieceya734
"I'll let you in on a little secret, there's no indisputable evidence, that we went to the Moon"
On the contrary, the scientific, independent and third party evidence speaks for itself.
"NASA claims to have lost it all"
Do they? Then you'll have not problem presenting just one source confirming this then will you.
"they say, it either went missing"
What did? Be specific man.
"or they taped over it"
But they don't. They have never stated any such thing. Some back up recordings of raw analogue video transmitted via unified S Band during the Apollo 11 EVA was at some point erased. The tapes were made using specially designed, high-capacity recording equipment in order to capture the raw transmissions at source in case anything should go wrong with the process used to convert them to a standard broadcast signal. Once the conversion and transmission was complete, the recordings were no longer needed for their original purpose. Any magnetic recording media has a limited life. The magnetic fields of the stored data decay over time. For this reason, and because high-grade tapes were very expensive, they were never considered an archival medium. The data on those tapes, including video data were relayed to the Manned Spacecraft Center during the mission. The video was recorded there and in other locations; there is no missing video footage from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. There was no video that came down slow scan that was not converted live, fed live, to Houston and fed live to the world.
"and that's all they have to say, because people have a hard time thinking for themselves and therefore, believe anything and everything they're told, as long as it comes from someone they're supposed to trust, like a teacher, or the government, etc and that's 100% fact."
Or a junk online conspiracy theorist.
"If it weren't a 100% fact, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION and you wouldn't be avoiding that statement, at all costs"
I'm not avoiding any statement. I have addressed every aspect of your clueless posts and the reason that we're having this conversation is because I am challenging your false claims - and you people despise that. (Incidentally, your caps lock key keeps intermittently malfunctioning).
"Furthermore, for someone who believes we went to the moon, to spend all this time having a conversation, about something he already believes to be true, well, that should tell you something right there.. Sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself, that we went"
How so? By explaining the difference between the DSN and a mobile phone antenna to you or the fact that a landline can be patched to radio transmission? Sounds like you're desperately trying to convince yourself that we didn't.
"THERE'S NO EVIDENCE, just the WORD of the person making the claim"
But as I have consistently explained, there is, and that evidence has a voice of it's own. Simply because you are completely ignorant of it, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
"and if you don't believe what you're being told, even with no evidence to show, then you're a so called conspiracy theorist and that you have said, over and over and I hear this all the time, but it has nothing to do with anything and everything to do with, people just don't know what else to say and that's the only excuse and or justification, that their brain could come up with and that alone, is quite something, to say the least and the psychology behind it, fascinates me more than you could possibly comprehend.. Why do you think people who believe all these outlandish theories and claims, spend all kinds of time and energy, going back and forth on something they believe to be true?"
Your pop psychology is a tad premature for you - I'd suggest that you invest more time in learning to punctuate a sentence.
"I mean, do you believe they discovered Antarctica and that if you were to go there, you would find cold and frigid temperatures, plus a lot of ice and snow, well, IF SO,, why the hell would you spend all kinds of time and that precious energy, on the contrary of what you believe, because that's exactly what you're doing, but it just so happens to be about the moon, on this occasion and do you know how many millions of people do this, like I said, the psychology behind it is fascinating, almost beyond belief..."
Nope. I am simply responding to your false and erroneous claims, your personal incredulity, illusory superiority and your arrogance. And as I say, don't you people simply loath that?
"Now, what you don't know and maybe I should have told you this before the whole conversation started, so I'll take responsibility for that......but,, I should have told you, that I can prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt to the point where it's literally indisputable, that the US government, is its own separate entity, enslaving and manipulating Americans like pawns on a chessboard and doing so, for their own benefit and financial gain.. Infact, it's quite easy to prove..."
Why don't you stay on topic instead? - or perhaps have the integrity, the honestly and humility to concede that you were wrong about your cell phone comparison and that you have zero understanding of how it was possible to patch a landline in the Whitehouse to the DSN? The reason is, as you know full well, that you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about the science, technology and the history of spaceflight or the Apollo Programme and rely upon the consumption and regurgitation of junk online conspiracy theory to tell you what to think.
"If you were to ask yourself this question and that is, would it take hypothetically, to be convinced we never went to the Moon and if the only answer you come up with, is the word of a person, or entity, telling you otherwise and that it was all a lie, well, what more can I say.."
Do you mean "what would it take"?
I'm not remotely interested in the "word of a person". As explained to you repeatedly and on innumerable occasions, scientific evidence speaks for itself and has a voice of its own.
Now, could you substantiate your claim, at source, in which NASA state that they have "lost all the evidence" that they went to the moon. Go ahead then.
1
-
@tommy2pieceya734
"I don't believe in conspiracy theories and I never have"
That, I'm afraid, is demonstrably not the case.
"I just believe in the truth and it's quite easy to see, when looking at things from the outside in."
About a subject that you clearly have zero knowledge of and through the distorted and myopic lens of online conspiracy theorists that tell you what to think.
"Conspiracy theorists, are no different, then the people who believe all these ridiculous claims and nonsensical theories, just because it's told to them, by someone who they're, SUPPOSED TO TRUST."
Stop believing it then.
"For example, all that information in which I gave you, simply went in one ear and out the other, but that was expected, because I presented you with simple facts, logic and common sense and those three things, are impossible to refute..."
No you didn't - you posted a wall of irrelevant self-opinionated waffle a series of logical fallacies and most pointedly, in association with the latter, lame arguments from personal incredulity that have been repeated over and over and over and over again and contrary to your claim, are not only easily refuted but have been done so ad nausem.. Here's one -
"It's the year 2023 and we barely get internet, are download speed is 700 kilobytes a second, not even 1mb and cell phone service is terrible, it's because we live a mile outside of town and the nearest telephone pole is 75 yards away... Now, AT&T is our provider and they are incapable of providing better service, because of the distance of the telephone pole and the mile outside of town, yet, 3 years before cell phones were even invented, AT&T magically provided telephone service to the Moon.. Nixon, from a landline in the Oval Office, called Houston, which then transmitted and beamed a telephone call, 200,000 miles away, with perfect reception and a perfect connection, LMAO...."
The signal on your phone is received by a crappy 1.94 square centimeter antenna nestled into the bottom of your device, as opposed to a 210 ft wide radio telescope dish. The current 4G communication band is 0.8-2.6GHz, and the main communication frequency band used by 5G is also below 6GHz, your signal can dip as low as a trivial -30 dBm. A cell phone transmits 300-600 milliwatts to a 2-foot-long antenna and have towers to bounce signals off when there is no line of sight. They also have millions of other users that compete for bandwidth. Thus, depending on how many users there are, and whether there are enough towers to connect the signals, you might not get any service. They are entirely different scenarios. Nixon's call? guess what? Radio transmission - it's a thing. Newsflash, fellah called Marconi, 1895, may well have passed you by. 1969? Landline + existing microwave network + Deep Space Network = giant f**k off antenna dish. Why is it even necessary to explain this in the 21st century to you people?
You then said this -
"When Buzz Aldren supposedly got back from the Moon, he became an alcoholic and Neil armstrong, became a recluse"
So what? Armstrong was a natural recluse by nature and Aldrin had problems adapting to civilian life. You don't mention the other 22 astronauts that journeyed to the moon - or the ten that also walked on the surface. Larger than life personalities such as Eugene Cernan, Charlie Duke, Al Shepard, Ron Evans, Pete Conrad, to name a few...all of them spent years in the limelight and celebrating/sharing their achievement.
"You know what fascinates me the most though, I use Google Voice and I just so happened, to overlook one misspelled word... Now, the truly fascinating part is this, not only did you see it, but you pointed it out to me and comboed it, with another assumption and or, justification. I mean, you literally did, exactly what I told you everyone does and basically confirmed my point, absolutely flawlessly..."
I simply pointed out the error, that's all. Just as it's 'Aldrin' - not 'Aldren'.
"What I would like to know and unfortunately, I already know you won't tell me, because nobody ever does and that is this,,,,, what if your brain, didn't find a way to justify and or, excuse, everything I had said, with things like that one misspelled word, or all your assumptions..<WHAT WOULD YOUR REPLY HAVE BEEN THEN>???"
Exactly the same as it is now. You are very simply and demonstrably another gullible, scientifically illiterate, know it all conspiracy believer afflicted by gross illusory superiority and a generous helping of the Dunning Kruger effect, with absolutely zero knowledge of the the subject that you arrogantly claim to be faked. You are neither informed nor clever, just another very dim individual with an internet connection that doesn't know how to use it responsibly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NotJanine777
"it was made from bits of crap"
It wasn't though.
There are three that weren't used due to the premature cancellation of the programme and are now exhibited. Aside from that, the construction of the LM and what it was fashioned from is fully understood and has been forensically scrutinised down to every rivet, every switch, every circuit breaker by aerospace engineering worldwide. You can find the full schematics and specifications yourself assuming that you either had the will, the capability and the intelligence to understand them.
So the The Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation traded their future and their reputation building a l"movie prop" made from "bits of crap" and no one noticed? For over half a century they managed to dupe entire branches of science and specialists fields such as aerospace engineering - but never reckoned on a random, arrogant, gullible conspiracy believer on the comments section of a video entertainment platform with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever. Nothing gets past you!
"It was a just a movie prop, like everything else on the Apollo programme."
So the Saturn V, y'know, those 363ft three-stage rockets as tall as a 36 storey building, that fully fuelled weighed in at 6.2million pounds, produced 7.6 million pounds of thrust and 203 decibels at launch...they were actually a "movie prop"?
You're not particularly bright are you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Oh really pal, than why does flu season happen at the same time ever year?"
It doesn't. That would depend upon geographical location. In the USA, the Northern Hemisphere is generally defined as October to May, in the Southern Hemisphere, May to October. The peaks may be at any period within this. Influenza is a viral respiratory illness. A virus is a microscopic infectious agent that invades the cells of your body and makes you sick. Research in guinea pigs has shown that the aerosol transmission of the virus is enhanced when the air is cold and dry, even its name, “influenza” may be a reference to its original Italian name, influenza di freddo, meaning “influence of the cold”. A common misconception is that the flu is caused by cold temperatures. However, the influenza virus is necessary to have the flu, so cold temperatures can only be a contributing factor. There is strong evidence that the lack of sunlight or the different lifestyles people lead in winter months are the primary contributing factors. During the winter, people spend more time indoors with the windows sealed, so they are more likely to breathe the same air as someone who has the flu and thus contract the virus. Days are shorter during the winter, and lack of sunlight leads to low levels of vitamin D and melatonin, both of which require sunlight for their generation. This compromises our immune systems, which in turn decreases ability to fight the virus.
"You're just ad crooked as the government lol. Trying to cover their asses."
This is a discussion about aircraft contrails. If you wish to contend that those long white lines that you don't understand in the wake of commercial aircraft six to eight miles above your head that have been observed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight are responsible for spreading the influenza virus, then do by all means present your evidence. Just the one epidemiological longitudinal study that demonstrates causality would be a great place to start.
"Trust me when I say......I do know too much. :)"
The unintentional irony at this point is off the scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"whistleblowings by USAF pilots, regular pilots, scientists, engineers and more"
Name them - name them all, together with their credential, their backgrounds and where appropriate their full published studies into chemtrails. In the interest of credibility, you may wish to avoid the ludicrous Kristen Meghan, the farcical "Pilots, Doctors and Scientists Tell the Truth about Chemtrails"or anything associated with Rosalind Peterson. Off you go, this should be entertaining.
"plus air, water and soil samples with the very chemicals attributed to cloud-seeding in them... is evidence."
"The very chemicals" that are also used in the manufature of fireworks too - in significantly higher quantities. In fact, "the very" chemicals that are all around us in our everyday lives. So do please feel free to direct me to an independent analytical study from a credible scientist that establishes a causal link between chemtrails and these samples together with demonstrating the methodology to discriminate them and avoid contamination with existing sources of both natural and anthropogenic origin.
"Plus visual evidence from thousands of pix and videos of cloud-building blocking out the sun"
That's what clouds tend to do. Additionally there is a very large volume of current research into the extent of radiative forcing associated with cirrus aviaticus which I can refer you to if you are interested.
"Plus record breaking humidity"
Source?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@misterniceguy8765
"no offence but I'm not here to debate with you"
No offence taken.
"I personally think your wrong."
I am irrelevant - known science has a voice of its own.
"They spray daily over me. There is a big difference in contrails and chemtrails."
So says every chemtrail believer on the internet, but none are able to detail the process to differentiate between these supposed 'chemtrails' and persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"And there is a difference. I physically feel it on some days it makes my eyes burn the NSA 5g antenna they put right in front of my warehouse puts out much more intense EMFs my chest pains increase and everyone experiences tinnitus"
Seriously, I would visit the doctor - that sounds serious. A 5G mast will have no physical effects whatsoever.
"I watch them intentionally inter into clouds spray and cut them of as the exit the clouds. And this is a new technique but it still obvious."
You mean intermittent contrails? Are you similarly perplexed by patchy cloud? You need to look closer. You will frequently observe large sections of recently deposited persistent contrails that you deem to be chemtrails randomly fading and vanishing. This is confirmation of the motion of the atmosphere - rising and subsiding parcels of warmer/drier air. Fly an aircraft at speeds up to 500 knots through such air and of course a contrail - which remember is a binary event - will be intermittent and appear to turn on and off. Understand that the atmosphere is neither isotropic nor homogeneous in terms of humidity and pressure.
"And this is where we probably have a difference in beliefs."
As I said, known science is not about "beliefs" - far less mine.
"I know that we are all a part of a global genocide program. I was put in the system years ago."
Really? how did you establish that? and tell me, how's that coming along given that the global population has increased by 1.7 billion since the turn of the century?
"You don't have to agree not do I really care if you don't. Because it really doesn't matter. Folks are gonna die either way."
Yes they are - unless climate change is halted and reversed.
"But I not in the mood to try to convince someone of anything. I'm just gonna go jam out on my drums. Have a good evening."
Thank you for keeping your response civil - a rare thing on the internet and genuinely, much appreciated.
May I ask, what rig do you have? what's your style of music? and what are you jamming to?
1
-
1
-
@misterniceguy8765
"just watch the skies."
Well I was alpine climbing at the age of nine, have since worked as a mountain guide across four different continents, obtained a post-graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology an Climatology over a quarter of a century ago and subsequently specialised in ground based remote sensing - so you cloud say I've dedicated a reasonable amount of my life to 'watching the skies'. Even more of a bonus when you actually understand what you are looking at. Gets a bit tedious typing all that out every time a credulous conspiracy believer tells me to "just watch the skies" - what would you have me look at?
"They are trying to hide them in the clouds now."
You mean contrail cirrus, obscured by other clouds? Who precisely are '"they"?
"If people can't tell the difference between contrails and chemtrails they are blind the behave completely different."
Finally! A chemtrail believer that can actually detail the methodology to differentiate between their supposed chemtrails and those persistent spreading contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. Go ahead then.
"And it rains 2 days later everytime they chemtrails not when you see contrails."
Not always - it could be sooner, could be later or not at all, but the persistent contrails that you deem to be 'chemtrails' are often indicative of unstable air and often the precursor of an approaching front bringing rainfall. Contrails themselves are cirrus clouds and so therefore not rain bearing. They are frequently the result of the conditions that you describe as opposed to the cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@veritasomniavincit7
"and adont forget the motley crew of disgruntled “astronauts” in the press briefing."
This again - seriously? It's the same thing mindlessly regurgitated over and over and over again. As previously stated, you obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking. Sigh, yet another online armchair self-appointed authority in behavioural psychology. Righto.
Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. However,, characters such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans all had far more ebullient personalities. Perhaps you should also watch the post mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even the aborted Apollo 13 landing that your conspiracy theory never mentions. Whilst at it, find footage and images of them beaming after recovery in the Mobile Quarantine Trailer.
“how’s that kool-aid…”
Never ceases to amuse when a gullible believer in online conspiracy theory types this cringeworthy cliché in the complete absence of irony or self-awareness. The Rev Jim Jones would have had a field day with you goons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theconspiracydentist
It's the same misconceptions by the same sort of individuals, consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over and over again. It makes perfect sense, even to those have the most fragile grasp of the economics, history and science & technology of the Apollo Programme.
Apollo 8 "went to the moon" eleven years after Sputnik - (what's your point?) whilst the first lunar landing was twelve years after. It has been just under 52 years since Apollo 17, not 55.
And what on Earth are you talking about, can't come close? Artemis 1 was an overwhelming success. It wasn't approved until 2018. Apollo was cancelled in 1972 due to a lack of political and public will and Congress pulling the funding. It is hideously and obscenely expensive to develop and sustain a manned moon landing programme and with the cessation also meant the abandonment of a heavy lift capability where the emphasis shifted to low Earth orbit through the folly of the shuttle programme and the construction of the ISS. This doesn't mean that spaceflight technology hasn't significantly progressed, simply that no one built a rocket with the power of the Saturn V that was capable of hurling a crew to the moon via a Hohmann transfer. This is all changing again. And that's the point - these modern materials and technologies all need testing and validation in space.
Between 1959, the first year of NASA, and 1973, a year after the most recent moon landing, NASA spent $20.5 billion ($152.7 billion in 2018 dollars) on its lunar directive or 42% of all NASA spending. The most expensive aspects of the project were the rockets to get astronauts into space and the modules they would travel in. These two needs have consistently been the biggest expenses in the agency’s history. The cost today is gargantuan and Artemis has a fraction of the budget that Apollo had.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sspbrazil
"No, he IS a great bass player"
Not really - and you'll find that capitalisation doesn't make it any truer.
"especially a reggae bass player"
He's from Brixton, he loves dub. What's a "great reggae player"?
"no, he is not Jaco Pastorius, but he is still a GREAT bass player."
Why?
"As for Dylan and Strummer, It makes them great singers in my book, they do not sound like anyone else and that is unique and precisely what makes them great."
Neither did Tiny Tim.
"Music is personal"
Agree.
"i care less for exact technical ability than I do adequate technical ability"
Depends on the genre. Tell that to a classical or jazz musician.
"The Clash got better and better"
Have you actually ever heard "Cut the Crap?
"and so did Paul on bass"
Well in fairness, he couldn't have got any worse.
"that is what music is all about, improving and playing from the heart"
Well it's about a few more things than that - but I agree.
"Topper has always said Paul was a great bass player and Topper is a great drummer."
Appeal to authority. Nicky Headon was indeed a "great drummer" and I can tell you precisely why. Unfortunately you haven't yet managed to explain quite why you regard Paul Simonen as a "great bass player"
"You are welcome to your opinion, but you are just trolling me at this point."
It isn't really an opinion I'm afraid - and I'm not "trolling you", simply disagreeing and generally attempting to establish why you believe that he is a "great bass player" when your criteria appears to be based on approbation from your drummer, playing with your heart, some reggae bass lines and "because he is". That'll be most professional bassists then.
Few pulled off a look and stage presence like Paul - but having seen the Clash three times, his live sound seriously sucked. It wasn't much better in the studio until London's Calling.
There were much better bassists from the genre both in terms of feel and technical ability.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1