Comments by "Blaze 114" (@blaze1148) on "Curious Droid" channel.

  1. 3
  2. 3
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. ​ @phildavenport4150  my narrative^^ 😆 I just use my eyes and logic to determine reality - you just trust people who have a vested interest in tricking you....which is obviously very easy to do.... .....in no particular order... 1. Live Telephone call from Nixon to Astronauts on the Moon with 1960's tech^^...NASA should of gone into Telecommunications. 2. LEM docking with a control module orbiting at 1000's mph with 60's tech. 3. Seals on the LEM would be corrupted by dust from the Astronauts constantly moving through the hatch. 4. The batteries alone would take up the whole LEM for an air conditioning system to provide stable temperature in there. 5. Moon buggy in the LEM^^. 6. Earth transparencies held to the window of the Control module^^. 7. Illogical shadows, fluttering flags, Moon Buggy tracks and footprints on the Moon. 8. How could the LEM equalize the tremendous vacuum of Space before the 1st Moonwalk. 9. The extremely fragile construction of the LEM would fall apart on landing and takeoff. 10. If it is extremely dangerous to travel through the VARB's now - how did they do it in 1969. 11. 1000's of reels of Telemetry data of the Moon landings and detailed drawings of the rockets and landing equipment is mysteriously lost - Mans greatest achievement lost....so it is a 'painful process to build it back again'. 12. Spacesuits could not withstand the vacuum of space as defined by Wikipedia. 13. The Earthrise photo scale ratios are way out and if electronic image analyzers are used the Earth has clearly been 'pasted on' the photographs. 14. Moon rocks given to a Dutch University was petrified wood. 15. The temperatures and radiation would both melt, freeze dry and corrupt the film on from the Moon. 16. The Command Module and LEM were never tested but worked [docked] perfectly 100% of the time 238,000 kms from Earth - just amazing^^. 17. Scale model of the Moon set up with film rig rails exactly the same as the LEM flight path. 18. Stanley Kubric [a film maker] involved heavily in the Moon Landing 'production'. 19. Thrusters of LEM were show to be blasting up much dust - but no dust on the LEM on the Moon or even a blast crater under the thrusters^^. 20. Conflicting accounts of whether stars can be seen from the Moon. 21. Paranoid and somber press conference held by the Astronauts after the so called greatest achievement of Mankind was very odd. 22. Film of Astronauts moving very strangely as if pulled up by wires. 23. Can see no stars from the Moons surface. 24. The LEM was never tested/flown successfully on Earth. 25. No detailed 'close up' images of the Moon landing site from Telescopes on the Earth. 26. Strange coincidences of bad news in the Vietnam war masked by the good news of the Moon Landings. 27. Anomalies of picture shadows suggests two light sources + background and foreground anomalies [exactly the same rocks / hills on different days on different parts of the Moon]. .....etc etc etc. I just reeled this off in 5 mins.....there are many many more anomalies that are far more conclusive than the ones that I have mentioned....but these alone debunk the Moon Landings 100%.
    2
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9.  @maxfan1591  .....in no particular order... 1. Live Telephone call from Nixon to Astronauts on the Moon with 1960's tech^^...NASA should of gone into Telecommunications. 2. LEM docking with a control module orbiting at 1000's mph with 60's tech. 3. Seals on the LEM would be corrupted by dust from the Astronauts constantly moving through the hatch. 4. The batteries alone would take up the whole LEM for an air conditioning system to provide stable temperature in there. 5. Moon buggy in the LEM^^. 6. Earth transparencies held to the window of the Control module^^. 7. Illogical shadows, fluttering flags, Moon Buggy tracks and footprints on the Moon. 8. How could the LEM equalize the tremendous vacuum of Space before the 1st Moonwalk. 9. The extremely fragile construction of the LEM would fall apart on landing and takeoff. 10. If it is extremely dangerous to travel through the VARB's now - how did they do it in 1969. 11. 1000's of Telemetry data of the Moon landings and detailed drawings of the rockets and landing equipment is mysteriously lost....so it is a 'painful process to build it back again'. 12. Spacesuits could not withstand the vacuum of space as defined by Wikipedia. 13. The Earth Rise photo is way off scale. 14. Moon rocks given to a Dutch University was petrified wood. 15. The temperatures and radiation would both melt, freeze dry and corrupt the film on from the Moon. 16. The Command Module and LEM were never tested but worked [docked] perfectly 100% of the time 238,000 kms from Earth - just amazing^^. 17. Scale model of the Moon set up with film rig rails exactly the same as the LEM flight path. 18. Stanley Kubric [a film maker] involved heavily in the Moon Landing 'production'. 19. Thrusters of LEM were show to be blasting up much dust - but no dust on the LEM on the Moon or even a blast crater under the thrusters^^. 20. Conflicting accounts of whether stars can be seen from the Moon. 21. Paranoid and somber press conference held by the Astronauts after the so called greatest achievement of Mankind was very odd. 22. Who filmed the Lunar Module ascent ? .....etc etc etc. I just reeled this off in 5 mins.....there are many many more anomalies that are far more conclusive than the ones that I have mentioned....but these alone debunk the Moon Landings 100%.
    1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12.  @ArKritz84  1. Live Telephone call from Nixon to Astronauts on the Moon with 1960's tech^^...NASA should of gone into Telecommunications. 2. LEM docking with a control module orbiting at 1000's mph with 60's tech. 3. Seals on the LEM would be corrupted by dust from the Astronauts constantly moving through the hatch. 4. The batteries alone would take up the whole LEM for an air conditioning system to provide stable temperature in there. 5. Moon buggy in the LEM^^. 6. Earth transparencies held to the window of the Control module^^. 7. Illogical shadows, fluttering flags, Moon Buggy tracks and footprints on the Moon. 8. How could the LEM equalize the tremendous vacuum of Space before the 1st Moonwalk. 9. The extremely fragile construction of the LEM would fall apart on landing and takeoff. 10. If it is extremely dangerous to travel through the VARB's now - how did they do it in 1969. 11. 1000's of reels of Telemetry data of the Moon landings and detailed drawings of the rockets and landing equipment is mysteriously lost - Mans greatest achievement lost....so it is a 'painful process to build it back again'. 12. Spacesuits could not withstand the vacuum of space as defined by Wikipedia. 13. The Earthrise photo scale ratios are way out and if electronic image analyzers are used the Earth has clearly been 'pasted on' the photographs. 14. Moon rocks given to a Dutch University was petrified wood. 15. The temperatures and radiation would both melt, freeze dry and corrupt the film on from the Moon. 16. The Command Module and LEM were never tested but worked [docked] perfectly 100% of the time 238,000 kms from Earth - just amazing^^. 17. Scale model of the Moon set up with film rig rails exactly the same as the LEM flight path. 18. Stanley Kubric [a film maker] involved heavily in the Moon Landing 'production'. 19. Thrusters of LEM were show to be blasting up much dust - but no dust on the LEM on the Moon or even a blast crater under the thrusters^^. 20. Conflicting accounts of whether stars can be seen from the Moon. 21. Paranoid and somber press conference held by the Astronauts after the so called greatest achievement of Mankind was very odd. 22. Film of Astronauts moving very strangely as if pulled up by wires. 23. Can see no stars from the Moons surface. 24. The LEM was never tested/flown successfully on Earth. 25. No detailed 'close up' images of the Moon landing site from Telescopes on the Earth. 26. Strange coincidences of bad news in the Vietnam war masked by the good news of the Moon Landings. 27. Anomalies of picture shadows suggests two light sources + background and foreground anomalies [exactly the same rocks / hills on different days on different parts of the Moon].
    1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15.  @soriac2357  1. Yes so it was edited when they said it was 'Live' - deception one. 2. There is no way they could of practiced or even simulated the take off and docking of the LEM with the CM. 3. Why would they 'dust off' anything^^.....that absurd - did they also fill in the blast crater under the LEM - and if they did why would they....ahh I know for stability purposes - something isn't stable and it's not the LEM... 4. WoW - they must have had battery technology ahead of what we have today^^. 5. What were the tyres like on the first Rover.....they were pneumatic and huge.....did they inflate them on the Moon and how or were they already inflated in which case [a] they would explode on the journey there and [b] no way they would fit into the LEM. 6. Have you ever seen the film 'Something funny happened on the way to the Moon'....you can clearly see Collins holding an Earth transparency on the CM window. 7. Just take one - the fluttering flag......please explain if when the Astronaut walks by there is no air to make it wave.... 8. Look up the Wiki definition of a Space Vacuum. 9. Do you know inertia still works without Gravity - the LEM would not be able to withstand the mass inertia of take off and landing. 10. A few years back NASA put out a presentation stating they couldn't go back to the Moon as the radiation from the VARBS was too high plus the Russian Space Agency knew to get through the VARBS safely the Spaceship would have to have two feet of lead as protection for the Astronauts - Van Allen knew this too. Only 17 more points to go - carry on please.....this is entertaining.
    1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40.  @g.gorrell2088  Lets just use some intelligent logic shall we and nail this lack of crater under the LM issue down 100% - I will address the other issues later because wow there are many ! Lets take your silly analogy of do you park your car with the gas peddle mashed to the floor? - the last time I looked cars were not driven by their exhausts and the last time I looked the LM didn't have brakes to slow it's momentum but I digress.....lets make your analogy a little more relevant shall we and take a medium sized family saloon [similar weight - which is still an issue even @ 1/6th gravity] stand it upright with between 1,000 and 10,000 pounds of thrust - going through say two exhaust pipes either side to give more stability. 1. Do you think you need more or less thrust in a thinner atmosphere ? 2. Does this thrust reach the surface easier in a rarefied or thicker atmosphere ? 3. Do you think you need to increase or decrease the aforementioned thrust the nearer you get to the landing surface ? 4. Do you think being a far thinner atmosphere [and 1/6th gravity of Earth] any dust on the surface would be dislodged. from the surface more easily ? 5. Do you think with the extremely flimsy construction of the LM it would be preferable to land on a hard or soft surface ? 6. Lets put the inertia question again....1/6th gravity only affects weight and not mass so would the inertia be the same as on Earth ? 7. As shown on the official NASA footage a large amount of dust can be seen to be disturbed from the surface - where was that from ? 8. Do we see a hard regolith under the LM or a grainy dusty surface ? How would you explain the fact that there were 16 maneuvering rocket nozzles on the lunar module (4, as crosses, on each superior vortex of it) and there is not a single footage of them firing although you can see the vehicle maneuvering in space (yaw, pitch and roll)?. How would you explain a computer so basic as that in the LM (with less computer power than a hp financial calculator of the 80s) controlling all 16 thrusters as a fly by wire aircraft of this days? Nasa, formally claims that all the digit crunching for the maneuvering thrusters were done on earth and then sent to the LM, but there is a problem on that, there is a 1.6 seconds delay between the earth and the moon, so it its an impossible answer. How would you explain the fact that about the flying earth simulator of the LM there is only one footage, where it failed and almost killed Neil Armstrong, no single film of it being controlled successfully. Think about it. Other LM/CM musings .... What I was wondering was how was their command module and lander able to morph from a cavernous ship large enough for astronauts to do flips in zero G while someone filmed them from 7 feet away to a relatively small space diagram with every inch packed with huge tanks needed to carry out the mission? Some depict the astronauts packed in the ship so tight there wasn't room for another member to a spacious ship able to stage filming the earth supposedly with the camera right up against the glass. Then all of a sudden you see arms and bodies coming between the camera and the glass 185,000 miles from the earth. Hearing them discussing how to get a realistic shot as the cabin lighting is restored to show they were actually shooting the shot from 6 or 7 feet away from the window as they removed the transparency film from the window along with the curved black material they used to fix unacceptable parallax egg shape error caused by the thickness of the window from top to its bottom while shooting from a distance on an angle. The curved black material fixed the error perfectly making it look like the earth terminator line between night and day in their fraudulent video of the earth. They bragged about their clever technique and how their "LIVE" shot will be perfect for playback! Then there is the scientific evidence of their missions impossibility I figured out myself today. The average man at rest requires 19 cubic feet of pure oxygen per 24 hours scrubbers or no scrubbers once you figure in the atmospheric pure oxygen percentage, amount consumed by the metabolism and amount exhaled after. That gives you 19 cubic feet X 3 men leaves you needing 57 cubic feet to sustain a 3 man crews actual metabolism at rest! NASA switched to a 35% oxygen mix after the horrific accident with Gus Grissom and 2 other souls. That translates to their voyage now requiring 171 cubic feet of 34% mixed gas per day. Multiply that by 10 1/2 days you have 1795 cubic feet of 34% oxygen mixed gas-actually needed if they were at REST!! NASA claims only 73 cubic feet of gas per day. The Apollo tanks were only pressurized to 200 bars pressure due to the added strain of launch and vacuum of space. Using Boyle's Law 1795 cubic feet at 200 bar requires a 131.93 cubic foot tank at 2900 PSI ! That's not even considering the oxygen consumed by the 2KW fuel cell the lunatics claimed produced 56 gallons of potable water a day!.....they would need 96.96 cubic feet of air per gallon x 56 gallon a day is 5429.76 cubic feet of air to produce that 56 gallons of water per day X 10 days = 5429.76 extra cubic feet of air per 10 day mission just for that fuel cell water production so add another 285 cubic feet to the breathing figure and you need a 417 cubic foot tank at 200 bar!! Add in the fuel, oxidizer, helium and nitrogen tanks and you got !!!! Nobody's doing flips for the camera man 6 feet away! By far and away, the best arguments for debunking the moon landing(s) are thermodynamic, audible, and footprint. There is only one way to explain Armstrong's audibles upon descent in a pressurized mag/aluminium can with 140 - 150 dB rocket engine noise in the immediate environment - Bose noise cancelling earphones and, er, uh, microphone! And for anyone who has ever worked in 100C+ worksite in a protective, pressurized suit, well knows that cooled air is vital for survival. In the absence of such a cooled air tank, the power pack needed to cool the air in the suit would have to have exceeded several thousand joules per hour, which would require batteries/power plant roughly equal in size to the LM itself. (Remember Apollo 13? - the movie?) And for anyone moderately experienced in rocketry, the ground around the blast/ground contact area WILL BE COMPLETELY DUST FREE - atmosphere or not as the blast constitutes its own atmosphere. Great visual, but total farce. Kudos to Kubrick for getting almost everything else right, the dream lives on in what might have been, and what still might be. So much of life exists in the "what could have been" that there is no need for disparaging one of the better intentioned fairy tales. Does Rocketry actually Work in the Vacuum? [made very simple] The reason space travel is not possible is because the systems we claim to use to propel a rocket through space operate on gas pressure and there is no gas pressure in space. Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere. Back the the Nozzle and the Massflow equation F=MA on earth Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why? Because the first drop of water has to pass through air, which is dense, causing many collisions, slowing down the drop of water. The second drop, directly behind the first, will not be slowed down by the air so it will collide with the first drop, the third drop hits the second drop and so on, the fast water coming through the hose pushing through the slower water outside causes Newton’s 3rd Law to push back on the column of water. This is why you need people holding the hose to add an unbalanced force otherwise the hose would not be able to push water through that column anymore, the water column would be diverted and the hose would flop around. It is obvious that one drop of water does not push back on the hose, you need a fast moving column. The nozzle and the Massflow equation in space Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber and entering the vacuum never slow down, never collide with any outside objects, nor with each other, their force is always moving forward, away from the ship. There is no way for that force to be returned to the ship. There is no way for the force of the moving molecules to be extracted and used for propulsion. Their force is carried off into the far corners of space. This is also known as Joule Expansion. Remember that as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space as is subject to its laws. A closed chamber is under pressure but not an open one. According to your physics there should of been a larger crater under the LM than the hole you have dug yourself into.
    1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1