Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "Real Stories"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
@nuketownwarrior530
There isn't a single particle physicist, aerospace engineer, or radiobiologist, anywhere on the planet, who agrees with the bullshit you just spewed. If you think those things are true, then go right ahead, and write up your calculations, and publish them in a science journal, and/or a medical journal on radiobiology. You will win a Nobel Prize for overturning everything known about radiation if you're found to be correct. Good luck with that. But, I'm guessing you're just spewing that nonsense because you heard it from other conspiratards just as clueless as you are, and that you wouldn't know how to calculate those things if your life depended on it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why'd you disappear, John? Cliff already outlined why each and every one of your objections is laughably wrong. But, I'll add:
"250 degrees Fahrenheit to negative 150"
WRONG. The astronauts were never there for those extremes. You're talking about the peaks in the lunar afternoon and lunar overnight... neither of which were relevant to Apollo. All Apollo missions landed early in the lunar morning, and lifted off in the very same morning, when temperatures were nowhere near what you're complaining about. You clearly don't realize that a "day" (sunrise to sunrise) on the moon is about a month on Earth.
"radiation 200x than that of the surface of earth"
Um, ok, what kind? And, how much would penetrate the silver/aluminum canisters? I mean, if my umbrella can block a drop of rain, are you going to argue that it can't block 200 drops? Do you believe that Kodak and Hasselblad didn't understand as much about their own film/cameras that you do?
"lead core batteries"
WRONG. They didn't use lead core batteries, dewdrop. They used silver-zinc batteries. Not one bit of lead. You don't know what you're talking about.
"energy load draws on the batteries in the backpacks would drain in less than 10 minutes"
WRONG. Says who? You? What in the world do you even know about it? You thought they were lead, and didn't even know what they were comprised of. How much could you possibly know about it that all of the engineers who built them didn't know?
"factor transmission to earth"
They didn't transmit to Earth, dewdrop. They only transmitted VHF to the landers or rovers, which then relayed the signal via unified S-band.
"and heating and cooling in the suit"
WRONG. There was no heating. There was only cooling. You don't know anything about this topic. Why are you pretending you do?
"How exactly does an astronaut survive temperatures from +250 to -150?"
By not being exposed to +250 or -150. Again, you don't even know what time they landed, and you're painfully unaware of the length of a "day" on the moon. Also, surprise surprise, dewdrop, but a typical fireman suit can withstand 1000 degrees. A good one can withstand 2000. Yet, you think an Apollo suit can't do 250? Are you going to run around and say all firemen are fake, because they can't wear suits that will protect them from fires?
"To pressurize a suit to atmospheric pressure"
WRONG. They never pressurized the suits to that level. It would have been extremely difficult to work in that amount of pressure, and, they'd suffer from oxygen toxicity if the pressure was as high as that. The suits were pressurized to about 3PSI only, not atmospheric pressure. It's easier to operate in the suit, and you don't get oxygen toxicity effects. Once again, you know nothing.
"require zero leaks"
Why? All of the suits leaked a little. Who cares? They even had pressure release valves. And, they were also venting off the spent gasses from the porous plate sublimators. What difference would a small leak make?
"Those suit zippers must have been magical"
Dewdrop, the seals were in the layers beneath the zippers. The zippers merely secured the inside layers. You have absolutely no knowledge of this topic either. And, it's an insult to the thousands of people who worked on Apollo, as if none of them could figure out how to make a suit. Oh, but YOU know better, right?
"you should study"
How? By watching the same nonsense videos you've been watching, made by people who know the same amount you do (ZERO)?
2
-
2
-
Congress ended the Apollo moonshot program, making Apollo 17 the last one. They still used some of the Apollo rockets and craft for Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz (Earth orbit missions) for the next few years, but, once they used all of the command modules that were built, that was the end. They still had two 99% complete Saturn V rockets remaining, and a couple of landers that were about 80% completed, but, those were just preserved as museum pieces.
Is it possible to launch missions secretly? Um, no. That big 363 foot tall Saturn V rocket stood on the launchpad for a month while they got it ready to launch. It took about 3,000 people to get one off the ground. And, the launch itself could be seen and heard for dozens of miles. There's no way to "sneak" one of those off the ground.
A big lie? Huh? Based upon what? How do you jump from Apollo 17 being the last mission, to the notion that it's a lie? There's a last Concorde flight. Does that mean it's a lie? There's a last SR71 flight. Does that mean it's a lie? Is congress never allowed to shut a program down without it being a lie?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"They had duct tape that would withstand the high temperature of the day and the very low temp of the shadow."
You have no understanding whatsoever about how temperature operates in space. Don't pretend you do.
"How the folded the car inside the moon lander is still a mystery"
Huh? There are hundreds of animations, photos, etc. And, all you need to do is watch "lunar rover deployment" and you can see it done live on the moon on Apollo 15, as well as practice runs on Earth. Why is this a "mystery" to you?
"And taking 5000+ photographs, while unloading, driving, doing scientific research, installing seismometers and explosives, posing for photos, taking geologic samples by drilling and harvesting, eating and sleeping, sending videos, and giving interviews in just 3 days."
Huh? There are about 7,000 photos taken from the lunar surface across the totality of all 6 missions that landed (12 astronauts). That's an average of about 583 per astronaut. You don't think that's possible? Huh?
"Amazing that the moon lander stays stable on course, after takeoff after they loaded it with moonstones just a short time after their last walk on the moon, without influencing the center of mass of the lunar module."
The RCS had to constantly adjust the trajectory. What ARE you talking about? Have you never watched those takeoff videos, where you see the craft rocking back and forth because it's off-balance? Good gods. Why are you soooooo proud that every single thing you state is wrong?
2
-
2
-
YOU SAID: "So who took the pictures of the capsule leaving the Moon they left some one up there? They attached a camera to the buggy you say?"
== Yes. There were actually two cameras attached to the rovers. One was a television camera, one was a 16mm film camera. The television camera was in front on the passenger side. The 16mm film camera was directly behind the television camera. Once mounted, they never removed the television camera from the rover. All three rovers still have their television cameras still attached, and have been on the moon for almost 50 years now. The 16mm film cameras could be detached and reattached to the rovers at will, and could just be operated hand-held. And, yes, the took that camera home.
YOU SAID: "How did they get the photos from the camera?"
== The 16mm film camera "photos" (film video) had to wait until they got home to have the film developed. But, you asked about leaving the moon (liftoff). That camera was now placed inside the module, looking out the LMP window.
YOU SAID: "They beamed it up to the module"
== Now you're switching back to talking about the television camera. They "beamed it" (radio signal) directly to Earth from the rover. Anyway, you seem to be juggling back and forth between the TV camera and the film camera. So, it's difficult to answer your questions, when you don't seem to understand what you're even asking. But, yeah, film camera = film that was developed when they got back home. TV camera = radio, coming from the lunar rover.
YOU SAID: "Star Trek stuff."
== Pfftt. It's just radio. Not that complicated.
YOU SAID: "NASA admits they cannot get a human past the Van Allen radiation. See the vid that's reality."
== Good gods, did you even watch the video you linked? What's wrong with you? Forget the [wrong] annotations that the conspiracy crowd added to the video, and pay attention to what Kelly Smith says in the video. He said that the electronics would be vulnerable to the Van Allen belts, and they needed to add shielding, and test the craft in space. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Good grief. First of all, they did the same thing with Apollo 6, you know. They wanted to test it through the Van Allen belts and back, to make sure everything worked, before putting people inside. In the 2014 video you linked, Kelly Smith was explaining that they wanted to do the same basic thing, and test Orion the same way they tested Apollo 6, by sending it up into the Van Allen belts and back, before putting people inside. What is it with you conspiratards that you object to this? You people act as if they shouldn't test new things before putting people inside!!! (????) But, the irony is that if they didn't test, you'd be saying the exact same thing.
Option 1) "We want to test Orion in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside." How do you conspiratards reply? "FAKE!!! They already tested it on Apollo, right? Do they want me to believe they need to test it again with a new craft??? FAKE!!!"
Option 2) "We don't want to test Orion in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside." How would you reply? "FAKE!!! Orion is a new craft with new modern electronics that are far more sensitive to radiation than the Apollo computers. Do they want me to believe that they don't want to test it before putting people inside??? FAKE!!!"
Either way, you were going to scream "FAKE!!!" So, what's your point? Why do you allude to videos that make absolutely no difference whatsoever on the claptrap you believe?
Hey, dummy, they tested Orion in the Van Allen belts after that video was made. It passed the test. So, why are you bringing it up now?
YOU SAID: "then have a bash at this vid made back in that time period, we haven't been to the Moon landings where made on Earth."
== WHAT??? WHAT?!?!?!?!??! Is there something wrong with you?? Good grief. You just posted a link to a little spoof video made by Fabrice Mathieu, who wasn't even born when people went to the moon. Yet, you say it was made "back in that time period"?? WHAT?!?!? Did you even read the credits? Did you bother looking it up? How far down the toilet have you flushed your brain away, in order to believe that video you linked is "real"??? Good grief. I mean, I've seen some stupid things in my time, but, the fact that people like you will cling to such obvious spoofs, thinking they are REAL... man, there's really no hope for you.
Given your level of gullibility, and let's face it here, you're obviously not the brightest bulb, here's what you need to do: You need to stop thinking for yourself (something I almost never recommend, because I usually recommend that people learn to think for themselves, but, in your case....). You need to live your life. You need to be as happy as you can be. So, you need to forget about conspiracies that you clearly know nothing about. And, you need to just go out, earn some money, make a living, and try to be happy. And, you need to give all of your money to a trusted family member who thinks straighter than you think. Why? Because, with your intelligence (I use that word very liberally), and your gullibility, I promise you, you are doomed to eventually giving away all of your money to a con-man. It's going to happen sooner or later. People as gullible as you are, are doomed to eventually give it all away. So, someone else needs to manage your money. I say this for your own good. Give your money to someone else for safe keeping, someone very trustworthy, and let all financial decisions be made by that person. You are not equipped to handle it yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You've made some extremely hilarious posts before (basically all of them). But, this one is just off the charts. You don't think you can get a radio signal to/from the moon because of the Earth's magnetic field? Pffttt. First of all, magnetic fields don't affect radio. Secondly, you can go stick a dish on your house (or, in your case, the trailer park), aim it at a geosync satellite about 25,000 miles away, and send/receive internet, or get hundreds of TV channels, etc. The Earth's magnetic field does nothing. There are over 400 satellites in geosync orbit, using radio every single day. Thirdly, you clearly have never heard of the backyard HAM radio operators that do moon-bounces every single day. They aim their dishes (or Yagi) at the moon, and use the moon like a huge radio reflector, and can talk to people around the world. This has been done since long before Apollo. There are at least a thousand videos that will tell you the exact radio to buy, exact dishes to buy (2-3 feet in diameter is enough), and how much power they use (most people use around 1000 or 1500 watts to do it, but, with the right equipment, they do it with as little as 10 or 20 watts). So, your notion that radio doesn't reach to/from the moon is immediately dismissed because it's been done virtually every single day by backyard amateurs since at least a decade before Apollo even existed. Good grief. Everything else you've ever said is wrong, but, this one really takes the cake.
You clearly have absolutely no understanding of radar or radio telescopes. None whatsoever. You can jam those signals, but, there's no way to "relay" them to confuse which direction they're coming from... at least not with regard to a dish that receives the original signal. Those only work in the direction they're pointed.
2
-
It won't post my reply, so, I'll make this shorter:
"show me the telemetry."
Why? You'll just reject it anyway. You know so little about the topic that you didn't even ask for which type of telemetry. Video is telemetry. You're watching some of it right now. No matter what I provide you, you'll reject it anyway. And, you refuse to answer any of my questions, why should I go do your homework for you?
"you cannot relay a radio telescope signal but now what you're saying is they do"
No, I said that there's no concept of "relaying" these signals to the original dishes that receive the original signals, because those only work on line-of-site. Obviously, anything can be relayed/repeated. But, for the original radio telescopes and radar signals, about all you can do is jam them, you can't relay or falsify them.
"internet goes through cables under the ocean all the way to Europe from the USA."
So? What does that have to do with radar and radio?
"The TV dish you put on top of your trailer or my house is just an antenna. It picks up signal from a radio telescope."
Huh? What ARE you talking about? Do you think the satellites used for DirecTV or Dish Network or whatever other provider have radio telescopes on them? What? You obviously don't even know what a radio telescope is. Good grief.
"It's relayed from relay stations."
No. You aim your dish at a point in the sky, and it receives those signals from the satellite. If you're saying that the satellite itself is a relay station, well, sure. But, that's irrelevant to the topic.
"You don't know where the signal is coming from."
It's coming from the satellite your dish is aimed at!!!!
"It can all be done on ground based."
No, it cannot. Good grief. Why do you think you know anything about this topic? You just got done asserting that radio couldn't get to the moon and back. That's how little you know about this topic, despite that backyard amateurs have been bouncing radio off of the moon every single day for around 70 years. But, this doesn't make a dent. Most sane people would wake up and realize they really don't understand a topic, when they get something so fundamentally and laughably wrong as that. But, not you. Nope. You get something this amazingly wrong, and it makes absolutely no difference to you. You're just going to keep pretending to understand things you don't, no matter how many times you're proven to not know anything about the topic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
And, it's blocking me, yet again. No, that's not what I said, and if you'd lift a finger to actually read anything I wrote, you'd understand that. But, you don't. You read one or two sentences, then ignore the rest. And, you refuse to answer any questions. So, again, how would any ground station replicate the Doppler effect of a craft moving thousands of miles per hour? Why won't you answer?
2
-
Let's recap, shall we?
- You think geologists agree with you about Apollo rocks coming from meteorites. Yet, you cannot name a single paper written by a single geologist author, in any recognized geology journal, anywhere on Earth, that says any such thing. Quite to the contrary, there are thousands of papers written by thousands of geologists and geology students that say the opposite.
- You think that no geologist can tell the difference between all of the lunar rocks and dust brought back on Apollo, vs. something that was "circular diamond blade sawed" from meteorites. You refuse to answer about how they could ever replicate anorthosites and basalts and the kind of dust found in the lunar samples, vs. anything you could cut from a meteorite.
- You believe that oxygen and moisture do not penetrate inside meteorites. (Sigh.)
- You insist that radar tracking of the Apollo missions by dozens of countries, including enemies, can be bluffed by ground-based systems "relaying" the signals. You refuse to answer how the Doppler effect of craft going thousands of miles per hour can be magically replicated by some sort of ground station, nor how any such signal relay would ever find its way into dozens of dishes around the world at the same time.
- You claimed that radio signals cannot reach the moon and back because of the magnetic field around the Earth. I pointed out several ways to know that's completely wrong, including the fact that backyard amateurs bounce radio signals off of the moon every single day for the past 70 years. You will not acknowledge, and instead, you express even more gibberish that doesn't make sense, and demonstrates that you don't know anything about the topic.
- You think that satellite TV companies have installed radio telescopes on those satellites, and those radio telescopes are what sends the signals to a dish mounted to someone's house. Not only is that false, because no satellites have any radio telescopes on them, and you've got this entire concept completely backward, but also because such radio telescopes would completely defeat how those satellites actually work. You clearly do not even know what a radio telescope is.
- You think that it's simply not possible to track Apollo missions, because the Earth rotates out of view of the moon every 12 hours or so. I asked you to explain what in the world those countries were tracking for those 12 hours at a time, if not Apollo, and why none of the thousands of engineers and PhDs who developed and built the tracking networks failed to realize it wouldn't work. You refused to answer, beyond claiming that there's no way to know where the radar signals were coming from (though, you seem to not understand that the entire point of the radar network was to know exactly where the bounce-backs were coming from, and that's exactly how radar works).
- You made some sort of reference to the cables under the ocean that connect countries' internet. But, you refuse to answer any questions about why that's relevant to radio and radar. It's as if you're running off to some unknown source to come up with answers to challenges, but, you don't even understand the answers yourself. What in the world do modern underwater internet cables have to do with tracking Apollo?
- You refuse to answer any questions or challenges, period.
Yet, after all of that, you still believe you have the higher ground here?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mooseracks
YOU SAID: "is this all you are capable of...insults and harassment..."
== Wait, what? What are you talking about? You go around insulting the astronauts and the 450,000 people involved with Apollo every day? "Don't insult me while I'm insulting everyone involved with Apollo"??
YOU SAID: "why not comment on the subject matter rather that attacking someone personally...or is that too tough for you"
== Um, dummy, I tried that, remember? Many many times. What were your replies whenever I pointed out how wrong you were? You literally replied with, "nvoaids alisrualid, vuir2isr, oapugsas," as if you had a stroke. You did this over and over on multiple topics. You've never once in history admitted being wrong about ANYTHING. All you do is stick your head in the sand, spew some gibberish, and never post in that thread again. I believe the last time, you just replied with "H" as your entire response to any questions or challenges I put forth.
Go see a doctor.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shillseeker9538
No, dummy. Trump has no ability to grant any blank checks. The money is granted by CONGRESS. The president can request money from congress, but cannot grant the money himself. And, yes, it's a massive risk for Trump/Pence/Bridenstine to run around, talking about 2024, before congress grants the money to do it by then. Congress hadn't granted a single dime to manned moon landings when Trump/Pence/Bridenstine started publicly talking about 2024. Not a single dime. They finally granted some money in 2019, but certainly not enough to meet a 2024 deadline. But, Bridenstine is still out there talking about 2024 anyway. Personally, I think it's going to backfire on them. I don't think congress is going to grant that kind of money to meet that timeline. And, it'll become just another empty promise, like thousands of others in presidential history. They'll be lucky to make it by 2028 or 2030... and there's always the risk that congress will pull the funding altogether. None of that changes the fact that Apollo missions went to the moon 9 times from 1968 through 1972.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, the Challenger astronauts are not still alive. How stupid can you be? Do you REALLY believe those astronauts are still around, doing regular everyday jobs, and nobody notices? How dumb are you?
As for the acronym "NASA" meaning something in Hebrew "Nasha," again, how stupid can you be? ALMOST ANY 4-letter acronym means something in some old language. Why Hebrew? Why not Latin for "fish trap"? Should I say you're a woman because the root of "Jo" means female in Japanese? Should I say you're a criminal because the root of "Jo" means "to assault" or "to strike" in some other languages? I mean, good grief. "NASA" stands for "National Air and Space Administration." How pathetic do you have to be to go hunt down some ancient language not even used any longer, and cherry-pick some definition of "Nasha" (not even spelled the same), as if that's supposed to mean something? How far down the toilet have you flushed your brain away? And, dummy, why Hebrew anyway? Our alphabet doesn't even really mean anything in the original Hebrew. Good grief. You morons will cling to ANY stupid thing to support your dumb delusions.
2
-
Apollo 11 was in black and white. The rest of the missions were in color. Color TV had been around for a while, of course, before the Apollo missions. The color TV standards were actually established in the 1950s. But, it was expensive, so most programs remained in black and white through the mid 1960s. Color was fully available by the Apollo missions. But, for the first landing, they wanted the most reliable signal that they could use (black and white), not dependent upon a high gain antenna. Apollo 11 brought a high gain antenna, but they never bothered to deploy it. They only had a couple of hours on the lunar surface, and they were only going to deploy it if they needed it for the black and white camera. But, the steerable antenna worked good enough for the black and white camera, so, they never deployed the high-gain. Anyway, the point is, they wanted to be very conservative and use a black and white camera for Apollo 11 (less "bandwidth" than color - though that's actually not quite the correct term to use). But, for all of the remaining missions, they used color TV cameras.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2