Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "Real Stories"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidkeenan5642
Here, I did a little bit of quick trig for you:
Let's say the mountain is about 300 miles away (you said hundreds of miles, so, I figured I'd just go with 300). This would mean that, in order to see the peak of that mountain on the moon, it would need to be about 58 miles tall. If we take Apollo 17's South Massif mountain as an example, it is 1.4 miles tall. Mount Everest is about 5.5 miles tall. So, in order for you to be correct, you'd need a mountain 10x the height of Everest, or about 40x taller than Apollo 17's South Massif. This was just quick math, and I did a bit of rounding here and there, but, it's pretty accurate for these purposes. I mean, while it's true that the diameter is approximately 1/4th of Earth's, lots of people just don't realize what that means in terms of pure size. 50 moons can fit inside of Earth's volume. And, the moon's horizon drops really fast.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorichet
You continue to simply deny what a service engineer is (and what it isn't). Sorry, but the ACTUAL engineers didn't need technical support from a writer with no engineering credentials whatsoever, who doubled as a minor fixit guy with an inflated title of "service engineer."
He witnessed testing of F1 engines? When? 8 years before they ever flew? Wow!! So, you're telling me that rockets need development and aren't always reliable on their first try? Say it ain't so!! Good grief.
Sorry, but it's Kaysing's own statements that don't make sense. Quote from his book on page 84: "the Saturn C-5
moon rocket assembly was built to specifications with one major modification: instead of the totally unreliable F-1
engines, five booster engines of the more dependable B-1 type as used in the C-1 cluster for the Atlas missile were used." Yes, Kaysing proposed that there were littler engines secretly tucked inside the engine bells of the larger F1 engines... as if the actual rocket engineers were never able to solve the problems in the several years after Kaysing was long gone. This claim of his is about as outlandish as it gets, because there are camera angles underneath the rocket that show no such engines tucked in there. And, magically, none of the thousands of people working in the vehicle assembly process ever noticed that they removed the lander, and the innards of the other stages of the rocket, to reduce the weight so that the rocket could get off the ground with smaller engines. Sure. Right. You are amazingly able to simply dismiss the silly things Kaysing claimed, and you pretend he never even claimed them. Well, guess what, EVERYTHING he claimed is ridiculous. I mean, even pretending you were correct about his credentials (you're not, just hypothetically), why would you even grant an ounce of credibility to someone who was long gone for years and years before the first rocket even lifted off? Is it THAT difficult to stomach the notion that actual engineers fixed the reliability issues with the engines in those years?
Sue for libel? Like he sued Lovell, and lost? You actually think that Kaysing could win a lawsuit against someone on YouTube who pointed out how ridiculous his notions were? And, what "libel" are you talking about? He quoted directly from Kaysing's own book (which you ignored). Yes, Kaysing claimed that there were little engines tucked into the bigger engines. Page 84 of his own book. So, where's the "libel" in quoting him directly?
7,000 engineers worked on the lunar lander, hundreds more on the rover. You are the one who claimed that it doesn't fit. And, your basis is because people said the dimensions were too large to tuck into the quadrant in the lander. I acknowledged that you were correct, and pointed you to a photo showing the rover sticking out of the side of the lander, because it didn't fit all the way in. I questioned why you thought this meant they couldn't take it to the moon. You said you couldn't even find any photos at all, yet, all you need to do is flip through the photo archive and see tons of them. Sorry, but it's very clear that if you don't see it in conspiracy videos, you simply don't know about it. The ONLY things you're aware of are the silly things that those videos present to you. You have never lifted a finger to actually fact check any of them, nor to study Apollo itself. You watch videos, you swallow everything they say, and you are so desperate for validation that you cling to the notion that a writer who was never an engineer, holding no credentials whatsoever, who left the program years before a single rocket lifted off the ground, somehow knows more about Apollo than the actual engineers. This is how far out to sea your ship has sailed, and you're not on it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorichet
"I saw no photo from you."
Pffttt. That's because you don't read the answers to your own questions. You are very married to this silly belief of yours, and reading answers to your questions would mean that you'd have to admit you're wrong. I provided you the photo catalog number in my very first reply to you in this thread. You read the first half of the message, but not the second half.
"Even IF there's a photo (not a drawing) of a Rover fitting on the Lander"
There are HUNDREDS of photos of the rovers being folded and unfolded, being put into the landers, and the rovers attached to the side of the landers (while sticking out, because they didn't quite fit, as I explained to you a million times, but good enough to get them to the moon). I provided you with a very nice one from a good angle so you could see the fenders sticking out from the side of the lander. There are many more photos like it, including ones from space where you can clearly see fenders sticking out.
"that proves nothing"
It proves many things. It proves you're wrong. It proves that you haven't actually looked for the photos you think don't exist. It proves you ignore answers to your own questions. It proves that the makers of the silly videos you're watching are able to calculate that the total volume of the folded rover wouldn't fit all the way into the equipment bay, but, like you, it proves that they never bothered to look at how GM, Boeing, and Grumman managed to make it work anyway, by allowing the rover to hang off the side, fenders exposed.
"unless the Rover was assumbled on the moon"
It WAS assembled on the moon!! Go watch the video from Apollo 15 where you see the rover being deployed. Good grief. See what I mean? David Keenan in this thread posted links to videos that would show you exactly what you're denying. But, you ignored them. You ignored all input from me. You ignored all input from him. You stuck your head in the sand, and pretended nobody ever provided you these things, as if nobody could scroll up and see all of the stuff you ignored. Good grief. The base of the rover and its wheels folded up, but, they still had to put together all of the other stuff that couldn't be folded up, like the radio dish, the equipment carted around, the rover camera, etc.
You know absolutely nothing about the topic, nor do you want to know about it. You'd rather pretend you understand things you don't, watch a bunch of conspiracy videos, and then assume that the makers of those videos know what they're talking about. Hint: they don't. Most of those videos are made by people who know just as little about Apollo as you do. And, some of the other videos are made by charlatans who know darned well that moon landings happened, but have chosen to edit videos and present them in dishonest ways, just for a cash grab. You gobble up every word they feed you, and you've never fact checked a single thing they say.
1
-
@lorichet
Still denying things you've been presented? Good grief. Sorry that you don't understand how YouTube works, but, they block links to most outside sites. Many channel hosts block all links, even to YouTube videos. This one allows those links, but, not other links. Is your Google broken? You're unable to find the catalog number I provided? Sheeesssssshhhhh. I mean, I knew your ship had sailed, and that you suffer from some pretty severe issues. But, being unable to key in a catalog number... yeah, you're even further out to sea than I thought.
Insults aren't answers? Hilarious!! I've given you answers... repeatedly. You've ignored them... repeatedly. You are quite deserving of every comment I've made. And, this is particularly ironic because I must have asked you about 3 dozen questions in this thread and others, and you've refused to answer any of them. Now, YOU're complaining about not getting answers?
Sheeeessssssshhhh.
Even just now, you've ignored 99% of my response (as usual), and you focus on one thing, and you cannot even get that one thing correct. I mean, most sane people would actually want to be correct. Most sane people would listen to the answers to their own questions. Not you, though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorichet
Pffttt. So, now it's your position that the lunar lander in the photo isn't the same as the one they took to the moon? Hilarious!! Right. Sure. If you don't like that photo because it was taken before they were done assembling the lander, fine, instead, you can go look at some of the other hundreds of photos, including the ones taken in space on the way to the moon, or in lunar orbit. I chose that particular photo because it made it very clear how the rover didn't quite fit, but, they made it work anyway, with the fenders sticking out. Now, just because the photo was taken before they were finished assembling the lander, you're going to claim it wasn't the same lander? Hilarious!!! Remember, you were the one who refused to even look at the photo until just now, dozens of messages later. You are the one refusing all input. You don't know anything about the topic. You also denied that Kaysing claimed that the Saturn rocket had littler engines tucked inside the engine bells of the bigger F1 engines. His notion was that they couldn't get the F1 engines to be reliable enough, therefore they used the shells of F1 engines, but, secretly used smaller engines inside them. You said that was wrong, and denied that Kaysing ever said such a thing. I gave you the exact page number and quoted a line from his book. You ignored it, refusing to admit you're wrong. And, now, you finally got around to looking at one of the hundreds of photos you thought didn't exist, and you still refuse to accept it. You said you wanted to see a photo of the rover mounted to the lander, showing how they made it fit. I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for. And, now, you stick your head in the sand, yet again, and simply brush it away, while you declare victory. Seriously, I think it's time you put your Medicare policy to work for you, and make some visits to some of the professionals that can help you. Show them this thread. Show them the other threads. Maybe there are meds that can slow the progression of this obvious degeneration.
1
-
@lorichet
Let me see if I've got this straight... we're 82 messages into this thread. I've asked dozens of questions you refuse to answer. I've supplied you with the exact type of photos you pretended you were asking for, which you ignored repeatedly until just now. I refuted many of your claims with iron clad evidence that you're wrong, including quoting directly from Kaysing's own book, and giving you page numbers... which went in one ear, out the other, and you wouldn't admit to being mistaken. You not only ignore all input from me, but you ignore it from everyone else too. You've outright admitted that you're not reading what I'm writing. And, after your non-stop refusal to ever respond to any questions asked of you, you're now wondering why I won't answer your unrelated and irrelevant questions? So, basically, I'm just supposed to keep on answering every question you ask, while you ignored every single one I've asked. Right.
We're done here. You have proven what kind of person you are repeatedly. But, it was my favorite when I gave you the photo catalog number, and then you came back in the very next message and asked for the catalog number.
1
-
@lorichet
Quote: "why is it you feel the need to consistently make things up? I didn't read his book, and I for sure wouldn't take anything you say without knowing what he wrote"
YOU were the one who denied that Kaysing said what he said. Yassassin told you what Kaysing said (that they secretly didn't actually use the F1 engines on the Saturn rocket, and inserted smaller engines inside). You then claimed Yassassin was wrong, and accused him of libel, saying that Kaysing would sue him if he was still alive to do so. But, all he did was quote from Kaysing's own book!!! So, don't sit there and pretend people are making things up, while simultaneously saying you didn't read Kaysing's own book.
Typical, "you're wrong, but I didn't even read it" response from you. Good grief. Guess what, we aren't your problem. Your actual problem is yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorichet
And, by the way, I've had quite enough of your excuses about not reading anything because of ad hominem attacks on you. You have avoided reading anything from square one. In my very first posted message in this thread, I gave you the catalog number of one of the photos that you asked for (but obviously didn't want). You pretended you wanted to see photos of the rover fitting into the lander, yet, when provided with one of the hundreds of them, you ignored it, and continued to insist that it didn't fit. 70+ comments later, I gave you the catalog number again. Your very next reply was "what catalog number?" after I had just given you the catalog number (again) in the very first word of the message. So, don't sit there and pretend you feel like you're attacked, and that's the reason you refuse to read anything. You're not reading ANYTHING that goes against your predetermined conclusions. Or, more accurately, you do read it, but, you ignore it and pretend you didn't read it, and then make up excuses about why you didn't read it. I even gave you a brief summary of the positions you hold, not a single "attacking" word in it, and you came back and said you didn't read past the first sentence.
You have refused to answer 99% of the questions I've asked, yet, the moment I refuse to answer something you ask, you go bananas and wonder why I won't answer you.
I'm not doing this any longer. I'm not going to sit here and entertain your silly fantasies about knowing more than the entire planet's aerospace engineers, while you refuse all input. And, after 80+ messages into this thread, when you finally looked at the photo that YOU pretended to ask for, what did you do? You denied it was the same lander that went to the moon. Well, you're only saying that because the lander was unfinished. It didn't even have legs on it yet, among many other parts that were not yet assembled. But, the photo served the exact purpose you were asking for. If you didn't like it because the lander wasn't finished yet, you can go look at hundreds more photos, including the ones taken in space on the way to the moon, or in orbit around the moon. But, that's not what you wanted to hear. You wanted to believe the rover couldn't be taken to the moon, and that the thousands of engineers who worked on the lander and rovers were all unaware that they forgot to make it fit. THAT is how ridiculous your position is, and it has nothing to do with any ad hominem anything.
1
-
@russellmckernan
"why did they not continue with the many presentations of great success?"
There are a million reasons. But, first and foremost, I'd ask how many would be enough for you? They sent 9 manned missions to the moon. They landed 6 of those times. How many more would it take to convince you? Are they never allowed to end the program? They must keep going endlessly, or you'll call it fake? They funded the Apollo program for 12 years for moonshots, and another 3 years for missions like Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab. The total cost to walk on the moon was about $16 billion for each of the 12 men who did so in hard costs, and approximately another $8-$12 billion in soft costs and international support, so, minimally, about $24 billion per person who walked around on the moon for a few hours each. Apollo's main objective was to beat the Soviets to putting a man on the moon. Apollo was 99% a political display of technological dominance, and 1% a program of exploration. Once that main objective was met, and the Soviets threw in the towel, congress had no interest in continuing to fund Apollo. If they were going to spend that kind of money on something, they wanted it to benefit millions of people, not 12. And, frankly, they got lucky. The Apollo program was very rushed, and killed enough people on the ground, and had enough near fatal incidents in space. They stretched it to the limits, and they got everything out of that program that they wanted. So, they ended it. And, after Apollo, NASA's budget was decreased from 4.5% of the entire federal budget (plus another 2 or 3% in soft costs) down to 0.48% of the federal budget. Want more reasons? Or, are you getting the point? I mean, I've seen a lot of your comments in these threads, and your arrogance is completely off the charts. You literally don't know the most entry level concepts about Apollo, yet, you're sitting there in your armchair declaring that everyone else (the sane ones) have some sort of disorder... while refusing to look into the mirror. Absolutely astounding.
1
-
1
-
YOU SAID: "you make all those statements with absolutely no concrete evidence"
== Dummy, you didn't ask for evidence. He was responding to your statements. And, this is an amazing stroke of irony, because you offered no evidence whatsoever for the continuous slander/libel YOU are committing. You just spew unsubstantiated garbage, no evidence whatsoever. Then, if someone illustrates why your garbage makes no sense, you just reply with "you didn't tell me evidence"??? What? When did you ask for it? There are mountains upon mountains of evidence for Apollo. Sorry, but your favorite conspiracy videos aren't going to give you the evidence. And, neither will anybody else, when you have decided to ignore the evidence anyway. What EXACT type of evidence do you expect to see? What evidence is lacking? I mean, most conspiratards will never say what evidence they expect. Those who do, smugly state they want XYZ evidence (expecting that it doesn't exist), then run for the hills when you give them what they ask for. Others ask for evidence that can't even exist (like seeing Apollo landing sites with a telescope on Earth), demonstrating their amazing ignorance. Which category do you fall under? (A) Refuse to state what type of evidence you expect, (B) Will state the evidence you expect, and will be shocked to find out it already exists, or (C) You're going to ask for evidence that CAN'T exist? Is there a category (D)... you will ask for evidence that can exist, but doesn't?? You'll be the first.
1
-
YOU SAID: "How about a image that looks convincing from the 6 landing sites, and not some tiny little spot on the moon surface, that looks like a photo montage"
== Have you looked at Arizona State University's website? They have hundreds of photographs of the landing sites, taken from their LRO camera. You can see the landers, the rover tracks, foot paths, etc. You can even see little dots where each of the experiment packages are located. They have these photos from almost every sun angle possible, so, you can scroll through sunrise to sunset, and even see the shadows of the flags moving across the lunar terrain as you scroll the angles. How does this conspiracy go, in your mind? Did generation after generation of NASA officials pass down the moon conspiracy torch, until modern day, where they threaten Arizona State University professors and students into falsifying hundreds of photos of the Apollo landing sites over the last 12 years? Or, hmm, are you one of the ones who says, "not good enough, I want to be able to read the serial numbers on the equipment, otherwise Apollo is fake" (shifting the goalposts)?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Once again, all you have done is demonstrate that you're just playing games. You came back and basically said that you weren't interested in anything I said. Then, about a minute later, you asked me more questions. Why ask me questions when you've made it perfectly clear that the answers don't matter to you? You spew formulas, pretending to know what you're talking about, but, you won't use the formulas to actually demonstrate that you're correct. As I pointed out, you can use those formulas to calculate the arc that any astronauts should take when walking/jumping on the moon. But, instead of doing that, you just spew formulas, because you think I don't understand them, not because you have actually made any kind of point. You've stuck your head in the sand, refused all input, then you sit there and chide and try to shift focus onto me, instead of onto Apollo. Typical strategy of someone playing games, not of someone actually analyzing anything. So, here's what you do: do that math you're so proud to pretend to understand, use it to demonstrate that Apollo missions didn't conform to that math, write it all up, and submit it to aerospace engineering journals. You seem to believe YouTube comments are a method of scientific analysis, but, you're wrong. The journals are where scientific analysis is really done. Go knock yourself out. I refuse to play your game. You weren't interested in my replies anyway, and all you're trying to do is get me to waste my time on you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
YOU SAID: "It's totally fake"
== Wrong.
YOU SAID: "look who z filming 2 astronaut s from different angles and the camera moving"
== So, let me get this straight... before you even got the answer to your question... and actually, before you even ASKED the question, you already came to your conclusion?? That's how this works for you?? What a moron. Um, dummy, do you REALLY think that NASA managed to fool every country's space program on the planet, bluffing all of the radar stations around the world tracking all Apollo missions to/from the moon, bluffing all of the radio telescopes pointed at the moon to receive the radio signals, fooling every geologist on the planet who analyzed the 850 pounds of lunar rocks, somehow creating fake laser bounce-backs from the landing sites on the moon where there are reflector arrays... but... all of that... then somehow stupidly forgot to make it possible to control the camera remotely?? That's how this goes, in your mind??
Why are you so very proud of being so very dumb?
1
-
"so you would expect the sun not to move that much in its trajectory over the landing place."
Well, for example, Apollo 17, the first EVA had a sun angle of 15.3 degrees. By the end of the last EVA, the sun angle was 42.6 degrees. During each of the 3 EVAs, the sun angle changed by about 3.5 to 4 degrees (from the beginning of the EVA to the end of the EVA).
"The sun also stays for 3 days more or less on the same spot in the sky"
Absolutely wrong. A lunar day, from sunrise to sunrise, is about 708 hours. That's about 0.5 degrees per hour. So, in 72 hours, it moves about 36 degrees. That's a lot. To say that it stays in the same spot for 3 days is absolutely absurd.
"shadows do not change that much in the 3 days"
They change by about 36 degrees. That's about the Earth equivalent of landing at around 6:30am, and lifting off at about 9:00am. NOT the same spot.
"I did see photos' and video with almost no shadow, so the sun must be straight above the landing place"
The highest sun angle from any mission was about 45 degrees, and that was on Apollo 16.
"But in other video we saw long shadows"
So, it must have been taken during an early EVA.
"Conclusion: the sun speed over the moon sky must have been higher than expected"
Well, you're wrong. There isn't a single photo or video that depicts the angles you're talking about.
"In one of the videos, I saw the shadow move in direction from parallel to the view towards a big angle, nearby the camera."
I don't even understand this. You won't name the video or timestamp. And, "big angle" doesn't mean much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1