Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

This is the place for posts that don't fit into any other category.

Moderator: RichardW

doctle
Posts: 955
Joined: 16 Oct 2014, 12:17
x 219

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by doctle »

GiveMeABreak wrote:
18 Jul 2019, 21:33
Oh wait, silly me, here's the evidence in all it's stunning clarity. Proof beyond all doubt.

Apollo.PNG

Though I'm sure I had something similar stuck on my shoe the other day.

Image


Get a mid 70's camera and take photographs of your house from about 50km up see what details you can pick out.

MikeT
Posts: 4838
Joined: 11 Jun 2007, 16:17
x 187

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by MikeT »

AJM C5 wrote:
21 Jul 2019, 07:59
MikeT wrote:
20 Jul 2019, 21:47
GiveMeABreak wrote:
20 Jul 2019, 21:30
Ah, yes, it's been deleted by a colleague as it was getting a bit personal it seems - I've been away for an hour or two.


Hmm, ok I can understand that but it's still continuing here it seems?
AJM C5 wrote:
20 Jul 2019, 19:51
...Bit of a troll really, aren't you...
...to exercise as least some muscles in your body, the rest and most important one appears dormant.


But of course you accidentally on purpose missed what came immediately before that :

doctle wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 12:38
AJM you're really talking like an anal retentive

One of the first times I've responded to all this groups personal insults, and you even misrepresent that. Dish it but can't take a bit back... What's that a sign of...

It has got to this point because of your collective denial no matter what solid evidence is produced, you all ignore, ridicule or distract, but you won't look at or acknowledge the facts and evidence. You then insult, i go down to your level for once and you run for mummy's apron. Pathetic.
What I was remarking on was that there was a decision to remove a complete thread, apparently due to personal insults yet they're allowed to continue here. I have no idea who stepped over the line, nor where that line actually is. I'm happy to accept you "didn't start it first" this time, if it makes you feel better, but you do appear intent on provoking it every post you make.

For me, personal insults scream "I have no argument" and that ridiculous assertions should expect to be ridiculed...
Brian Cox.jpg
But you seem so prone to logical fallacies it's not even funny and as for your double-standards...


You constantly berate those who disagree with you for not looking at the facts or doing their own research, yet I've demonstrated on several occasions that's not true.
I'm also minded to turn that accusation back at you as there's signs you also suffer severe confirmation-bias and refuse to critically question anything that vaguely supports your worldview.

For instance, you thought it prudent to assert Dr Judy Wood is highly qualified to analyse the towers collapse (and on the face of it she does appear to have credentials in the right ballpark) but did you dig any deeper or did you willfully accept that her specialist fields of study must be relevant to large building structural collapses (Logical Fallacy:Argument from authority) ? I have good reason to suspect you did not do such research but feel free to show me I'm wrong.
For instance, did you look up any of her 60-odd peer-reviewed studies she claims to have published? If so, what were their topics of interest exactly?

That aside, being such an accomplished scientist, I think it's disengenuous to declare having attained such credentials while at the same time totally dismissing the scientific method in order to sell fictional books and DVD's misclassified as facts to the gullible.
She freely admits acting from incredulity (scientists facepalm) - she doesn't believe what we all saw that day, the planes slamming into the towers. She doesn't believe the dust is a product of collapse nor that there were plumes of smoke from fire. If she's so correct, why doesn't she act like a scientist and publish that paper for peer-review?

MikeT
Posts: 4838
Joined: 11 Jun 2007, 16:17
x 187

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by MikeT »

GiveMeABreak wrote:
18 Jul 2019, 21:33
Oh wait, silly me, here's the evidence in all it's stunning clarity. Proof beyond all doubt.

Apollo.PNG

Though I'm sure I had something similar stuck on my shoe the other day.

Image
It always amuses me why UFO hunters always appear to have used the worst camera possible.

Try this Marc - and feel free to refute the evidence.


MikeT
Posts: 4838
Joined: 11 Jun 2007, 16:17
x 187

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by MikeT »

myglaren wrote:
20 Jul 2019, 14:11
I took a lot of interest as I had a Hasselblad at the time.
Then this may interest you Steve. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html

User avatar
myglaren
Forum Admin Team
Posts: 19838
Joined: 02 Mar 2008, 14:30
x 1529

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by myglaren »

Thanks Mike, it did although I followed them closely around that time. Never could afford a 500 EL.
Mine was ailing and in need of a refurb that was out of my price range at the time.
The company I worked for (who frequently borrowed it) were working for a local firm called Pyrotenax at the time.
Pyrotenax made heating coils for the Russian gas pipelines. The company bought the camera from me and froze it into a block of ice, wrapped in Pyrotenax heating coils.
The photo's were never used and I have always regretted letting that camera go.

I still get regular emails from Hasselblad. Interesting but far to expensive for what I would use them for.

User avatar
Mandrake
Posts: 8313
Joined: 10 Apr 2005, 17:23
x 372

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by Mandrake »

GiveMeABreak wrote:
20 Jul 2019, 13:47
X Rays in the Van Allen belts (2 hours exposure) - so much for the camera film,
Did you watch the Curious Droid video I linked to ? :wink:

There are no X Rays (electromagnetic radiation) in the Van Allen belts - the van allen belts are ionizing radiation consisting of charged particles ejected from the sun by the solar wind. (Eg unbound protons and electrons) The same particles that generate the northern lights.

When ionizing radiation hits certain materials it can generate some secondary radition in the form of xrays however the production of these xrays is highly dependent on the type of material it hits, so by choosing outer layers that produce minimal secondary xray generation and then inner layers that absorb them it's not a major issue.

In addition to that they didn't fly through the strongest parts of them which are around the equator anyway - they flew up "over" them in the polar regions. As the earth is already tilted at 24 degrees relative to the orbital plane of the moon you don't want to be leaving the earth in line with the equator anyway.

Van allen belts are not an issue unless you blindly built your spacecraft out of the wrong materials and flew out through the strongest parts of them at equatorial lattitudes. Watch the video for a better explanation than I can give.
no dust on the lander, yet massively powerful rockets,
Three reasons for that.

1) The moon has no atmosphere at all. Any dust thrown up would not linger in the air then coat the outside of the lander as it settled like it would on earth. It would literally fall back to the ground at the same speed as a dropped bowling ball. So it might move around a bit but it would fall quickly to the ground again.

2) With no atmospheric pressure pushing in on it the rocket exhaust will not form a focused directional plume like you see when a rocket launches on earth. In vacuum conditions a rocket exhaust expands unconstrained in all directions once it leaves the nozzle so even if the nozzle is pointing down the exhaust will be flowing out over at least a 180 degree plane - eg right out to at least 90 degrees from the direction of thrust.

So there isn't a focused blast of exhaust pointing straight down - there is a large pressure wave spread over an entire 180 degree plane, so the intensity at the ground directly below the nozzle is far, far less than it would be with an atmosphere to squeeze and focus it towards the ground. Put simply a rocket landing on a body without an atmosphere will not disturb the ground nearly as much as landing on earth even for the same gravity. And with a reduced gravity the thrust required to land is proportionally reduced. (By a factor of 6 on the moon)

To see the effect in action, watch one of the many Space X Falcon 9 launches - at ground level the rocket plume is narrow, vertical, and almost the length of the entire rocket. As it reaches the upper atmosphere it expands into an umbrella shape where it is almost reaching out at right angles as if an umbrella was attached to the bottom of the rocket.

3) The landing motor on the lunar lander was not a "massively powerful rocket" by any stretch of the imagination. The lunar lander by the time it had used up most of its decent fuel weighed about 8 metric tons. Gravity on the moon is about 1/6th earth so on the moon that would only weigh 1.3 tons - less than what the average car today weighs on earth. So to hover above the moon as it came to land would only require 1.3 tons of thrust.

Compare that the the Merlin 1D engine in the Falcon 9 rocket (a much smaller rocket than the Saturn 5) which has 62 tons of thrust, and has 9 engines for a total of 558 tons of thrust.

The F1 engine used on the Saturn 5 had 670 tons of thrust per engine - with 5 engines that's 3,350 tons of thrust. The 1.3 tons of thrust from the lander engine is a pipsqueak by comparison. The lunar lander really was a tiny thing compared to the rocket that launched it.
Last edited by Mandrake on 21 Jul 2019, 21:49, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2021
Posts: 4059
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1241

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by bobins »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hallelujah ! Some reasoned argument. Near brings a tear to the eye. Thank you, Simon :)

doctle
Posts: 955
Joined: 16 Oct 2014, 12:17
x 219

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by doctle »

Reasoned argument? Facts? Good Lord that will antagonise and enrage a few of the contributors to this thread. What's wrong with old posts on satirical websites, insane you tube types and writers of fiction crossing the border with made up facts?

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2021
Posts: 4059
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1241

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by bobins »

I've been following the thread with interest. I'm well aware that various Govt. / non-Govt. authorities can and do intentionally mislead / lie through their teeth, but I think the likelyhood of the moon landings being faked are slim. HOWEVER.... I will settle for the fact that they may have been "economical with the actualité" with some of the 'evidence' they used at the time.

User avatar
Michel
Donor 2020
Posts: 1903
Joined: 29 May 2017, 13:50
x 386

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by Michel »

@Mandrake...

Please go away with your sane posting and reasoned argument. It's clearly unwelcome here ..

doctle
Posts: 955
Joined: 16 Oct 2014, 12:17
x 219

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by doctle »

:rofl2:

User avatar
mickthemaverick
Donor 2019
Posts: 6548
Joined: 11 May 2019, 17:56
x 1782

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by mickthemaverick »

:rofl2: :rofl2:

MikeT
Posts: 4838
Joined: 11 Jun 2007, 16:17
x 187

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by MikeT »

GiveMeABreak wrote:
20 Jul 2019, 14:41
Here's an interesting analysis showing how some of the pictures have been touched up and replaced by NASA as well as some of the fakery:

https://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm
Please stop giving credence to that site, it's utterly bonkers!
Have you read the bit where they think WWII was staged/faked too? :roll:

And I also find this snippet which must contradict so many of their assertions the ML's couldn't have been possible... "We have never stated that human beings did not explore the lunar surface. Our hypothesis has always been that although research evidence suggests that the named Apollo astronauts did not venture beyond low Earth orbit, in all probability surrogates were sent to the Moon in the late 1960s."

And then there's this

This video shows how moon-hoaxer David Percy (as seen on Aulis website) deceives those who want to believe the hoax.




Want to see more unconvering of DP's deceit?



How's that for research?

User avatar
myglaren
Forum Admin Team
Posts: 19838
Joined: 02 Mar 2008, 14:30
x 1529

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by myglaren »

Tintin Moon.jpg
main-qimg-8c76f9d35e6870e6723434014fd6e55e.png

User avatar
GiveMeABreak
Forum Admin Team
Posts: 24102
Joined: 15 Sep 2015, 19:38
x 2582

Re: Manned Moon Landings - Did They Go? - Of Course They Did/n't

Post by GiveMeABreak »

Cracking!