Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Hidden Science & Advanced Technology

View Poll Results: Do you think the Apollo Lunar landings are fake?
Yes 83 72.17%
No 21 18.26%
Not sure need to do more research. 11 9.57%
Voters: 115. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 13-07-2018, 07:29 PM   #981
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
How can space be a vacuum at all if all heavenly bodies are leaking molecules into it constantly and its littered with micro meteorites travelling through it?
Depends on how you define vacuum. The amount of gaseous matter in space is like a pea in the pacific ocean. Micrometeorites are small rocks and don't count.

Quote:
How can they measure this temperature as so high then?
If the gas molecular spacing is so far apart and the conditions are almost that of a vacuum?
I gave you genuine advice. You ignored it.

Google....how is temperature measured in thermosphere !!

https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-tem...phere-measured

Quote:
Surely
Seriously dude, don't use that word.

Quote:
this would also work in the opposite, and one would not lose heat, so one could theoretically have an oxygen tank and mask on ones back to supply breathing air..and just a pair of briefs or a mankini for modesty whilst being outside the craft in the thermosphere?
The zero pressure would boil your body fluids.

Quote:
Is this right in your opinion?
Where are you going with this

Quote:
I thought the gaseous molecules were spaced so far apart, that radiation could not take place?
Well yes. Radiation from THEM! It would be like a toothless ant biting a whale.

Radiation still occurs from the Sun and the object.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2018, 07:31 PM   #982
bamboozooka
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 744
Likes: 543 (316 Posts)
Default

wiki citations
bamboozooka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2018, 07:33 PM   #983
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingeagle View Post
the nine you can find a lot of info on thunderbolts.info web/channel
Nope. You will find moronic shite.


Quote:
......vacuum doesn't exists in space,space is
full of electric curents
Why is it you believe horseshit written by fools and dismiss collective science? Ahhh, I know, you want to feel speshul and part of a unique group that "knows things"

Quote:
...TG .......just ignoring anything that doesn't supports his claims and repeating the official narrative
This is where you show me something I ignore. It's also where you be brave and show why what I post is wrong. Or carry on stalking and being a [insert any derogatory word]

Neutrals: Make note of how often posts like these are made where bullshit ad hominems are used but never substantiated.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2018, 07:37 PM   #984
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bamboozooka View Post
wiki citations
I love double standards and hypocrisy. Wiki was used for simplicity. There are numerous scientific organisations that verify this citation as accurate.

Don't you do debate, or is barking at the ball like a dog, your speciality

Are you saying that the thermosphere melts metal? Or is the quote correct about it being too sparse to conduct heat?

I await your inspired bullshit answer.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2018, 07:57 PM   #985
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
1. To be honest the video you posted of the moon buggy, was interesting but it didnt look like it was in a vacuum the way the exiting dust and soil left the treads..I would have thought gentle arcs with the largest densest materiel closet to the wheel and the lighter materiel slightly further away, but parts of the trails looked like they were being carried by an atmosphere..
That makes no sense at all. Atmosphere impedes travel not assists it! They went about 10 feet up in superb parabolic arcs.

Quote:
Watch it at 1.5x speed playback on youtube to see what I mean.
What makes you think that your expectations of rooster tails in a vacuum is accurate? They are very high for a slow vehicle when faster powerful buggies don't even do that.

Doesn't that make you wonder?

Quote:
2. I think gravity will likely be the reason.
For the heavier particles falling, but where is the fine stuff suspended just like on Earth? It's also grey....what's all that about?

Quote:
3. Yes, its very bright indeed, is it in full sunlight?
Lunar morning.

Quote:
Do you know the approximate radiation levels they faced at that time and location?
IR fairly low, UV quite high, hence multi layer visor.

Qualifying this: the IR only hit half their suit...other half in shadow. The outer layers were massively reflective.

Quote:
4. I can see blackness where the sky is usually located.
OK. It's daylight. Can you see the problem?

Quote:
5. Could it be the sun?
With a black sky. Yep, on the Moon.

Quote:
6. well this is what I have a problem with, why does the moon look so small in the pictures..I thought the most a human can see is around 14 miles..it should look the same size as the earth of pictures taken on the surface but it always seems about the size of a small to medium sized farm to me.
The horizon is only 2.43 km on the Moon. On that picture you can see that even off in the distance, perspective shows it is not near the horizon. There are loads of EVAs sowing really long distance travel on the surface from the camera placement.

Quote:
7. It look outdoors to me, why would they build the set inside anyway?
Would an outdoor set with heavy filters not be more suitable in a clear sky environment?
To stop wind blowing things. Define clear sky. It's broad daylight, sky is black, see the problem?

Quote:
8. Yes,those shots were probably not filmed indoors in my opinion.
How then? Explain the whole thing. Shall I put the LR traverse up?

Explain this....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OVh0gm5vtc

Nobody has even tried. On the Moon, unfakeable, just like the rocks, visible signs of lunar gravity etc.

Last edited by truegroup; 13-07-2018 at 09:15 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2018, 10:11 PM   #986
the nine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,611 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Depends on how you define vacuum. The amount of gaseous matter in space is like a pea in the pacific ocean. Micrometeorites are small rocks and don't count.
Indeed it does.
what size and amount of rocks count?
When is a vacuum not a vacuum?
At what particle content point is it considered to be not a vacuum?


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
I gave you genuine advice. You ignored it.

Google....how is temperature measured in thermosphere !!
I already explained why Its best to ask you directly..
Your google and my google are two different algorithms



Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
From your source above
Quote:
How could a satellite go through the thermosphere if there is no material that can resist a temperature of 1800 °C, which is the temperature of the thermosphere?
Harry Thaman, works at University of Toledo
Answered Sep 23, 2015
Everyone else's answers are correct as far as how the satellites survive those temperatures, they miss an important point - we actually have materials that can survive 1800 C, some of them quite easily. From advanced ceramics to titanium carbides, we have invented materials that can easily contain 1600C glass and more.

For reference, at those kinds of temperature, glass starts to glow like the sun, metal melts into a puddle and the light alone from the furnace is hotter than direct summer sunlight. And in the middle of all of this, ceramic bricks will sit comfortably holding everything in place.
Did any of the Apollo craft have these advanced ceramics or titanium carbide shielding for the entry/re-entry heat?


But the main gist seems to be
Quote:
There’s very little heat transfer between the gas in the thermosphere and objects travelling through it as heat transfer only occurs when molecules strike an object. Because there are few molecules, very little heat energy can be transferred from the thermosphere to a satellite.
Quote:
Tempature is the measurement of the energy level of the molecules. Because there are so few molecules in the near vacuum environment, a very small amount of heat (energy) is transferred over all.
Quote:
There is hardly any air at all in the thermosphere. It is approximately a vacuum. Yes, the few molecules that are there are traveling at very high speeds, which is equivalent to a gas at high temperature. But the density of these molecules is so low that the heating effect is very small.
Quote:
Scott Hoversten, ye canna change the laws of physics.
Answered Apr 1, 2015 · Author has 2.7k answers and 1.9m answer views
There's so little air up there that there isn't much heat transfer from air to satellite. It would take a long time to absorb much heat. The air in front of ballistic missile nose cones (and re-entering space capsules) is even hotter, but they are protected by a ceramic material that gets hot and is burned off without passing the heat through to the guts of the payload. Vaporizing ceramic takes a lot of heat.
and finally
Quote:
The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day.

Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.
So in summary, from the above answers we can conclude that there is a lot of heat up there, but the molecules are that far apart that it can be considered a vacuum and thus incapable of heat transfer

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Seriously dude, don't use that word.



The zero pressure would boil your body fluids.



Where are you going with this
Patience is a virtue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Well yes. Radiation from THEM! It would be like a toothless ant biting a whale.

Radiation still occurs from the Sun and the object.
And how does the 'Sun and the object' radiate in a virtual vacuum, where the molecules are spread so far apart that very little to no heat transfer will take place? see above quotes from the site you posted.









Finally, will you answer me another 2 questions please?
How did the apollo craft reach speeds of 19,000 mph?

How did they slow down?
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2018, 10:46 PM   #987
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
Indeed it does.
Here, you have a drink of water. It contains 1 trillion trillion atoms. Within it you have 1 atom of orange juice. Is it water?

That is a reasonable comparison. There are areas of the universe that contain plasma, charged particles, but essentially it is still vacuum.

Quote:
what size and amount of rocks count?
All of them. They don't contribute to whether it is a vacuum or not.

Quote:
When is a vacuum not a vacuum?
Dunno, not relevant.

"Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. But no vacuum is truly perfect, not even in interstellar space, where there are still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter."

Quote:
At what particle content point is it considered to be not a vacuum?
No idea. Lots.


Quote:
Did any of the Apollo craft have these advanced ceramics or titanium carbide shielding for the entry/re-entry heat?
You have taken his answer out of context. The thermosphere is not ANY problem regarding heat transfer. Apollo used an ablative heat shield for re-entry, nothing to do with the thermosphere "heat".

Quote:
So in summary, from the above answers we can conclude that there is a lot of heat up there, but the molecules are that far apart that it can be considered a vacuum and thus incapable of heat transfer
Neither conductive or radiated.

Quote:
And how does the 'Sun and the object' radiate in a virtual vacuum, where the molecules are spread so far apart that very little to no heat transfer will take place? see above quotes from the site you posted.
Radiated heat travels in a vacuum as infrared radiation. Just like light, it doesn't need molecules to travel.


Quote:
Finally, will you answer me another 2 questions please?
How did the apollo craft reach speeds of 19,000 mph?
They reached escape velocity of 25,000mph on the way out from engine firing numerous stages. They reached it on the way back from getting to lunar escape velocity 5300mph then falling all the way to Earth accelerating all the way up to 25,000mph.

Quote:
How did they slow down?
On the way out Earth gravity pulled them back the whole time. They arrived at the Moon much less than escape lunar velocity, a little retrograde engine burn put them in orbit around the Moon. On the way back, the atmosphere and heat shield.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2018, 10:59 PM   #988
the nine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,611 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
That makes no sense at all. Atmosphere impedes travel not assists it! They went about 10 feet up in superb parabolic arcs.



What makes you think that your expectations of rooster tails in a vacuum is accurate? They are very high for a slow vehicle when faster powerful buggies don't even do that.

Doesn't that make you wonder?



For the heavier particles falling, but where is the fine stuff suspended just like on Earth? It's also grey....what's all that about?



Lunar morning.



IR fairly low, UV quite high, hence multi layer visor.

Qualifying this: the IR only hit half their suit...other half in shadow. The outer layers were massively reflective.



OK. It's daylight. Can you see the problem?



With a black sky. Yep, on the Moon.



The horizon is only 2.43 km on the Moon. On that picture you can see that even off in the distance, perspective shows it is not near the horizon. There are loads of EVAs sowing really long distance travel on the surface from the camera placement.



To stop wind blowing things. Define clear sky. It's broad daylight, sky is black, see the problem?



How then? Explain the whole thing. Shall I put the LR traverse up?

Explain this....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OVh0gm5vtc

Nobody has even tried. On the Moon, unfakeable, just like the rocks, visible signs of lunar gravity etc.
That footage to me is convincing that it is not a studio.

Can you be 100% certain that it is impossible for that to be filmed in greenland using filters and other effects of contrast etc, so that is snow what you see flying up past the mudguards and not lunar soil?
the sky would appear black with the right filter and the grey of a black and white movie would attribute shades to the varying natural colour it is representing.
Im not saying that it was absolutely filmed on earth, Im just saying is there no minuscule possibility that it was all cold war propaganda and that they are nearing actually getting people to the moon now with the latest technology?

Those batteries on the moon buggy..
How many of them were there and what did they weigh?
Were they the old lead batteries? How did they cover hundreds of miles?

I mean, if they want longer stays on the moon, surely fabricated building sections could be shipped to the moon for assembly (considering they went to and fro to the moon so many times,assembling moon buggies on the moon etc) taking permanent shelter and life support could have continued in small sections since the 1970's..it would be a well manned large moon base by now..
Can nobody see the strategic value of a manned moon base?
they only had to keep going back with slightly better equipment each time, each year or half year...they done the hard part working out how to get to the moon and back safely...
Now they want to do it a completely different way, 49 years later and counting..
Does it not seem strange that all they got out of the Apollo mission was a few moon rocks? for all that effort and they just stopped going?
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2018, 11:51 PM   #989
the nine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,611 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Here, you have a drink of water. It contains 1 trillion trillion atoms. Within it you have 1 atom of orange juice. Is it water?

That is a reasonable comparison. There are areas of the universe that contain plasma, charged particles, but essentially it is still vacuum.



All of them. They don't contribute to whether it is a vacuum or not.



Dunno, not relevant.
So in essence, the vacuum of known space, although not perfect can obtain a level of only a few hydrogen atoms/m2, yet energy can easily pass through this because the whole of the universe is underpinned by electromagnetism?
The hydrogen atoms exist with the electromagnetic universe?


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
"Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. But no vacuum is truly perfect, not even in interstellar space, where there are still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter."
That is only an assumption..
What would you say was beyond the area of the accelerating universe?
What would you say the universe is expanding into?


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
No idea. Lots.




You have taken his answer out of context. The thermosphere is not ANY problem regarding heat transfer. Apollo used an ablative heat shield for re-entry, nothing to do with the thermosphere "heat".



Neither conductive or radiated.
I was making a point about the vacuum and its conditions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Radiated heat travels in a vacuum as infrared radiation. Just like light, it doesn't need molecules to travel.
But it does require electromagnetism, as does light



Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
They reached escape velocity of 25,000mph on the way out from engine firing numerous stages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
On the way out Earth gravity pulled them back the whole time. They arrived at the Moon much less than escape lunar velocity, a little retrograde engine burn put them in orbit around the Moon.
Does the earth gravitational pull decrease with distance?
How far away from earth was they when their speed was 25,000 mph?

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
They reached it on the way back from getting to lunar escape velocity 5300mph then falling all the way to Earth accelerating all the way up to 25,000mph.
So they flew through the atmosphere at 25,000 mph and crashed into the sea?
That must of been some thing to experience..what if there was a cruise ship in the way?
seems reckless




Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
On the way back, the atmosphere and heat shield.
A wing and a prayer..
But this worked successfully 6 times with 0 deaths and all astronauts living to a ripe old age, no radiation effects what so ever..
Yet they need to meet more safety standards now?
Id say their safety record is impeccable, would you not?

Not like the 'challenger shuttles'...
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2018, 09:30 AM   #990
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
So in essence, the vacuum of known space, although not perfect can obtain a level of only a few hydrogen atoms/m2, yet energy can easily pass through this because the whole of the universe is underpinned by electromagnetism?

The hydrogen atoms exist with the electromagnetic universe?
Yes. Please don't confuse this with the gibberish about an electric universe.

Quote:
That is only an assumption..
Highly informed....but yes.

Quote:
What would you say was beyond the area of the accelerating universe?
What would you say the universe is expanding into?
Nothing.

Quote:
But it does require electromagnetism, as does light
No....they ARE electromagnetic waves.

Quote:
Does the earth gravitational pull decrease with distance?
Yes ....it's lost 10% just in orbit.

Quote:
How far away from earth was they when their speed was 25,000 mph?
This was departure from LEO orbit speed. This was an increase from 17,500 with a 6 minute engine burn.

Quote:
So they flew through the atmosphere at 25,000 mph and crashed into the sea?
No. You make it sound chaotic!! It is a controlled path through atmosphere that slows the vehicle down. Apollo came in at 25,000 but the space shuttle and other orbital landings are at 17,500. Once Apollo was slowed enough......huge parachutes were deployed. It landed at a few mph in water.

Quote:
That must of been some thing to experience..what if there was a cruise ship in the way?
seems reckless
Trillions to 1 chance of that happening.

Quote:
A wing and a prayer..
Nope. A brilliantly designed vehicle and solid physics.

Quote:
But this worked successfully 6 times with 0 deaths and all astronauts living to a ripe old age, no radiation effects what so ever..
It worked 9 times at that speed and one other test close to that speed(IIRC). What radiation effects should there be and why? Where did You get this info from?

Quote:
Yet they need to meet more safety standards now?
Of course. Apollo had numerous things that went wrong....not just Apollo 13.

Quote:
Id say their safety record is impeccable, would you not?
Hardly. Apollo 1 cremated 3 astronauts. Apollo 13 had an explosion. Apollo 10 nearly crashed on the Moon.

Quote:
Not like the 'challenger shuttles'...
The shuttle carried out 135 missions and was a totally different vehicle. They lost one going up through negligence and one coming back from an unlucky accident with a piece of foam.

Last edited by truegroup; 14-07-2018 at 09:31 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2018, 10:28 AM   #991
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
That footage to me is convincing that it is not a studio.
Well good. That makes it the Moon then.

Quote:
Can you be 100% certain that it is impossible for that to be filmed in greenland using filters and other effects of contrast etc, so that is snow what you see flying up past the mudguards and not lunar soil?
What magic filters make the sky black and everything else normal? Filters don't make rooster tails fly up in nice parabolas, no suspension and at a height that is ludicrous for a slow moving "golf cart".

Quote:
the sky would appear black with the right filter
Which would be.....?? Even with a eclipse filter to watch, the sky is not jet black!! But everything else is ridiculously dark.

Quote:
and the grey of a black and white movie would attribute shades to the varying natural colour it is representing.
Total cobblers.

Quote:
Im not saying that it was absolutely filmed on earth,
It was filmed on the Moon.

Quote:
Im just saying is there no minuscule possibility that it was all cold war propaganda and that they are nearing actually getting people to the moon now with the latest technology?
The miniscule possibility needs to explain all the evidence. It needs to start with just this film, which so far you have not come close to explaining. Then all the rest of the video with lunar gravity, then the rocks, LROC, LRRR etc.....

Quote:
Those batteries on the moon buggy..
How many of them were there and what did they weigh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle

Two silver-oxide, 121 Amp hours

"Power was provided by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 A·h each (a total of 242 A·h), yielding a range of 57 miles (92 km).[17] These were used to power the drive and steering motors and also a 36-volt utility outlet mounted on the front of the LRV to power the communications relay unit or the TV camera. LRV batteries and electronics were passively cooled, using change-of-phase wax thermal capacitor packages and reflective, upward-facing radiating surfaces. While driving, radiators were covered with mylar blankets to minimize dust accumulation. When stopped, the astronauts would open the blankets, and manually remove excess dust from the cooling surfaces with hand brushes."


Quote:
Were they the old lead batteries?
VERY expensive silver-oxide.

Quote:
How did they cover hundreds of miles?
They didn't.

Quote:
I mean, if they want longer stays on the moon, surely fabricated building sections could be shipped to the moon for assembly (considering they went to and fro to the moon so many times,assembling moon buggies on the moon etc) taking permanent shelter and life support could have continued in small sections since the 1970's..it would be a well manned large moon base by now..
They pulled the funding. It would take some effort to get a Moon base up and a considerable number of flights to do it.

Quote:
Can nobody see the strategic value of a manned moon base?
Nope.

Quote:
they only had to keep going back with slightly better equipment each time, each year or half year...
It cost a billion pounds to launch the Saturn V.

Quote:
they done the hard part working out how to get to the moon and back safely...
Kind of. It was still risky with potential solar flares and a higher probability of failure the more times they went. Plus launch window restrictions would mean routes through denser areas of the VAB.

Quote:
Now they want to do it a completely different way, 49 years later and counting..
No, just with much better and safer kit. The method is still the same.

Quote:
Does it not seem strange that all they got out of the Apollo mission was a few moon rocks? for all that effort and they just stopped going?
More annoying than strange. They got more than rocks. They got scientific data about the Moon's seismology, distance using laser reflectors....

https://www.computerworld.com/articl...d-history.html

Plus all the scientific advances applied to commercial enterprises.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...eaps/index.htm

https://www.computerworld.com/articl...d-history.html

Last edited by truegroup; 14-07-2018 at 10:29 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2018, 03:03 PM   #992
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Isn't it amazing how our admired NASA-bot "replies" to posts sentence for sentence?

And then claims that a quoted sentence is “crap”, even when the following sentence explains what is meant in the first...
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Quote:
In earth the "air resistance" slows objects down. In vacuum there is no "air resistance" so the dust would continue to fly.
That is a load of crap! The dust stopped by atmosphere is the fine particles, otherwise it falls straight down, just like on the Moon.

But, hey, not once is there EVER any dust suspension, even with the rover.
Quote:
Of course there is gravitation (reportedly 1/7 of earth's gravitation) on the moon, that causes the dust to eventually fall down.

Here’s the full quote (to which the bot couldn’t even reply):
Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy
Dust doesn't fall "straight down" when it's moving.
In earth the "air resistance" slows objects down. In vacuum there is no "air resistance" so the dust would continue to fly. Of course there is gravitation (reportedly 1/7 of earth's gravitation) on the moon, that causes the dust to eventually fall down.
You're right that blowing wind can blow dust up, but dust wouldn't fall down as fast as on earth when there is no wind.
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 14-07-2018 at 03:05 PM.
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2018, 03:48 PM   #993
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Isn't it amazing how our admired NASA-bot "replies" to posts sentence for sentence?
Not so amazing is you breaching moderator guidelines about name calling and the fact that you ignore copious amounts of counter evidence. Cowardice is your strong point.

Quote:
And then claims that a quoted sentence is “crap”, even when the following sentence explains what is meant in the first...
Gibberish. You didn't say anything the first time round, even less this time.



Quote:
Here’s the full quote (to which the bot couldn’t even reply):
It takes a colossally ignorant person to think such varied answers could be from a "bot", but then we already know your "skills"

Which part of the reply confused you? You re-iterate 1/7th gravity and show how completely clueless you are.

Once again (4th time?) for you to run away from....

What bonkers world would NASA take pictures underneath the LM and "script" Armstrong to talk about the lack of a crater, but be too dumb not to frickin' dig one out!


Recap:

1. Jimmy boy, can you see the shadow of the flagpole? I put childproof arrows on in yellow

2. Can you explain how there isn't a shadow if it's on Earth

3. https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...&postcount=939

4. https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...4&postcount=61

5. You are a rocket engine in space denier, do you realise how dumb that is

6. You are a no nukes claimant, are you aware how bonkers that is

7. You think the Manchester bombing was faked, do you have a brain




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nINoMsSqUY
Likes: (1)
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2018, 04:09 PM   #994
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Not so amazing is you breaching moderator guidelines about name calling and the fact that you ignore copious amounts of counter evidence. Cowardice is your strong point.
The insults, big words and NASA-propaganda keep coming, but never anything remotely close to "evidence".


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
It takes a colossally ignorant person to think such varied answers could be from a "bot", but then we already know your "skills"
I guess that the BOT-programmer has recently made a promotion...


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
What bonkers world would NASA take pictures underneath the LM and "script" Armstrong to talk about the lack of a crater, but be too dumb not to frickin' dig one out!
You might see that as a strong argument: NASA can't be so incredibly stoopid...
Why would NASA recruit intelligent "scientists" to make a movie?


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
6. You are a no nukes claimant, are you aware how bonkers that is
Here’s a link with some of the interesting information collected by the in France surviving Anders Björkman about the atomic bomb hoax: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm


For anybody that has a little bit of intelligence...
The atomic bombs hoax was founded on the “Theory of relativity” of the greatest liar of the 20th century - Albert Einstein...
Read the G. Burniston Brown brown paper from 1967 that completely debunks the “Theory of relativity”, if you can: http://www.big-lies.org/modern-physi...sics.html#bomb


Atomic bombs the supposed only weapon of mass destruction invented by man that wasn’t used on a massive scale because it’s too destructive...
Do you believe that American scientists were so incredibly smart that they could invent “atomic” bombs and controlled energy production, but not a single “terrorist” could in more than 70 years?

There must be somebody that can understand that such explanations are (almost) as ridiculous as the theory that mass can disappear into energy (E=mc2).


H.G. Wells “invented” the “moon landings” in “The first men in the moon”: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/...13-images.html

H.G. Wells “invented” the atomic bombs in “The World Set Free”: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1059/1059-h/1059-h.htm

And here’s information on the movie producer that was recruited to stage the “hydrogen bombs” and the first administrator for NASA from 1958 to 1961 - Thomas Keith Glennan: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...5&postcount=71
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2018, 05:02 PM   #995
ianw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,032
Likes: 144 (107 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post



6. You are a no nukes claimant, are you aware how bonkers that is

7. You think the Manchester bombing was faked, do you have a brain
While your talking sideline beliefs.
Do you believe an intercontinental ballistic missile hitting the ground at hyper sonic speed can instantaneously vaporize causing an explosion that surpasses conventional explosives ?

Do you believe the official version of the the plane on 911 that was brought down and vaporized on contact with the field leaving nothing more than a few suit cases and a fire but no aircraft parts or bodys ?

Show us your not a bot and avoid the S.B.D.


.
__________________
My definition of being a flatmooner is the apolow footage was filmed in a studio
https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...2&postcount=55
ianw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2018, 05:10 PM   #996
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
The insults, big words and NASA-propaganda keep coming, but never anything remotely close to "evidence".
Really?


Fucking REALLY!!!?

You call me a NASA-BOT and complain when I say you are a coward for EVADING THE EVIDENCE!!

Quote:
I guess that the BOT-programmer has recently made a promotion...
Name calling hypocrite


Quote:
You might see that as a strong argument: NASA can't be so incredibly stoopid...
Why would NASA recruit intelligent "scientists" to make a movie?
Amongst the top 10 moronic statements ever. You don't need scientists to work out that it would be even dumber than some of the HB claims...and that is right down there

So only "smart" HBs know there should be a blast crater, because of reasons that they never elaborate on.

NASA were smart enough to make the area under the lander completely free of dust, with radial striations from the engine exhaust, but too dumb to put a crater in, whilst talking about it and photographing it.


Quote:
Here’s a link with some of the interesting information collected by the in France surviving Anders Björkman about the atomic bomb hoax:
GTFO with your off topic horseshit. Seriously just go somewhere else with that utter twat Björkman's "observations"!!

Quote:
For anybody that has a little bit of intelligence...
Rules you out.

Quote:
There must be somebody that can understand that such explanations are (almost) as ridiculous as the theory that mass can disappear into energy (E=mc2).
I'm blowed if I'm getting sucked into the no-nukes stupidity.

Atoms are just movement. The energy is made up of movement, none of it is solid. Mass is just atoms bound together by attraction through this extremely fast movement.

Go and get some education.

Jimmy, here is some evidence, kindly respond, try not to be a four letter word beginning with T.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKpZM0gqugs

2. The rocks.

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq6yYQYoX_A

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OVh0gm5vtc

5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7-7JgdgJls
Soil now falls at Earth freefall speed, the astronauts...a tad absurd!

6. Two parts both from a very long continuous EVA sequence. Part 1 shows a gravitational analysis. Part 2 shows soil hitting the ground at the same time....is the soil on wires?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSuvW0FRd-U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG5FuVxDcPU


Do you want me to do the chicken thing again.....because there is no way you are answering those honestly and there are hundreds more!
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2018, 05:36 PM   #997
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
Do you believe an intercontinental ballistic missile hitting the ground at hyper sonic speed can instantaneously vaporize causing an explosion that surpasses conventional explosives ?
Yes. It would not surprise me if you admitted to being a no-nukes-nut.

Quote:
Do you believe the official version of the the plane on 911 that was brought down and vaporized on contact with the field leaving nothing more than a few suit cases and a fire but no aircraft parts or bodys ?
That isn't the official version - hopeless as always. I suspect it was shot down. It hit the deck very hard and lots of stuff got sent many miles away. I can't see any logic in fabricating a crash site when you have a perfectly good plane with people on to make a real one.

Quote:
Show us your not a bot and avoid the S.B.D..
You pathetic man. You parrot the hokusjoke statement but consistently fail to answer even basic points. You are doing something I last witnessed at school, the playground mentality.

To deflect the onslaught aimed at yourself, through excessively stupid claims, inept understanding, gullibility, appalling distortion of dead simple English, you attempt to curry favour with like minded individuals who are barely a notch above you on the scale

See the post above, I witnessed first hand the kind of delusion that controls you, when you said point 6 the sped up video looked normal. Liar.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2018, 05:39 PM   #998
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Not so amazing is you breaching moderator guidelines about name calling and the fact that you ignore copious amounts of counter evidence. Cowardice is your strong point.
Recap:

1. Jimmy boy, can you see the shadow of the flagpole? I put childproof arrows on in yellow

2. Can you explain how there isn't a shadow if it's on Earth

3. https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...&postcount=939

4. https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...4&postcount=61

5. You are a rocket engine in space denier, do you realise how dumb that is

6. You are a no nukes claimant, are you aware how bonkers that is

Answer given = He is not aware of how bonkers it is

7. You think the Manchester bombing was faked, do you have a brain
Hey Jimmy, I'm building a list of stuff you are ignoring, this is just the recent stuff. When I get time I'll make it more full. All of you people do it....truthers huh
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2018, 06:22 PM   #999
hokuspokus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,457
Likes: 449 (272 Posts)
Default

It's the spam based drivel guy burying posts again...
hokuspokus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-2018, 06:37 PM   #1000
eurosianguy
Quiz Champ
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,649
Likes: 902 (509 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hokuspokus View Post
It's the spam based drivel guy burying posts again...
That's so ironic considering TG is the only one posting anything of substance. Why he bother I have no idea. He himself compared it to playground mentality, and that's exactly what's happening here. It's such a waste of energy
__________________
The 5 laws of creation:
1. You exist
2. Every thing is Here & Now
3. The One is All and the All are One
4. What you put out is what you get back
5. Everything changes, except the first 4 Laws
Likes: (1)
eurosianguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:39 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.