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 27-07-2018, 04:39 PM   #1201
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
Waste of time. It doesn't matter how many times you are told about dead simple physics....you keep making this same ignorant claim about pushing off stuff.

The bell on the engine directs the exhaust. It is off the scale powerful. It pushes on nothing. Force goes one way....rocket goes the other.

I even posted a visual proof of this. An extendable tap mechanism was fed water at a perfect thrust to support itself. Along you come and say. but but but it's "pushing" on the sink. The video then puts a plate straight under the jet....now much closer than the sink. No effect.

You ignored the video!!
I ignored the video because I honestly thought you were taking the piss, clearly I was wrong

Please show me the same effect in a large vacuum.. which you obviously can't because you SHOULD know that as the water would leave the nozzle and spray out into the void of the vacuum.
Do you realise that the weight of air maintains the shape of many things on earth that you take for granted?
Those molecules are only hitting the plate because the weight of air is maintaining the compressed shape of the water jet allowing it to hit the plate with thrust.

The point I have maintained is that the force of thrust works very well when there is something to push of.. in a vacuum the push is very very poor and inefficient and at all suited to drive a ship forwards in a vacuum

You constantly denigrate any posters ability to comprehend physics to your level of understanding, yet your answers often do not demonstrate a good grasp of simple physics..

I'm still waiting for you to explain how the water in the reservoir gets to the sublimator?
(1969 technology not current technology)
__________________
"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
Likes: (1)
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2018, 09:37 PM   #1202
madmax
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: By the beach in S.Aust.
Posts: 534
Likes: 132 (95 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
You know what I am going to say don't you...

That test only proved that it's possible to burn chemicals in a vacuum
The size of the vacuum relative to test apparatus is allowing the exhaust to push off the back to create a thrust! Notice how the gasses crept up the vacuum around the rocket.. this could never happen in the vacuum of space!

I think it's clear to most that had he tried the same experiment in a vacuum the size of a airplane hangar, that the expelled fuel will have just sucked out into the vacuum and generated marginal inefficient thrust at best.

Interesting though
I agree the larger rocket motor probably filled the chamber with exhaust gases but in the beginning as the motor fired the sled moved forward exerting pressure on the scale.
When he used the much smaller model rocket motor the burn time was much less it still achieved thrust as can be seen in the close up.
So in effect the smaller motor equates to firing in a vast vacuum.
Had it been me doing the experiment, I would have redone the small motor several times to ensure I could repeat the effect.
In the words of the Myth Busters I would call this possible.
__________________
"I'm here to kick ass and chew gum and I'm all outa gum" Duke Nukem

Just the opinion of a lad from the bush.
madmax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2018, 10:06 PM   #1203
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
Please show me the same effect in a large vacuum.. which you obviously can't because you SHOULD know that as the water would leave the nozzle and spray out into the void of the vacuum.
Unreachable. Unteachable. You appall me with your ignorance of this, combined with this weird stubbornness that you think you know what you are talking about!

If you focused the outgoing jet as a comparison with an engine bell....the jet would provide the same thrust.

Quote:
Do you realise that the weight of air maintains the shape of many things on earth that you take for granted?
Don't presume what I take for granted. I KNOW what I am talking about You don't!

Quote:
Those molecules are only hitting the plate because the weight of air is maintaining the compressed shape of the water jet allowing it to hit the plate with thrust.
Irrelevant and dishonest. You deny the obvious bloody point.....it is not creating thrust by pushing on air. Proven.

Quote:
The point I have maintained is that the force of thrust works very well when there is something to push of.. in a vacuum the push is very very poor and inefficient and at all suited to drive a ship forwards in a vacuum
You maintain your shitty opinion as long as you wish....it is still a pile of ignorant bilge.

Quote:
You constantly denigrate any posters ability to comprehend physics to your level of understanding, yet your answers often do not demonstrate a good grasp of simple physics..
Only the ones who have no clue, yet persist with idiotic repetition. When YOU dare to suggest I don't have a good grasp of it, it's kind of a joke

Quote:
I'm still waiting for you to explain how the water in the reservoir gets to the sublimator?
(1969 technology not current technology)
Small pump, plastic pipe. You need to go away now and find a clue. You attained tedious many pages ago.....now you are approaching deliberately wilful ignorance!!

Last edited by truegroup; 27-07-2018 at 10:06 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2018, 12:07 AM   #1204
madmax
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: By the beach in S.Aust.
Posts: 534
Likes: 132 (95 Posts)
Default

Another video of a small rocket motor in a vacuum chamber.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf6158lBjGo
__________________
"I'm here to kick ass and chew gum and I'm all outa gum" Duke Nukem

Just the opinion of a lad from the bush.
madmax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2018, 05:25 AM   #1205
juttkeys
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancashire UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 45 (26 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
You know what I am going to say don't you...

That test only proved that it's possible to burn chemicals in a vacuum
The size of the vacuum relative to test apparatus is allowing the exhaust to push off the back to create a thrust! Notice how the gasses crept up the vacuum around the rocket.. this could never happen in the vacuum of space!

I think it's clear to most that had he tried the same experiment in a vacuum the size of a airplane hangar, that the expelled fuel will have just sucked out into the vacuum and generated marginal inefficient thrust at best.

Interesting though
So you must think that there are no man made satellites up there either, how do you explain sat nav ? that a hoax too? sky TV ? all those dishes pointing in the same direction a huge hoax? Im all ears for an explanation, its not clear to me how they can pull that one off or do they just fire a satellite up there and hope for the best as once its up there in orbit no correctional manoeuvres could possibly work in the vacuum?
please explain how they attain the geostationary orbits?

Last edited by juttkeys; 28-07-2018 at 05:51 AM.
juttkeys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2018, 08:48 AM   #1206
madmax
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: By the beach in S.Aust.
Posts: 534
Likes: 132 (95 Posts)
Default

Video released by NASA recently? I make no claims to its accuracy.
http://www.thescinewsreporter.com/20...on-ending.html
__________________
"I'm here to kick ass and chew gum and I'm all outa gum" Duke Nukem

Just the opinion of a lad from the bush.
madmax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2018, 10:54 AM   #1207
the nine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,611 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by juttkeys View Post
So you must think that there are no man made satellites up there either, how do you explain sat nav ? that a hoax too? sky TV ? all those dishes pointing in the same direction a huge hoax? Im all ears for an explanation, its not clear to me how they can pull that one off or do they just fire a satellite up there and hope for the best as once its up there in orbit no correctional manoeuvres could possibly work in the vacuum?
please explain how they attain the geostationary orbits?
Why would I think there are no satellites in earths orbit?

I'm not denying space travel, I'm denying the claims that a combustion rocket is a good way to travel in a vacuum
I agree that there will be a very small amount of thrust forwards as there is huge amounts of energy expelled out of the back

You want to believe that a small can can travel through a vacuum in blazing sun rays, that it deflects 90% of the suns energy away and can expel heat in a vacuum with 1960's technology then you crack on

Seems weird how they lost the tech to get to the moon so they must now 'reinvent it'..but we did do that impossible mission.. honest
Take a look at these samples that fall into the same tolerances as every earth sample falls into...all 6 match the same as earth!

Then the Chinese send a rover to the moon.. and the samples read completely different to earth with huge amounts of chromium and trace elements (called trace on earth but not on the moon)
Forget all that.. just look at the astronauts on the moon.. it must be real right?
And they taught us in school that the moon landing happened..
__________________
"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 28-07-2018, 12:59 PM   #1208
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 Arm waving at its absolute best!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
Why would I think there are no satellites in earths orbit?
Because it takes an astonishing lack of intelligence to not understand that rockets work in 0.00005% atmosphere on the way up to put them there!! Or Vacuum for geostationary satellites 30 odd thousand miles out!!

Quote:
I'm not denying space travel, I'm denying the claims that a combustion rocket is a good way to travel in a vacuum
I agree that there will be a very small amount of thrust forwards as there is huge amounts of energy expelled out of the back
Your opinion is utterly moronic. You appear to have no ability to learn.

Quote:
You want to believe that a small can
It's not a small can and it was projected at escape velocity by a very powerful and fully tested engine.

Quote:
can travel through a vacuum in blazing sun rays
Oooooh....not blazing sun rays. The atmosphere nips off around about 20%. The craft is 50% in shade. It is made of highly reflective aluminium. It is highly conductive, so heat can not only radiate away but also conduct away to cooler areas. The craft initiated a slow barrel roll to stop any one surface getting the brunt of the Sun.

Quote:
that it deflects 90% of the suns energy away and can expel heat in a vacuum with 1960's technology then you crack on
Expelling the 10% it absorbs is a piece of absolute piss. Go and get educated!!!



Quote:
Seems weird how they lost the tech to get to the moon so they must now 'reinvent it'.
They didn't lose anything. It's old. Just like we don't drive around in bloody Ford Escorts!!

Quote:
in.but we did do that impossible mission.. honest
It wasn't impossible....wave those arms around

Quote:
Take a look at these samples that fall into the same tolerances as every earth sample falls into...all 6 match the same as earth!
Total fucking bullshit. They all have been irradiated by solar wind, creating isotopes. They have helium-3 interior isotopes and strong exterior helium-3. They have ZERO terrestrial weathering and have none of the minerals we would associate with such a process. They show evidence of formation in lower gravity and have impact craters from tiny micro-meteorites. They cannot be meteorites and cannot be from Earth.

Quote:
Then the Chinese send a rover to the moon.. and the samples read completely different to earth with huge amounts of chromium and trace elements (called trace on earth but not on the moon)
Never, different areas on the moon They landed in an area of recent volcanic activity. One that has not had billions of years of meteorite bombardment and dust scattering.

Who are you, zero experience with zero understanding to stand there suggesting thousands of geologists have been fooled!

Tell me, selective comedy hoax shite, some of you lot claim the Chinese rover is faked

Quote:
Forget all that..
Yep.But not forgotten, just torn to the shite little pieces it was made up of.

Quote:
just look at the astronauts on the moon.. it must be real right?
One of the key points!! You DON'T look at them.....certainly not at any of the gravitational analyses that PROVE they are on the Moon.

Quote:
And they taught us in school that the moon landing happened..
Did they? What part of your curriculum was that in? They went.

I have submitted so much evidence that you all fail miserably to address.

Last edited by truegroup; 28-07-2018 at 12:59 PM.
Likes: (1)
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2018, 01:11 PM   #1209
ianw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,032
Likes: 144 (107 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
You want to believe that a small can can travel through a vacuum in blazing sun rays, that it deflects 90% of the suns energy away and can expel heat in a vacuum with 1960's technology then you crack on
Sure glad that the weather is cooling off. Ive been baking in the car the past few weeks. Would of been spiffing to have some of that 60s spec to cool the car down. I dont know how they managed in the blaring heat with an oversize fishbowl on there bonce. Never mind it will soon be winter.



.
__________________
My definition of being a flatmooner is the apolow footage was filmed in a studio
https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...2&postcount=55
Likes: (1)
ianw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2018, 01:16 PM   #1210
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
Sure glad that the weather is cooling off. Ive been baking in the car the past few weeks. Would of been spiffing to have some of that 60s spec to cool the car down. I dont know how they managed in the blaring heat with an oversize fishbowl on there bonce. Never mind it will soon be winter.



.
Pish. I highlighted the problem. Did you have a thermos flask of cold drink with you? Did it heat up?

As for the helmets. Multi layers. of visor and gold coated layer.

Last edited by truegroup; 28-07-2018 at 01:23 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2018, 01:23 PM   #1211
ianw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,032
Likes: 144 (107 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Pish. I highlighted the problem. Did you have a thermos flask of cold drink with you? Did it heat up?
Ill remember that one if I ever want to leave the dog in the car.



.
__________________
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 28-07-2018, 01:27 PM   #1212
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
Ill remember that one if I ever want to leave the dog in the car.
.
Repeat pish. It's almost as though you have no understanding whatsoever about simple spacecraft design. You people claim they are in LEO ...how does that work then?

You think the ISS astronauts have heat problems? Same technology.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2018, 01:36 PM   #1213
ianw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,032
Likes: 144 (107 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Repeat pish. It's almost as though you have no understanding whatsoever about simple spacecraft design. You people claim they are in LEO ...how does that work then?

You think the ISS astronauts have heat problems? Same technology.
Yes same technology, night, day, night, day, night, day, night, day, bright, dark, bright, dark, bright, dark, bright, dark, heating, cooling, heating, cooling, heating, cooling, heating, cooling, round and round round and round.



.
__________________
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 28-07-2018, 01:44 PM   #1214
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
Yes same technology, night, day, night, day, night, day, night, day, bright, dark, bright, dark, bright, dark, bright, dark, heating, cooling, heating, cooling, heating, cooling, heating, cooling, round and round round and round.



.
Oh ok. So turning away from the Sun doesn't count then

How much longer are you allowed on the computer?
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2018, 01:50 PM   #1215
ianw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,032
Likes: 144 (107 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Oh ok. So turning away from the Sun doesn't count then

How much longer are you allowed on the computer?
No. Turning away from the sun dosnt count.
How old are you!


.
__________________
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 28-07-2018, 02:01 PM   #1216
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
No. Turning away from the sun dosnt count.
Hey Ian....

1. How come turning the "fishbowl" away from the Sun doesn't count? The multi layered, highly reflective helmet protection system is now facing the Sun.

2. How come you didn't answer my request for heat transfer figures?

3. How come you ignored the point about the IR reflective coatings that they use today?

4. Cars heat up in a matter of minutes ....if your idiotic claim carries water....in space it would be faster. So 45 minutes in daylight ...ISS EVA would "cook" them surely


Quote:
How old are you!
How much longer are you allowed on the computer?

Last edited by truegroup; 28-07-2018 at 02:02 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2018, 02:55 PM   #1217
ianw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,032
Likes: 144 (107 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Hey Ian....

1. How come turning the "fishbowl" away from the Sun doesn't count? The multi layered, highly reflective helmet protection system is now facing the Sun.

2. How come you didn't answer my request for heat transfer figures?

3. How come you ignored the point about the IR reflective coatings that they use today?

4. Cars heat up in a matter of minutes ....if your idiotic claim carries water....in space it would be faster. So 45 minutes in daylight ...ISS EVA would "cook" them surely
Iss is big, It can provide shade. Space suits can have an umbilical connecting them to the space stations life support which is also big.
Tuning away from the sun dont get you out of it, you realize how stupid that is!
Why haven't car manufacturers bothered with any of the 60s cooling tec?
Will driving round a roundabout cool a car. No.
And yes your right my claim carries water...
__________________
My definition of being a flatmooner is the apolow footage was filmed in a studio
https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...2&postcount=55
Likes: (1)
ianw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2018, 04:06 PM   #1218
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
Iss is big, It can provide shade.

Who writes your script? Is this shite all your own

Car heats up in 10 minutes....and you claim that astronauts CLEARLY in full sunlight on the ISS for 45 minutes don't. And this is because the ISS is in the way of the Sun when it isn't. Bulshittery at its finest

Quote:
Space suits can have an umbilical connecting them to the space stations life support which is also big.
The umbilical is big now? Hahaha what bollox!

Quote:
Tuning away from the sun dont get you out of it,
Well duhhh....but the "goldfish bowl" is now in the shade!! The basic suit protection is now in effect.

Hey Ian....you did it again. You ignored the multi layers of the visor and the gold protective layer!

Quote:
you realize how stupid that is!
I realise you have the understanding of a guppy

Quote:
Why haven't car manufacturers bothered with any of the 60s cooling tec?
Why should they? They aren't driving around in vacuum. Most of the heat absorbing bit is the windows. Are you suggesting they use multiple layers and get gold plating

Quote:
Will driving round a roundabout cool a car. No.
What a crushingly stupid analogy. The car is not in vacuum and it has all round windows.

Quote:
And yes your right my claim carries water...
I never said your claim carries water. It carries bogwater though.

In any world what makes you think your incessantly clueless ramblings carry anything, compared to the entire engineering community...capable of calculating heat absorption and transfer.

Last edited by truegroup; 28-07-2018 at 04:07 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2018, 12:09 AM   #1219
juttkeys
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancashire UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 45 (26 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
Why would I think there are no satellites in earths orbit?

I'm not denying space travel, I'm denying the claims that a combustion rocket is a good way to travel in a vacuum
I agree that there will be a very small amount of thrust forwards as there is huge amounts of energy expelled out of the back

You want to believe that a small can can travel through a vacuum in blazing sun rays, that it deflects 90% of the suns energy away and can expel heat in a vacuum with 1960's technology then you crack on

Seems weird how they lost the tech to get to the moon so they must now 'reinvent it'..but we did do that impossible mission.. honest
Take a look at these samples that fall into the same tolerances as every earth sample falls into...all 6 match the same as earth!

Then the Chinese send a rover to the moon.. and the samples read completely different to earth with huge amounts of chromium and trace elements (called trace on earth but not on the moon)
Forget all that.. just look at the astronauts on the moon.. it must be real right?
And they taught us in school that the moon landing happened..
sorry to quote the whole text, but for that point it seems you're happy to accept the satellites
are up there yet at the same time suggest its impossible to get them there using rocket propulsion
?? How do you think they got there and then in a stationary orbit? Just asking?? and then why that method cant be used to head towards the moon? I didn't learn that the moon landings happened at school? I dont recall it ever being mentioned at high school tbh, 15 years ago i was convinced we never went to the moon, then as David Icke suggests... you go where the evidence takes you... I followed the evidence and it made me do a 180 turn... I didnt 'want' to believe anything.... maybe you are projecting?

Last edited by juttkeys; 29-07-2018 at 01:13 AM.
juttkeys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2018, 12:42 AM   #1220
madmax
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: By the beach in S.Aust.
Posts: 534
Likes: 132 (95 Posts)
Default

Moderation Comment: Members who feel they are being harrased or insulted by another member are reminded of the block feature available to them.
__________________
"I'm here to kick ass and chew gum and I'm all outa gum" Duke Nukem

Just the opinion of a lad from the bush.
madmax 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 01:46 AM.


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