Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Political Manipulation / Cover-Ups / False Flags

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 27-08-2018, 01:08 PM   #161
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,220 (961 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Maybe you should make a point of posting only links to NASA propaganda of more than a 100 pages. Some of "your" links are actually so short that I try to read parts of it!
It isn't propaganda just because you think it is You actually read parts of the small content.....wow!

Quote:
I’ve repeatedly called lack of testing an argument against the Apollo moon landings. I think this is a good time to explain a little on “testing”...
Yes, I can confirm that you have repeatedly made this erroneous claim. I have systematically supplied you with links refuting every single one of your rubbish observations. For some baffling reason you are incapable of reading any of them. NASA then, were testing things so much it was almost painful!

The suggestion that you, who clearly knows absolutely nothing about space travel, is somehow seeing things they should and could have tested, is a total joke.

Quote:
I guess that testing of planes is more similar to software testing than the testing that should be done in “rocket science”, but the links I found to come up with a “test strategy” is relevant in this context (at the very least it explains how I look at it).
Your guesses and comparisons are meaningless crap. You fail to read hundreds of pages of extensive testing reports and then claim they didn't test the very thing the reports show!!

Quote:
In (software) testing deciding what to test is decided based on the (estimated) risk.
Risk is assessed by a team of “stakeholders” and based on multiplying (maybe there are better formulas…):
Probability * Severity
Probability is the chance an error would occur after implementation of the software. This is mostly decided on the complexity and the frequency functionality is used.
Severity is the damage a failure would cause. In software development arguably the worst that could happen is that an error brings the whole system down:
Exactly how the whole Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs were carried out!

Quote:
When I relate this to the testing for the Apollo moon landings, the risk is enormous, which means I expect that basically every small detail of the moon landings would be tested with hundreds of test cases.
As it was!!

Quote:
The complexity of a moon landing is especially large as never before people landed on the moon. There are even many factors about landing on the moon (and the trip) that were (are) simply unknown.
So what. Risks were taken after being weighed up.

Quote:
When I learn that not even the tests that could have been performed (if a moon landing is feasible) on earth were done, like:
Landing a “lunar module” with a starting speed of 6000 km/h (4 times the top speed of an F-16).
Clueless.

The lunar modules were NOT designed to operate on Earth!! They were not aerodynamic whatsoever and Earth gravity pushed their weight on the supports too far. To suggest they should try to land in an atmosphere and at speed is ludicrous! To obtain such speed requires them to be in space and to perform re-entry without a bloody heat shield. Then apply the Earth gravitational pull plus the huge extra fuel needed is also ludicrous.

Quote:
Lifting off a lunar module to reach a speed of 6000 km/h…
Pretty much the same argument without heat shield, but the fuel needed is out of the question.....and oh ffs what an appalling waste of money that would be!

Quote:
I can only conclude that the whole Apollo project was a fraud.
You know less than nothing. You've been given data and ignored it and make observations that are so absurd they beggar belief.

Quote:
So on the one hand you admit that not even the tests that should have been done on earth were performed but on the other hand you call me a “LIAR” for pointing that out!
Your English needs a bit of work I listed the tests that were done and explained the ones that didn't need to be done. I called you a liar for repeatedly saying no testing was done after maybe half a dozen posts providing links!!

Quote:
While landing on the moon is associated with an extremely high risk. For which I don’t think an appropriate, feasible “testing strategy” could be figured out,
What you think is irrelevant and very much from a place of piss poor research and understanding.

Quote:
making a handful of movies on “moon landings” with some special effects wouldn’t be a risk.
Listen to this bloke....arm waving away UNFAKEABLE lunar gravity, rocks, LROC, LRRR and on and on..... I love the way you haven't a clue how they managed to fake the footage but are so confident they did.

Quote:
With the media under complete control there is no chance that the fraud would ever be exposed (is there?).
BULLSHIT! There was no fraud, just really stubborn, hopelessly informed people who ignore debunks and evidence.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.

Last edited by truegroup; 27-08-2018 at 01:08 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2018, 04:56 PM   #162
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,090
Likes: 1,397 (832 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Listen to this bloke....arm waving away UNFAKEABLE lunar gravity, rocks, LROC, LRRR and on and on..... I love the way you haven't a clue how they managed to fake the footage but are so confident they did.
Thanks for reminding me of those wonderful videos that couldn’t possibly be made by the same bunch of science fiction fans that were already making movie special effects on a moon landing in the 1920s!

The following “evidence” from the first (Apollo 11) moon landing video (they reportedly lost the tape of the original footage)…
Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk4bJqF-ZbQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
In my opinion the most damaging in this video is...
From 0:43-0:45 - First the leg of the astronaut, who is behind the flag, goes through the pole. Then the backpack goes through the flagpole and flag…
Compression...
__________________
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; 27-08-2018 at 04:56 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2018, 05:57 PM   #163
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,220 (961 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Thanks for reminding me of those wonderful videos that couldn’t possibly be made by the same bunch of science fiction fans that were already making movie special effects on a moon landing in the 1920s!
You are talking absolute bollocks. Making special effects in the 20s that look like something a five old could do now is not counter evidence. Your total failure to explain how it was done, is just pathetic. You are scared shirtless to admit your errors or concede.

I put up a video analysed to show lunar freefall speed...another at the same time showing dirt hitting the surface at the same time. To adjust the film to Earth gravity makes them look ridiculously too fast. Just THAT proves they are on the Moon! You just don't have the understanding to get any of it.

Quote:
The following “evidence” from the first (Apollo 11) moon landing video (they reportedly lost the tape of the original footage)…
You shameless liar.

I have pointed out at least 50 times on this forum that they lost NOTHING! The backup tapes were overwritten. BACKUPS. You've quoted posts by me pointing it out!!

So bloody what anyway. Apollo 11 has very little going on in front of the camera.

Quote:
Compression...
It takes some weirdo comprehension to claim an obvious light overload is something suspicious. So what...are you claiming they filmed it on Earth and his PLSS went through the flagpole?? FFS get a clue will you
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.

Last edited by truegroup; 27-08-2018 at 05:58 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2018, 05:59 PM   #164
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,220 (961 Posts)
Default

Please explain why you ignored my post pointing out how unintelligent your claims were about LM testing!?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2018, 07:54 PM   #165
noncooperation
Senior Member
 
noncooperation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Europe GMT+1
Posts: 4,302
Likes: 618 (403 Posts)
Default

To any sane logical person it is obvious we never went to the moon in the 60's and never since either, it was all faked propaganda.
__________________
.

There 'should be' 1000's of REAL, high quality photograph's of earth from space/moon all over the internet - WHERE ARE THEY?!
Likes: (1)
noncooperation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2018, 04:44 AM   #166
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,220 (961 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noncooperation View Post
To any sane logical person it is obvious we never went to the moon in the 60's and never since either, it was all faked propaganda.

I beg your pardon? You mean you wish to do the Jedi mind trick and wave away all the evidence that you ignore and can't explain? All that whilst simultaneously claiming you are sane and logical, and that you represent this whole group of people.

Shit..... you ran off like a big Jessie after the first response I gave. To any sane and logical person we went.

Explain the rocks....logically and sanely
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2018, 10:23 AM   #167
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,090
Likes: 1,397 (832 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
I have pointed out at least 50 times on this forum that they lost NOTHING! The backup tapes were overwritten. BACKUPS. You've quoted posts by me pointing it out!!
You shameless liar.
So your saying that NASA doesn’t Never give A Straight Answer, but the mainstream Telegraph (almost as “independent”) is wrong?
The tapes that were reportedly destroyed by NASA were in the "slow scan" format (that was the format reportedly received directly from the mooon) of a much “better” quality than the fuzzy footage where we could see through the astronauts.
Quote:
The specially designed lunar camera strapped to the side of the landing craft recorded in an unusual, "slow scan" format that needed to be converted for broadcast television back on Earth, causing the images to be substantially degraded.
But the quality of the slow scan images on magnetic tapes was near perfect, according to Stan Lebar, who designed the camera. "It was better. We knew it was better," he said.
https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...&postcount=124


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
So bloody what anyway. Apollo 11 has very little going on in front of the camera.
The Apollo 11 footage is so ridiculous that even 5-year-olds wouldn't call this "evidence"...
__________________
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; 28-08-2018 at 10:23 AM.
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2018, 01:51 PM   #168
ianw
Senior Member
 
ianw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,026
Likes: 143 (107 Posts)
Default

Whats it matter, even if they found them they lost the technology to play them back.




.
__________________
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 28-08-2018, 04:09 PM   #169
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,220 (961 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
The Apollo 11 footage is so ridiculous that even 5-year-olds wouldn't call this "evidence"...
Yet this is about the 10th post where you keep going on about the bloody BACKUP tapes being overwritten. Nobody claims the Apollo 11 footage is proof. The Apollo 11 rocks are. The seismic experiment is. The LRRR is. LROC landing site pictures are. I listed the proof before....needless to say you ran away.

As for your claim......what the hell is it? It's only recently that they determined the backups would produce a clearer picture. But not that much clearer than the subsequent digitally restored one. And they would need to build or repair one of the old style readers.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2018, 10:13 AM   #170
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,090
Likes: 1,397 (832 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw
Whats it matter, even if they found them they lost the technology to play them back.
There is no such thing as “lost technology” (although I admit I can’t explain how the pyramids were built).
NASA would still have the blueprints. Even if they didn’t, they should be able to recreate the reader to play the “slow scan” format.


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Nobody claims the Apollo 11 footage is proof.
I am surprised that you admit that the video footage of Apollo 11 isn’t even “evidence” that astronauts walked on the moon...

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
The seismic experiment is.
Now if only NASA could prove that a seismometer was placed on the moon...
Maybe they could send astronauts to the moon to “prove” once and for all that almost 50 years ago American astronauts placed the flag of stripes and corruption on the moon?

On 25 May 1961, President John F. Kennedy made his famous speech to Congress:
Quote:
I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.
I took a mere 8 years before the Apollo 11 moon landing was staged…

In May 1989, President George Bush Sr, made a similar announcement calling for a permanent camp on the moon and going to Mars.

In 2004, President George W. Bush called for starting a program going “back” to the moon by 2015 (still not staged)...
President Bush Jr. also said that soon after that the Moon should become "a launching point to missions beyond" (including the “red planet” Mars): https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/p...ploration.html


Master showman Donald Trump seems to understand the true nature of propaganda and on 24 April 2017 promised a trip to Mars “during my first term or, at worst, during my second term” (within 4 years...).
There are also plans for an unmanned mission the moon before the end of 2018: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=322617
__________________
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 29-08-2018, 03:43 PM   #171
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,220 (961 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
There is no such thing as “lost technology” (although I admit I can’t explain how the pyramids were built).
NASA would still have the blueprints. Even if they didn’t, they should be able to recreate the reader to play the “slow scan” format.
Only recently was it apparent that a better quality could have been retrieved from the backups. Hindsight in the hands of a conspiracy theorist is like a turd hand grenade


Quote:
I am surprised that you admit that the video footage of Apollo 11 isn’t even “evidence” that astronauts walked on the moon...
My god, this is like pulling teeth. I said it wasn't PROOF, not EVIDENCE. It isn't proof, because of the quality and low activity. Nobody HAS proven it was faked, let alone all the other things you studiously ignore!!

Repeat:

Apollo 11 brought back loads of rocks and soil analysed and authenticated. It was tracked to the surface by Jodrell Bank, noting the blip caused by overflying the boulder field. Independent radio signals were received from the surface that were a different time signature to the TV signals and without the surface dialogue!

There are dozens of pictures of Earth that match the exact trajectory flown and at the other end dozens and dozens of Lunar pictures doing the same. They left seismic recorders which later sent data back from collisions. They left laser reflectors which have been fired at accurately for 50 years.

In my signature there is an analysis of images that match weather satellite data of the Earth cloud patterns that could not possibly have been setup beforehand. Allied to that is video footage showing the same weather patterns and an unbroken sequence showing both the Earth rotating and clearly video footage from considerable distance.

There are LROC images clearly showing the landing site. Images from the surface have had their shadow and Earth locations analysed to show exact correlation with what should be seen. Minor stuff like shadow lengths diminishing during unbroken DAC footage in line with the rising sun.

That doesn't even cover the thousands of technical documents or scientific reports from the ALSEP data.


Quote:
Now if only NASA could prove that a seismometer was placed on the moon...
Thousands of analyses from the surface transmitted data!! You just ignore it or wave it away.

https://www.college-de-france.fr/med..._nov20_cdf.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17799298
https://www.space.com/9710-details-m...year-data.html

Quote:
Maybe they could send astronauts to the moon to “prove” once and for all that almost 50 years ago American astronauts placed the flag of stripes and corruption on the moon?
Or maybe we can see them from LROC pictures! The rocks prove we landed on the Moon, as do the LRRR, the visible lunar gravity and on and on. So pathetic that you ignore these!

Quote:
On 25 May 1961, President John F. Kennedy made his famous speech to Congress: I took a mere 8 years before the Apollo 11 moon landing was staged…
Apollo wasn't staged and 8yrs of TESTING, TESTING and TESTING

Quote:
In May 1989, President George Bush Sr, made a similar announcement calling for a permanent camp on the moon and going to Mars.
So what, irrelevant. Nobody wanted to commit the funds.

Quote:
In 2004, President George W. Bush called for starting a program going “back” to the moon by 2015 (still not staged)...
President Bush Jr. also said that soon after that the Moon should become "a launching point to missions beyond" (including the “red planet” Mars): https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/p...ploration.html
So what, irrelevant. Nobody wanted to commit the funds.

Quote:
Master showman Donald Trump seems to understand the true nature of propaganda
It isn't propaganda just because you say it is

Quote:
and on 24 April 2017 promised a trip to Mars “during my first term or, at worst, during my second term” (within 4 years...).
There are also plans for an unmanned mission the moon before the end of 2018: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=322617
So what, irrelevant.

Explain the rocks, the visible lunar gravity, weather patterns, pictures matching exact trajectories...and on and on...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 08:51 PM   #172
elshaper
Senior Member
 
elshaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pandæmonium
Posts: 25,477
Likes: 5,372 (3,613 Posts)
Default puppy realized he was deceived...

Even the dog realises it....
__________________
Exodus 34:19 "All that openeth the matrix is mine;"
Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the Lord do all these things. (I'm not a Christian!!)

Mark 11:12-25 - Jesus Curses a Fig Tree because he was hungry.

A Town Cursed by Jesus

Last edited by elshaper; 02-09-2018 at 08:52 PM.
Likes: (1)
elshaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2018, 11:03 AM   #173
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 638
Likes: 32 (15 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
In fact....anybody with any genuine truthing instinct will notice that I am the one doing all the honest posting.
Not really. You're a clever shill, I'll give you that. But you're very selective in what you respond to, and confuse obfuscation with rationality. Anyway, to repeat some of the issues you very cleverly avoided:

1: The temperature on the moon's surface during the day is too high for the suits NASA claimed to have used. And at night or in the shade the temperature is too low. Both the specs and the temperature data for this is easily verifiable.

2: Only the surface has an active temperature, but any object on that surface, like Freemasons engaging in a ritual, like Neil Armstrong was doing, would as well. This was a particularly shoddy piece of obfuscation on your part.

3: Radiation is the stated reason why NASA now say that manned missions outside near earth orbit are impossible. If it is impossible now, how was it possible between 1969 and 1972? Never before or since has anyone claimed this to be possible or that they have launched or taken part in such a mission. Except for the Apollo scams of course, including the endless lying operation about them afterwards/

4: Radiation and measurements vary, but most studies conclude that the radiation levels experienced anywhere at all outside of near earth orbit on a lunar expedition would be at minimum 100 times surface levels. It would be higher during bursts and in the VA Belt by unknown amounts. Why is there no cancer spike among alleged astronauts from this time period? There was little to no radiation shielding on these vehicles.

Forget the pictures, which is the low hanging fruit for all shills. These are the real questions, not lighting and hills. I have already done it in this thread once and have little interest in doing it again. But if you push me with denial and sophistry I'll drown you in documentation for all of this. Sending men to the moon is, according to NASA, impossible. Who are you to contradict them? Are you more of an expert on manned space flight than they are? Why do you think there have been zero manned missions to space since 1972? Because NASA doesn't want to go to space? What you are claiming is that the age of manned space flight lasted for three years and then ended. And this, to you, is a rational position to take.
The simplest, and therefore most rational, answer is that the US government lied for political purposes. This answers all of these questions, as well as all the frivolous ones you have been so merrily engaging in here, and we can move on. It was all just an elaborate PR operation against the USSR, necessary because the deranged US government couldn't "lose face". And this is far from impossible. Governments lie and cover it up afterwards all the time. And they keep secrets of all kinds too, if necessary forever. Even if exposed, as the US government has been about the USS Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor or the assassinations in the 60s, it simply keeps telling the same lie unchanged, no matter how ridiculous it gets. I know all your rationalizations by heart and am expecting a barrage of them now. But answer the questions. Why was the era of manned human space flight three years long. Does that really make any sense to you? And remember that answering "yes" to this question makes you a fool. Because it obviously does not make even the slightest bit of sense. If there was any way to go, people would go. There might be gold and things in space. You don't know. And even if there isn't, there is property. And I've never heard of any property or resource the US government wouldn't want to steal if it could.

But it can't. Because of unpredictable radiation and extreme temperatures.

Last edited by skulb; 20-09-2018 at 11:05 AM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2018, 04:32 PM   #174
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,090
Likes: 1,397 (832 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
Sending men to the moon is, according to NASA, impossible. Who are you to contradict them? Are you more of an expert on manned space flight than they are? Why do you think there have been zero manned missions to space since 1972? Because NASA doesn't want to go to space? What you are claiming is that the age of manned space flight lasted for three years and then ended. And this, to you, is a rational position to take.
I didn't even realise, seeing your earlier posts in this thread, that you don't believe at all that astronuts actually walked on the moon...
__________________
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; 20-09-2018 at 04:32 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-09-2018, 03:38 PM   #175
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,223
Likes: 1,327 (862 Posts)
Default

They did but how do we know they did ON THAT DAY IN 1969??

We dont really..........
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 09:24 AM   #176
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,090
Likes: 1,397 (832 Posts)
Default

I’ve searched the internet for information on “NASA BOTs”, “NASA astroturfers” and “NASA trolls”...
I didn’t find a single story!

Obviously people like me that are disgusted with the blatant “ad hominem” attacks by clueless “debunkers” don’t have the right to speak.
To add injury to insult, according to the stories on the internet the trolls that work for NASA actually deserves “some credit” for “fighting trolls on the internet”.

I found 3 stories, about the wonderful NASA that with its billion dollar budget harasses anybody that doesn’t agree (spreads “misinformation”) with the official story.

The following story on “climate change” was the most interesting of these 3...
After Bill Nye “The Science Guy”, a popular “scientist” and media personality in the US, posted on Facebook about climate change deniers, things turned ugly. He and the concept of climate change were attacked. And then NASA started responding in defence of “climate change”...

One of the “climate deniers over rising global temperatures” got warned to not “misrepresent” NASA: https://qz.com/662872/do-not-misrepr...s-on-facebook/

It seems we can expect more of this online “trolling” by the US government.
At the end of February, the US State Department announced that it gets $40 million from the Pentagon for the new internet troll farm “Global Engagement Center”: https://news.antiwar.com/2018/02/26/...nd-troll-farm/
__________________
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 05-10-2018, 04:17 PM   #177
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,090
Likes: 1,397 (832 Posts)
Default

Doors; Lunar dust

One of the many problems in a (real) lunar mission would be to get in and out of the lunar module. There would be problems that are comparable to being sucked out of plane by the difference in pressure (but the other way around). The way to solve this would be to depressurise (the inside of) the lunar module before exiting.

To make the door (hatch) better at keeping the vacuum “out” it would open to the inside of the module. This would make it much more difficult to get out of the lunar module.
See the hatch of the 13 Lunar Module turning to the inside.


The hatch was only 32 inches square wide and high. The height would be an even bigger problem than the width (especially with the backpack).
There should have been major concerns that those magical suits would tear getting in and out of the module.
There would (again) be the major problem of testing, because the space suits (on earth) weigh something like 200 pounds.

NASA made instruction manuals for just about any part of the mission but not for getting in and out of the Lunar Module. Not even on how to depressurise the lunar module before exiting and repressurising it after getting back from an excursion on the moon surface.

According to Apollo 15 astronaut they did training with the space suit and backpack in 1/6 gravity on earth (g). They could have only done that in a dropping plane, but NOT in vacuum and radiation comparable to that on the moon.
Maybe they could have put a model of a Lunar Module including hatch in the plane though:
Quote:
I'm wondering if we ever did any ingress training at one-sixth g. I don't think we did[1]. I was just surprised that I had such difficulty [with LM egress and ingress on the moon], because I'd done a lot of practice in one g with the backpack on because, originally, in the LTA-8 tests -- for the thermal vacuum chamber -- they were going to use the PLSS under one-g conditions. You know, climb the ladder and go through the hatch, just like we do on the Moon. I'd done that several times and had no difficulty.
http://www.clavius.org/lmdoors.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/JAS03)


Another huge problem would be the lunar dust that would pile up in the lunar module every time the astronauts returned from an excursion on the moon surface. They could try to clean that with water, but that wouldn’t be very effective (I have experienced several holidays in a house on the beach covered with sand).
According to NASA this lunar dust has serious adverse health effects.
On later missions they reportedly brought a vacuum cleaner...

The Apollo 11 crew members reported: "Particles covered everything and a stain remained even after our best attempts to brush it off;
[d]istinct pungent odor like gunpowder [was] noted when helmet [was] removed
".

During Apollo 12, the crew members noted several issues on dust in the lunar and central module: "Both LM and CM contaminated with lunar dust;
[LM] was filthy dirty and had so much dust that when I took my helmet off, I was almost blinded. Junk immediately got into my eyes;
[t]he whole thing was just a cloud of fine dust floating around in there.

On the way back in the CM the system could not handle the dust, so it was continuously spread inside the spacecraft by the system;
[w]e chose to remain in the suit loop as much as possible because of the dust and debris floating around;
[t]o keep our eyes from burning and our noses from inhaling these small particles, we left our helmet sitting on top of our heads
": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advers..._dust_exposure
__________________
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; 05-10-2018 at 04:18 PM.
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2018, 01:13 PM   #178
liselott
Senior Member
 
liselott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 309
Likes: 20 (13 Posts)
Default

When you look at pictures of the so called lunar lander it looks like something slapped together from cardboard, cloth, duct tape and tinfoil. I have a very hard time believing that it was possible to land on the moon in something like that.
Likes: (1)
liselott 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 09:53 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.