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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-07-2018, 03:02 PM   #41
ianw
Senior Member
 
ianw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,026
Likes: 143 (107 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post

Wow, what a crock of shit. You contradict every other piece of HB bullshit about how hot it was When the sun is low, at least 50% of the suit is in shadow. When directly above very little is.
So when looking for an all over even tan its best to go out in the morning and get your indoor jobs done when the sun is high. Top info for anyone leading a busy life and cant find time to be laying round on a sun lounger.



.
__________________
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 02-07-2018, 04:40 PM   #42
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 Bewildering shite yet again.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
So when looking for an all over even tan its best to go out in the morning and get your indoor jobs done when the sun is high. Top info for anyone leading a busy life and cant find time to be laying round on a sun lounger.



.
Is there no end to the drivel you post My quote and your completely idiotic response have no connection. Your claim about less Sun at high noon.....refuted...you follow up by making the same claim about bloody suntans! You irritant.

That is the opposite to what I said. More sun more heat at high noon.
__________________
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 04-07-2018, 06:11 AM   #43
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,223
Likes: 1,327 (862 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deca
Have They Lied To Us About Absolutely EVERYTHING??
Yes.... Everything we have been told is based on lies...... We have to have an awake mind to see thru to the real world!!
Likes: (1)
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2018, 04:57 PM   #44
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,090
Likes: 1,397 (832 Posts)
Default Ralph Rene - NASA Mooned America

Quote:
Originally Posted by eddieb View Post
He also states that the Moon day is much longer than on earth and this makes a joke of what NASA try to fool us with such as heat and cold.
As stated I'm only half way through but I will say he certainly makes a mockery of NASA.

https://ia800406.us.archive.org/31/i...%20237%20p.pdf
Notwithstanding what NASA has to say about the late Ralph Rene (1933-2008), I think the book is pretty good.
My main problem with the book is that some of the arguments are hard to understand. I think this means that Rene didn’t understand all the arguments in his book…
Most of the following comes from the book, but I’ve added some information on radiation.


Radiation
Our greatly admired NASA-BOT once claimed that the radiation on the moon couldn’t even “pass through paper”. For me, this confirmed to me that radiation on the moon would be one of the reasons the Apollo moon landings almost 50 years would’ve been impossible.
After my reply I got the following explanation:
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Stars/Sun/X-ray_sources

"Although the more energetic X-rays, photons with an energy greater than 30 keV (4,800 aJ) can penetrate the air at least for distances of a few meters (they would never have been detected and medical X-ray machines would not work if this was not the case) the Earth's atmosphere is thick enough that virtually none are able to penetrate from outer space all the way to the Earth's surface. X-rays in the 0.5 to 5 keV (80 to 800 aJ) range, where most celestial sources give off the bulk of their energy, can be stopped by a few sheets of paper; ninety percent of the photons in a beam of 3 keV (480 aJ) X-rays are absorbed by traveling through just 10 cm of air."
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1063023571

Notice that the highlighted text shows that not only X-rays of low energy (that could be stopped by “a few sheets of paper”) come from the moon.
Followed by:
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Flares are not all powerful omni-directional things.....none occurred during Apollo. Small ones yes. The dangerous ones no.
One of the important problems in the moon landings are the Van Allen radiation belts: energetic charged particles circling earth and held in place by earth's magnetic field.
The following Youtube video shows that even in 2018, the Van Allen belts are considered a serious problem in staging a new moon landing. I wouldn’t say that NASA “admits” that the Van Allen belts would have prevented the Apollo moon landings though.


If theoretically the rocket could get passed the Van Allen belt the radiation problems do not end. The Van Allen belt and our atmosphere effectively protect us on earth from radiation.
According to the “reputable” NASA:
Quote:
In the late 1940s, sounding rocket experiments showed that the Sun is, in fact, a very strong X-ray emitter. Astronomers were surprised! What's going on?

The X-rays we detect from the Sun do not come from the Sun's surface, but from the solar corona, which is the upper layer of the Sun's atmosphere. Only very hot gases can emit X-rays, and the corona, at millions of degrees, is hot enough to emit X-rays, while the much cooler surface of the Sun is not. Thus, the Sun's atmosphere is an excellent source of X-rays.
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/objects/sun2.html

The problems with radiation also apply to the voyage to the moon…
There are ways to block radiation, but these (metals) add a lot of weight, which makes them impossible to use in rocket “science” (but in rocket “science fiction” radiation won’t be a real problem).

A large solar flare emits massive amounts of radiation and if any would happen during the moon missions, including the voyage, this could be fatal. These solar flares cannot be predicted...
In 1963, Soviet rocket “scientists” told the British astronomer Bernard Lovell that they "could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation". Had the Soviets never heard of H.G. Wells?
The table below shows the monthly amount of solar flares from 1967 to 1973. From 1969 to 1972, when the moon landings were staged, there were 18.5 flares a “day” (24 hours) on average. This is even worse than the Van Allen belts.
The astronauts would have gotten more than 100 solar flares per trip on average. If one flare wouldn’t kill you: 100 surely would…


Heat on the moon
Most people imagine that it’s very cold on the moon. The following picture shows the surface temperature on the moon according to the “reliable” NASA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Surface temperatures on the moon range from about 120 degrees above zero Celsius in the sun at lunar midday, to precisely 273 degrees below zero in the lunar night.
The moon landings were staged at the part of the moon in the full sun: hotter than the hottest desert in the burning sun or a car that has been standing in the burning sun (hotter than boiling water). This doesn’t only apply to the time on the moon, but even to the 3-day-trip in the rocket from and to the moon…
Touching objects on the moon, like rocks, would burn your hands because of the heat (unless of course you have magical gloves).

Because of vacuum, it is very difficult to get rid of the heat as there is absolutely nothing to give the heat to – no cooling wind. Theoretically opening a window while moving fast wouldn’t even get rid of the heat.
The only way I know of to get rid of heat in vacuum is by radiation. Getting rid of heat by radiation can be calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law: how much heat an object can get rid of through radiation is dependent on its temperature. Under “normal” circumstances this would be a slow process (especially for the type of reflective material they would use to block radiation), not enough to cool down the additional heat that continues to come from the sun.
I guess that NASA has made up a great story on “radiation cooling” – not only for the “normal” cooling of the rocket, but also for the magical engine that could generate enough power to stop the lunar module from crashing and lifting off the moon…


Magical space suits
How these elegant space suits would be able to prevent those poor astronauts from boiling in their skin because of the heat is beyond my comprehension. Another big problem (arguably even bigger) would be the vacuum.
There was reportedly a crotch-to-shoulder zipper across the suit. In science labs, where they use vacuum compartments to conduct experiments, they don’t use zippers. Maybe because zippers have many small holes...
Going to the toilet would be impossible. I haven’t heard stories on how these courageous astronauts wore diapers yet (although maybe at the age they are now)…

Of course these flexible suits looked great for the cameras! I would expect that, because of the difference in pressure inside the suit compared to the vacuum outside, the space suit would blow up like a balloon. This could cause a fatal puncture in the suit…
This ballooning effect is missing from the moon videos and photos.
Collins has explained how this ballooning was overcome:
Quote:
Instead of having a simple restraining net, it controlled the shape of its inflated bladder by a complex array of bellows, stiff fabric, inflexible tubes, and sliding cables.
I would expect that the gloves in particular would be impossible to design. How could they make vacuum-proof gloves and prevent the balloon-effect?


Apollo 13
While the “normal” Apollo missions were clearly impossible, the Apollo 13 was even more laughable.
Because the main rocket ship was having problems, they took the Lunar Module instead and got safely back to earth…
If this would be possible, they wouldn’t even have needed 2 different space ships (the main ship and the module) in the first place!


A mistake?
The author Ralph Rene claims that he “saved the best for last” (added information after his book was first published)…
Rene explains that he and Bill Kaysing had been working with Bart Sibrel. And refers to Sibrel’s video "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" (2000): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4

Rene claims that this video (about 34:00 to 40:30) exposes that on 18 July 1969, Aldrin, Armstrong and Michael Collins were supposed to be half way to the Moon (“130,000 miles out” from earth) but in reality they were in a low Earth orbit (under the Van Allan belts) staging earth shots.
The voice-over sounds convincing when claiming that also on 19 and 20 July 1969 (only 9 hours before they reportedly reached the moon) they were in low Earth orbit again staging earth shots. I don’t see any evidence for this wild claim…
I conclude that not all the claims in the book are sound, but mostly strong arguments are presented.


More strange shadows
Just look at the shadows of Armstrong (on the left) and Aldrin (with their magical gloves!).
Their shadows aren’t parallel, which is only a minor discrepancy compared to the huge difference in length of their shadows. Neil and Buzz are of a comparable length (Buzz a little longer), but Buzz's shadow is almost 1.5 times as long as Neil’s!
__________________
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; 05-07-2018 at 08:55 AM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2018, 08:00 PM   #45
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

Clueless shit from the scaredy cat St. Jimmy. I'll tear this to bits later on when I get time.

The thing is.....the whackamole plagiarized post is just a symptom of total gullibility. The last bit about parallel shadows is just moronic. It all depends on terrain. Even more moronic, the variable shadow lengths doesn't even prove it was on Earth. If it was an impossible magic light, the nearer shadow would be shorter anyway!

The reason one shadow is smaller is that half way up it, there is a slope.....duhhh.



See the LM shadow....just at far right, see it bend as it hits the slope.
__________________
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; 04-07-2018 at 10:36 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2018, 08:59 AM   #46
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
The reason one shadow is smaller is that half way up it, there is a slope.....duhhh.
There would have to be a huge difference in angle to the sun over only a couple of meters between Aldrin and Armstrong to account for the difference of almost 50% in length of the shadow.

I've looked at the photo. It don't see this huge difference in slope between Aldrin and Armstrong with the flag of stripes and corruption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
This is confirmed by the close-up (I still don't see a shadow of the pole, but it looks like the flag is waving in the vacuum)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
__________________
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; 05-07-2018 at 09:03 AM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2018, 09:29 AM   #47
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 would have to be a huge difference in angle to the sun over only a couple of meters between Aldrin and Armstrong to account for the difference of almost 50% in length of the shadow.
Must I draw a stupid diagram for you? The slope begins at the point where his waist casts a shadow



Quote:
I've looked at the photo. It don't see this huge difference in slope between Aldrin and Armstrong with the flag of stripes and corruption.
What photo? How are you going to see a grey slope against a grey flat area Are you hyper clueless? I posted the LM picture showing the shadow change direction as it hits the slope!

If this was being lit by ANYTHING other than the Sun, the FAR object will have a longer shadow. So it has to be the Sun, it is a slope. Take off your blinkers and start using that bloody brain.....logic

Quote:
This is confirmed by the close-up
The slope isn't on that picture, it begins just a bit above where his waist casts a shadow. Their legs are the same length shadow.

Quote:
(I still don't see a shadow of the pole,
FFS! What are you bloody suggesting here? They magically cut and pasted a flag on the picture? Or some magic lighting doesn't cast a shadow?



Quote:
but it looks like the flag is waving in the vacuum)...
Are you deliberately trying to act really dumb? The flag is held up by a cross member support so that it is opened out. It's also a static picture, so how does your brain see it moving
__________________
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; 05-07-2018 at 09:32 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2018, 09:34 AM   #48
ianw
Senior Member
 
ianw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,026
Likes: 143 (107 Posts)
Default

I dont subscribe to the notion apolo moon missions happened.
There is no reason why a flag wont wave in a vacuum.
However if you want to contend that it was a breeze within the vacuum say so.
There is a rolla disk of rebuttals just waiting to be rolled out so you need to word your questioning with
thought and reason behind what you say or you will just come across as the straight man lining up the punch lines as part of a comedy duo.







.
__________________
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 05-07-2018, 10:02 AM   #49
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
Notwithstanding what NASA has to say about the late Ralph Rene (1933-2008)
NASA has nothing at all to say about him. He is a piffling buffoon and they don't pander to idiotic conspiracy theorist.

Quote:
I think the book is pretty good.
You should try not to think so much, you're not very good at it.

Quote:
My main problem with the book is that some of the arguments are hard to understand. I think this means that Rene didn’t understand all the arguments in his book…
Rene was an imbecile who amongst other things thought Pi and Archimedes was wrong. He was widely regarded as a crank whenever he came out with one of his "ideas"

Quote:
Radiation
Our greatly admired NASA-BOT once claimed that the radiation on the moon couldn’t even “pass through paper”. For me, this confirmed to me that radiation on the moon would be one of the reasons the Apollo moon landings almost 50 years would’ve been impossible.
LIAR! I said x-rays from the Sun during normal conditions could not pass through paper. I cited a reference or 2 to support this. How you can see the references then deduce the opposite is baffling.

Quote:
After my reply I got the following explanation:
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1063023571

Notice that the highlighted text shows that not only X-rays of low energy (that could be stopped by “a few sheets of paper”) come from the moon.
Your understanding is really useless. The x-rays come from the SUN, not the bloody Moon This is embarrassing, the citation proves my point....can you bloody read properly?

Quote:
One of the important problems in the moon landings are the Van Allen radiation belts: energetic charged particles circling earth and held in place by earth's magnetic field.
Indeed. They solved the problem by taking an elevated path of 30 degrees plus the magnetic tilt of 11 degrees, that took the craft through the very weak areas both outward and inward journeys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spgdCjQhLY0


Quote:
The following Youtube video shows that even in 2018, the Van Allen belts are considered a serious problem in staging a new moon landing. I wouldn’t say that NASA “admits” that the Van Allen belts would have prevented the Apollo moon landings though.
A number of reasons why they could cause problems:

1. Orion is scheduled to make numerous flights to the Moon. The launch windows to allow it to land on the designated landing area will not allow the same elevated trajectory for every journey. It will have to go through stronger areas of the belts.
2. Orion has micro circuitry that is more susceptible to charged particles than Apollo circuits.
3. Modern more stricter safety standards compared to Apollo.

Quote:
If theoretically the rocket could get passed the Van Allen belt the radiation problems do not end.
There is no theoretical They took routes through weaker areas.

Quote:
The Van Allen belt and our atmosphere effectively protect us on earth from radiation.
Not so much at the poles, I see nobody dropping dead from radiation poisoning

Quote:
According to the “reputable” NASA: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/objects/sun2.html
You really should give this up. You clearly haven't a bloody clue what you are talking about. Citing x-rays from the Sun, which are classified as soft in nature, as the source of radiation exposure in space is just stupid.

The biggest problem is galactic cosmic rays. For short duration missions, this is miniscule. The VAB does not protect Earth from these, the atmosphere does to a certain extent. So the ISS occupants deal with months of GCR exposure!

Quote:
The problems with radiation also apply to the voyage to the moon…
There are ways to block radiation, but these (metals) add a lot of weight, which makes them impossible to use in rocket “science” (but in rocket “science fiction” radiation won’t be a real problem).
The radiation outside the VAB is attenuated by the aluminium hull and panelling. In addition, the equipment banks added extra shielding. The CM was rated at 8g cm^2, adding the full length of the SM at one end and the LM at the other, the exposure was very low.

Quote:
A large solar flare emits massive amounts of radiation and if any would happen during the moon missions, including the voyage, this could be fatal. These solar flares cannot be predicted...
Well during Apollo, they can see them and give a few hours warning, but luckily there were ZERO major flares during ANY mission.

Contingency plans involved orientating the full length of the Service Module towards incoming particles. If on the surface, return / redock.

Quote:
In 1963, Soviet rocket “scientists” told the British astronomer Bernard Lovell that they "could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation". Had the Soviets never heard of H.G. Wells?
And of course he is perfectly correct, major solar flares are a great concern for extended space flight. As stated, there were none during Apollo. The odds were heavily in their favour that none would occur whilst in flight.

Quote:
The table below shows the monthly amount of solar flares from 1967 to 1973. From 1969 to 1972, when the moon landings were staged, there were 18.5 flares a “day” (24 hours) on average.
Solar flares are NOT omni-directional. They fire out in the direction expelled and rarely come near Earth / Moon at any real strength.

Quote:
This is even worse than the Van Allen belts.
No it isn't.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/s...fy-flares.html

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has devised categories for the flares and various storms. The biggest flares are known as "X-class flares" based on a classification system that divides solar flares according to their strength. The smallest ones are A-class (near background levels), followed by B, C, M, and X. Similar to the Richter scale for earthquakes, each letter represents a 10-fold increase in energy output. So an X is ten times an M and 100 times a C. Within each letter class there is a finer scale from 1 to 9.

C-class and smaller flares are too weak to noticeably affect Earth. M-class flares can cause brief radio blackouts at the poles and minor radiation storms that might endanger astronauts."



Quote:
The astronauts would have gotten more than 100 solar flares per trip on average. If one flare wouldn’t kill you: 100 surely would…
Nope. They would have got none. None of the flares in that index are X class, some are M class but the majority are C or lower. Their occurrence doesn't mean they came towards Earth!

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996CoSka..26...98A

Part 2 response to this dumb post after I've had a cup of tea...…
__________________
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; 05-07-2018 at 10:07 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2018, 11:23 AM   #50
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
Heat on the moon
Most people imagine that it’s very cold on the moon. The following picture shows the surface temperature on the moon according to the “reliable” NASA.
Yes, reliable NASA and a whole host of other agencies and scientific organisations Most people KNOW it is cold on the Moon for 14 days. During the Day, the temperature of the surface climbs slowly until after 7 days it hits maximum, then as the Sun passes zenith, it starts to tail off again. It is at maximum temperature for maybe 2 Earth days.

The Lunar missions all landed during Lunar morning, the maximum elevation of the Sun was 48 degrees on one mission, that puts the surface at 60C.

Quote:
Surface temperatures on the moon range from about 120 degrees above zero Celsius in the sun at lunar midday, to precisely 273 degrees below zero in the lunar night.
Sorry, have to applaud you actually getting something correct.

Quote:
The moon landings were staged at the part of the moon in the full sun: hotter than the hottest desert in the burning sun or a car that has been standing in the burning sun (hotter than boiling water).
A TOTAL LIE! ALL missions landed in the morning and departed well before Noon.

Once again here is the list of Sun elevations per mission and EVA.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-sunangles.html

EVAs Sorted by Sun Angle at EVA Start
•Apollo 12 EVA-1 7.5 - 9.5
•Apollo 14 EVA-1 13.0 - 15.5
•Apollo 15 SEVA 13.0 - 13.3
•Apollo 11 EVA-1 14.0 - 15.4
•Apollo 17 EVA-1 15.3 - 19.0
•Apollo 12 EVA-2 15.8 - 17.8
•Apollo 15 EVA-1 19.6 - 22.9
•Apollo 14 EVA-2 22.0 - 24.3
•Apollo 16 EVA-1 22.1 - 25.7
•Apollo 17 EVA-2 27.3 - 31.2
•Apollo 15 EVA-2 31.0 - 34.7
•Apollo 16 EVA-2 34.1 - 37.9
•Apollo 17 EVA-3 39.0 - 42.6
•Apollo 15 EVA-3 41.7 - 44.2
•Apollo 16 EVA-3 45.8 - 48.7


Quote:
This doesn’t only apply to the time on the moon, but even to the 3-day-trip in the rocket from and to the moon…
And? The Apollo crafts had numerous layers, multiple layers of vacuum between. The only problem with heat was from internal body heat and equipment.

Quote:
Touching objects on the moon, like rocks, would burn your hands because of the heat
BULLSHIT. Sand on the beach gets hotter than the surface temperature in the Lunar morning.

Quote:
(unless of course you have magical gloves).
The appeal to incredulity. Bare hands would not get burnt from a 60C object

Quote:
Because of vacuum, it is very difficult to get rid of the heat as there is absolutely nothing to give the heat to – no cooling wind.
Stupid statement. The heat is given off as thermal radiation. I don't know what this statement refers to. The spacesuit had reflective layers, multiple layers and internal cooling for body heat. The LM had multiple layers of heat reflecting foils and the hull had multiple layers of vacuum between sheets.

Quote:
Theoretically opening a window while moving fast wouldn’t even get rid of the heat.


Quote:
The only way I know of to get rid of heat in vacuum is by radiation.
Well duhhh.

Quote:
Getting rid of heat by radiation can be calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law: how much heat an object can get rid of through radiation is dependent on its temperature. Under “normal” circumstances this would be a slow process (especially for the type of reflective material they would use to block radiation), not enough to cool down the additional heat that continues to come from the sun.
The multi-layered suits/LM / CM were plenty good enough to deal with heat. The main problem with heat was that of body heat and equipment heat.

Both the suit and LM used a sublimation heat exchange system. Two water circuits. Circuit one passed water over a plate with hundreds of tiny holes in. As the water passed through the hole and hit zero pressure vacuum, it instantly boiled and lost all energy, then froze, blocking the hole. Circuit 2 passed water from the thermal garment worn(with water pipes passing over the body) against the other side of the iced up micro-pore plate, cooling it down.

Quote:
I guess that NASA has made up a great story on “radiation cooling” – not only for the “normal” cooling of the rocket, but also for the magical engine that could generate enough power to stop the lunar module from crashing and lifting off the moon…
Ahhh, this is your idiotic claim again. Nothing you just typed is accurate, no amount of facts or explanation will change your very ignorant opinion. The rocket to descend generated 10,125 pounds-force - plenty for the job.

What world exists that makes every single space engineer or even physicist completely wrong about the delta-v on the Lunar Module and you, a complete nobody with not a clue, correct? Do you have such a high opinion of yourself


Quote:
Magical space suits
How these elegant space suits would be able to prevent those poor astronauts from boiling in their skin because of the heat is beyond my comprehension.
Seriously? The same suits as used today on the ISS. I cannot fathom how anybody would be so stupid as to not know how to reflect IR. The space suits didn't allow a single thing through, the only heat to get rid of was body heat.

Quote:
Another big problem (arguably even bigger) would be the vacuum.
Nope.

Quote:
There was reportedly a crotch-to-shoulder zipper across the suit.
No, really there wasn't, that is just bullshit.

Quote:
In science labs, where they use vacuum compartments to conduct experiments, they don’t use zippers. Maybe because zippers have many small holes...
Well duhh. A stupid strawman.

Quote:
Going to the toilet would be impossible.
They went beforeheand and wore adult nappies just in case.

Quote:
I haven’t heard stories on how these courageous astronauts wore diapers yet (although maybe at the age they are now)…
The imbecile Ralph Rene at his dumbest.

Quote:
Of course these flexible suits looked great for the cameras! I would expect that, because of the difference in pressure inside the suit compared to the vacuum outside, the space suit would blow up like a balloon. This could cause a fatal puncture in the suit…
What the imbecile Ralph Rene "would expect" is irrelevant. The suits used pure oxygen, at 3.7psi. Just over 1/4 of atmospheric pressure. Also the inner layer of the suit was the pressure garment.

Quote:
This ballooning effect is missing from the moon videos and photos.
Well duhhhh. Another idiotic strawman.

Quote:
Collins has explained how this ballooning was overcome:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ollins&f=false

Yes, how it was OVERCOME! Just like on the ISS....duhhhhh

Quote:
I would expect that the gloves in particular would be impossible to design. How could they make vacuum-proof gloves and prevent the balloon-effect?
Inner layer pressurised.

Quote:
Apollo 13
While the “normal” Apollo missions were clearly impossible
Nope, nothing this imbecile has said carries any weight.

Quote:
the Apollo 13 was even more laughable.
The appeal to incredulity from this person

Quote:
Because the main rocket ship was having problems, they took the Lunar Module instead and got safely back to earth…
If this would be possible, they wouldn’t even have needed 2 different space ships (the main ship and the module) in the first place!
OMG with bells on. I wasn't aware of this moronic gem. The Service Module, the biggy thing attached to them, contained all the consumables for the trip there and back, including all the fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo...ice_Module_(SM)

The return journey was a free return trajectory. Not available when they stop on the Moon It's also nice to have extra space for the 3 astronauts to move around in. This they did on Apollo 13. The LM descent engine was used as the propulsion system.


Quote:
A mistake?
The author Ralph Rene claims that he “saved the best for last” (added information after his book was first published)…
Rene explains that he and Bill Kaysing had been working with Bart Sibrel. And refers to Sibrel’s video "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" (2000): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4

Rene claims that this video (about 34:00 to 40:30) exposes that on 18 July 1969, Aldrin, Armstrong and Michael Collins were supposed to be half way to the Moon (“130,000 miles out” from earth) but in reality they were in a low Earth orbit (under the Van Allan belts) staging earth shots.
The voice-over sounds convincing when claiming that also on 19 and 20 July 1969 (only 9 hours before they reportedly reached the moon) they were in low Earth orbit again staging earth shots. I don’t see any evidence for this wild claim…
Whackamole x 100. I have lost count of the number of times this total garbage has been presented.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T9ZM50n0z4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDo9Gyy_W6Q


Quote:
I conclude that not all the claims in the book are sound, but mostly strong arguments are presented.
You conclude that do you? Well, you have not the slightest clue about any of this. I just kicked that bullshit to death, I guarantee you won't be able to understand most of it, let alone assimilate and change your daft opinion.
__________________
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; 05-07-2018 at 11:29 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2018, 05:07 PM   #51
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
Must I draw a stupid diagram for you? The slope begins at the point where his waist casts a shadow

Could you please find another preposterous picture that shows that when the spotlight is moved even closer to the people casting a shadow this effect becomes even larger?

Could you get even more stooopid than posting this for evidence that for 2 people standing on a slope with the sun at a relative infinite distance their shadows would differ almost 50% in size?!?
__________________
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 05-07-2018, 05:53 PM   #52
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
Could you please find another preposterous picture that shows that when the spotlight is moved even closer to the people casting a shadow this effect becomes even larger?
You comedian. I give childproof explanations for your plagiarized claim. The further away from a spotlight the LONGER the shadow.
Simple step logic, it therefore must be lit from sonething that cannot make the near shadow shorter! Get it There is only one explanation. Both shadows have the legs the same length....their upper bodies are different. A slope.

You don't even know what you are claiming. It's like the classic ignorant person sees something they don't understand therefore faaaake How would they light that scene on Earth? The answer? Impossible without a slope.

Quote:
Could you get even more stooopid than posting this for evidence that for 2 people standing on a slope with the sun at a relative infinite distance their shadows would differ almost 50% in size?!?


In your face....and you call me stoopid. Owned again.

You are the biggest waste of time on this forum. You have no logic, no critical thinking and really basic stuff flies over your head.

You ignore huge posts like every single HB I have ever come across. Pathetic and cowardly.
__________________
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; 05-07-2018 at 05:57 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2018, 03:00 PM   #53
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
You conclude that do you? Well, you have not the slightest clue about any of this. I just kicked that bullshit to death, I guarantee you won't be able to understand most of it, let alone assimilate and change your daft opinion.
Maybe if you would be able to comprehend more than a “single sheet of paper” you would see that your silly arguments contradict themselves. You posted a picture with a spotlight to show that the shadow "effects" couldn't be the result of using more than 1 spotlight!


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
How would they light that scene on Earth? The answer? Impossible without a slope.




In your face....and you call me stoopid. Owned again.
I had already written that no sharp difference can be seen in slope in the area where the astronauts were doing their thing with the flag of stripes and corruption...
There is no noticeable difference in slope in the pictures of that spot. You ignore this important information!


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
They would have got none. None of the flares in that index are X class, some are M class but the majority are C or lower. Their occurrence doesn't mean they came towards Earth!

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996CoSka..26...98A
That’s an interesting article (un)fortunately it doesn’t support your claim that the astronauts wouldn’t have been killed by the massive amounts of radiation they were exposed to on their trip to the moon...
The “soft” X-rays listed in the paper you posted a link to, includes “high energy” X-rays of an intensity of > 10 ^ -4 W/m2.


For what it’s worth: according to NASA the T in the following table indicates the total intensity of the flares in July 1969 (left side of the table; the right side is June/July 1970).



Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Quote:
There was reportedly a crotch-to-shoulder zipper across the suit.
No, really there wasn't, that is just bullshit.
Here’s a picture of a “pressure garment” zipper from Ed Mitchell’s “Apollo 14” spacesuit.


Here’s another picture of the “Mercury space suit” that is best known for its use in the Project Mercury spaceflight hoax.
It includes “magical” gloves and boots...



Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Both the suit and LM used a sublimation heat exchange system. Two water circuits. Circuit one passed water over a plate with hundreds of tiny holes in. As the water passed through the hole and hit zero pressure vacuum, it instantly boiled and lost all energy, then froze, blocking the hole. Circuit 2 passed water from the thermal garment worn(with water pipes passing over the body) against the other side of the iced up micro-pore plate, cooling it down.
Does anybody believe this science fiction story?!?



Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
The Apollo crafts had numerous layers, multiple layers of vacuum between. The only problem with heat was from internal body heat and equipment.
You ignore that a “solution” like this adds a lot of weight to the rocket ships. This means that such a strategy couldn’t effectively used to block the sunlight and (other) radiation from the sun in rocket “science”.
Of course in “science fiction” NASA could make a tank fly to the moon and back, but not in the “real” world.


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
The heat is given off as thermal radiation. I don't know what this statement refers to. The spacesuit had reflective layers, multiple layers and internal cooling for body heat. The LM had multiple layers of heat reflecting foils and the hull had multiple layers of vacuum between sheets.
Because there is no atmosphere the effects (of the heat) of the sun are much larger.
On earth when the sun is at a low angle (for example in the morning), the intensity of the sunlight falling on earth becomes much less because the sunlight travels a longer distance through the atmosphere. The atmosphere “dims” the sunlight that warms the atmosphere.

There is another effect of the angle at which the sun shines on the moon that is explained in the following picture.
When the sun shines at an angle of 60 degrees from shining “straight down”; the sun becomes 50% less intense as the same (amount of) sunlight heats an area twice as large…


Follow through on this “effect”, the part of a hill in the sunlight on the moon would heat up much faster than the surrounding ground area. The “dark side” of a hill would hardly heat up at all in the early “morning” of the lunar day.
The Apollo moon “movies” were mostly staged on the “sunny” side of hills on the moon, where the heat, during the lunar “morning”, would be even more intense.

The astronauts (in their “magical” space suits) stand or walk (vertically) on the moon. Because of this same “effect”, during the lunar “morning” they would (theoretically) heat up even faster than when the sun would be shining straight down (a couple of earth days later)…

The lunar module would also receive relatively more sunlight during the lunar “morning” than the surrounding surface.
The rocket ship travelling towards the moon (and back) would also be in the full sunlight…
__________________
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; 07-07-2018 at 08:51 AM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2018, 04:53 PM   #54
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,090
Likes: 1,397 (832 Posts)
Default Dave McGowan - Wagging the Moondoggie

I’ve found another relatively long story in 14 parts on the moon landing hoax, by the late Dave McGowan - "Wagging the Moondoggie": http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/

I don’t think that McGowan spend nearly as much time as Ralph Rene to “research” this nonsense, but McGowan is easily the better writer. The big advantage in reading this next to Ralph Rene’s “NASA mooned America” is that there is hardly an overlap between their stories.
McGowan also takes aim at the (lying) “debunkers” that harass anybody that tries to expose NASA for the fraud it is.
Following are some highlights from the “Moondoggie” articles...

Strangely in the overhead pictures, the alleged lunar modules are the only things casting long shadows on the moon...


NASA once contemplated using “force fields” to repel the radiation, an interesting idea (for a science fiction movie), but certainly not available to NASA in the 1960s. The lunar modules didn’t have any type of physical shielding…

See the image below of one of the landing pods of the 33,000 pounds Apollo 11 lunar module, that left no craters nor sink into the surface…


Several pictures show unequivocally that more than one light source was used. See for example the following famous picture of the Apollo 11 movie.
The surface of the moon is unevenly lit.
Notice the lack of shadow on Buzz Aldrin’s spacesuit (that should be in the shadow). Because on the moon there is no atmosphere shadows would be much darker.
Notice that Buzz’s spacesuit isn’t pressurised.


In the final photo, the lunar module suddenly appears much closer to the “mountains”.
It’s also strange that the mountains in the background look very similar to the second photo. Notice the tracks...
Is this supposed to be the same spot? Is the second picture supposed to show the “crater” of the (earlier) lift off? If so where are the flag and other garbage left behind?



http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-4/
(archived here: http://archive.is/WLqXx)


See a NASA image of the moon rover folded up (to save space in the lunar module) and ready to go.


The following picture shows a Soviet Lunokhod rover that was supposedly used in the late 1960s and 1970s and had an “ingenious method” to generate enough power to operate for up to 11 months.


The very smart NASA “scientists” made up a story including astronauts landing on the moon. The Soviets came up with another story about dropping their own “rover” to “research” the moon. Maybe this could be considered “easier”, as they wouldn't need a story on lifting off the moon and flying back to earth.
They would need some heavy duty computers to be able to perform this feat. Back in the 1960s and 1970s computers weren’t what they are now. See for example the specifications for the 2012 iPhone 5 compared to the 1969 Apollo “guidance computer”...



Apollo 13
On 13 April 1970, Apollo 13’s command and service modules were made powerless by an explosion that seriously damaged the exterior of the craft while cruising some 200,000 miles from home. The oxygen tank explosion was fortunately not powerful enough to alter the course of the ship.
The 4-man crew retreated to the 3-man lunar module. The lunar module’s descent engine was used to “slingshot” the module around the moon and successfully back to Earth again! How could they find enough room in that tight module?
Didn’t the module burn when entering earth’s atmosphere at high speed? Did they transport the parachute to land on earth to the lunar module? How could they attach it to the outside so they could use it to land “soft” on earth?


I’ve spent some time thinking about these magical engines in the lunar module used to make a soft landing and lift off from the moon.
Dave McGowan shares my idea that this is a major impossibility in the official story: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-8/
(archived here: http://archive.is/LlGL6)

I won’t limit myself to McGowan’s arguments though...

1 – No testing possible
Because it’s impossible to make a large vacuum testing site, the lunar engines couldn’t effectively be tested at all (besides “simulation” exercises). Because the engines couldn’t be tested, they couldn’t be designed. It’s that simple!
Because the fuel and oxidizer were so corrosive the engines could only be used once, so they needed an engine for the descend AND for the ascend, and they couldn’t test-fire the engine prior to flight.

2 – No possibility to get enough thrust in vacuum
In vacuum the only way to slow down (or accelerate) a space ship is by “shooting” out objects.
Just imagine throwing down rocks to slow down after jumping from a skyscraper. You could also try to shoot a machine gun at the ground to go “flying like an eagle”...
You probably know that this is preposterous, but this would be a feasible method to make a relatively minor change (correction) in the direction of the space ship.

To use this for the amount of power needed to descend to and ascend from the moon is impossible. Completely impossible amongst others because they would have to carry all of the mass needed to “shoot” the amount of power needed.
In “rocket science” the only feasible solutions are lightweight...

3 – Engine burning in closed compartment
The only way to have an ignition where there is no oxygen is to provide it. But because there’s vacuum, the oxygen would immediately disappear in thin air (quite literally). So they could only make the engine fire in a closed off compartment.
Here’s a NASA picture of the lunar engine.


This leads to the following impossibilities.
The engine would get very hot (much hotter than boiling water). Cooling down wouldn’t be possible.
Even “more impossible” is how to somehow transfer the massive amount of energy needed (to “shoot down” the needed mass that couldn’t be carried along in the lunar module) from the closed off engine to the outside.
As there is no fire outside the (closed off) engine this wouldn’t even look like the burning fire we would see in the lift off from the moon Apollo movies.

4 – The spinning lunar module
Descending to the moon would need an engine that could stop the very fast movement of the module in front of the movement.


Even if they could build an engine with sufficient power to make a “soft landing” on the moon possible, the result would be a spinning rocket. In vacuum that would be an even bigger problem than in earth’s atmosphere.

5 - 100% success rate
This amazing feat never once went wrong: every astronaut to reach the moon… got safely back to earth.
This is statistically impossible.

6 – Design story
What I was looking for was a science fiction story on the design of the lunar module that would explain the amazing discoveries by a group of genius “rocket scientists” by accident.
The official story reads like they were designing a new version of an engine of proven technology.

NASA asked several money laundering arms companies to come up with a “plausible” story of designing (parts of) the engine.
The descend engine was especially impossible to design as they would need a “throttleable engine ... new to manned spacecraft” and “Very little advanced research had been done in variable-thrust rocket engines”.
And this couldn’t be tested!

Even though there was no way of real-life testing and this was completely new, NASA later said that they could have chosen both companies - STL and Rocketdyne – as both of their stories were “plausible” enough to sell to the gullible public.


Here’s a link to information from the “independent” Wikipedia on the Lunar Module Engine for the lift off and reconnection with the main module: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asce...pulsion_System

Here’s a story from the “reliable” NASA: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/H...205/ch6-5.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/QuQS)
__________________
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; 07-07-2018 at 08:55 AM. Reason: Small corrections
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2018, 06:43 PM   #55
ianw
Senior Member
 
ianw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,026
Likes: 143 (107 Posts)
Default

The back of the studio is the back of the studio, of coarse there well lit !

__________________
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 06-07-2018, 07:15 PM   #56
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

Fuck this stupid cloudfare software!!!!!!!
__________________
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 06-07-2018, 07:16 PM   #57
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 if you would be able to comprehend more than a “single sheet of paper” you would see that your silly arguments contradict themselves. You posted a picture with a spotlight to show that the shadow "effects" couldn't be the result of using more than 1 spotlight!
Wow, way to go to ignore evidence that tear your backside out! I wish to appeal to the intelligent part of your brain.

ONE spotlight, would not illuminate such a massive area. But let's say it magically could. ONE spotlight creates ONE shadow, just what we see.

Now, you seem to think they used more than one. BRAIN? Hello? BRAIN? more than one spotlight = more than one shadow.



Already proven, one spotlight makes the nearer shadow SMALLER. Hello? BRAIN? Hello?

Quote:
I had already written that no sharp difference can be seen in slope in the area where the astronauts were doing their thing with the flag of stripes and corruption...
Yes. But let me point something out Jimmy boy. What your pathetic biased eyes can make out on a picture grey upon grey means nothing. Quite clearly the area just above the footsteps shows a more brighter reflected surface.....the slope.

OK - Be a man, answer direct questions!!! Explain exactly how this was lit if it isn't a slope. Draw diagrams if you can

Quote:
There is no noticeable difference in slope in the pictures of that spot. You ignore this important information!
No guff bucket, I ignore nothing. Your OPINION is shite, your logic is zero and you have no critical thinking. You ignore vast amounts of my posts - just like all the troofaaaaaaaghhhhhhhs

Quote:
That’s an interesting article (un)fortunately it doesn’t support your claim that the astronauts wouldn’t have been killed by the massive amounts of radiation they were exposed to on their trip to the moon...
The “soft” X-rays listed in the paper you posted a link to, includes “high energy” X-rays of an intensity of > 10 ^ -4 W/m2.
These are measured during solar flares oh ignorant one. This is where you produce proper figures to show how the x-rays penetrate the 8g cm^2 hull. It's also where you show that the flare was Earth directional.

Quote:
For what it’s worth: according to NASA the T in the following table indicates the total intensity of the flares in July 1969 (left side of the table; the right side is June/July 1970).
No major ones. Non omni-directional. Prove any of them came near the Earth

Quote:
Here’s a picture of a “pressure garment” zipper from Ed Mitchell’s “Apollo 14” spacesuit.
Can't be arsed to explain it to you....you won't answer anyway, you won't understand anyway and you will just do another gish gallup…..

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Foru...ML/001299.html

Quote:
Here’s another picture of the “Mercury space suit” that is best known for its use in the Project Mercury spaceflight hoax.
It includes “magical” gloves and boots...
Yes, as used in space. Once again you seem to think your totally shite opinion is meaningful

Quote:
Does anybody believe this science fiction story?!?
Based on your shite, I should imagine loads of troofaaaahhhhhgs believe you

Quote:
You ignore that a “solution” like this adds a lot of weight to the rocket ships.
Err no, I ignore nothing, they used aluminium, light as fuck.

Quote:
This means that such a strategy couldn’t effectively used to block the sunlight and (other) radiation from the sun in rocket “science”.
Nope, it means you know less than nothing about space craft design.

Quote:
Because there is no atmosphere the effects (of the heat) of the sun are much larger.
The appeal to incredulity. And? The LM and spacesuit had protective reflective layers and internal cooling.

Quote:
There is another effect of the angle at which the sun shines on the moon that is explained in the following picture.
When the sun shines at an angle of 60 degrees from shining “straight down”; the sun becomes 50% less intense as the same (amount of) sunlight heats an area twice as large…
Totally stupid claim. The area may be bigger but the intensity is much less, so the less intensity is spread out even more!!

Quote:
Follow through on this “effect”, the part of a hill in the sunlight on the moon would heat up much faster than the surrounding ground area. The “dark side” of a hill would hardly heat up at all in the early “morning” of the lunar day.
Yes, I imagine the surface around the hilly areas was a little hotter than the surrounding area, but surface conduction allows this to spread around. The gloves were perfect protection for anything they touched,

PROVE THEY WEREN'T.

Quote:
The Apollo moon “movies” were mostly staged on the “sunny” side of hills on the moon, where the heat, during the lunar “morning”, would be even more intense.
They were movies and weren't staged, the hills were many miles away. They worked on numerous slopes but so what. The ground still takes many days to get to maximum temperature.

Quote:
The astronauts (in their “magical” space suits) stand or walk (vertically) on the moon. Because of this same “effect”, during the lunar “morning” they would (theoretically) heat up even faster than when the sun would be shining straight down (a couple of earth days later)…
Listen you coward(all of you do this FFS!!), the ISS uses the same basic suits and cooling system. explain how there is a problem. The suits were multiple layers and had sublimator system cooling. Explain how it would fail.

Your incessant and pathetic observations are not even close to showing a problem. All you are doing is saying "hey, look it's hot, therefore.....bollocks!"

Quote:
The lunar module would also receive relatively more sunlight during the lunar “morning” than the surrounding surface.
It had reflective layers and multiple hull layers with vacuum between. It had internal cooling. Show your figures. As if

Quote:
The rocket ship travelling towards the moon (and back) would also be in the full sunlight…
Half of it. They rotated in a slow roll. The hull had multiple layers with vacuum between. Show your figures. As if
__________________
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 06-07-2018, 10:17 PM   #58
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 Possibly the dumbest HB post in history....

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
I’ve found another relatively long story in 14 parts on the moon landing hoax, by the late Dave McGowan - "Wagging the Moondoggie. I don’t think that McGowan spend nearly as much time as Ralph Rene to “research” this nonsense, but McGowan is easily the better writer. The big advantage in reading this next to Ralph Rene’s “NASA mooned America” is that there is hardly an overlap between their stories.
Covered already on this forum. you must be really young, you blunder upon this total shite and think nobody has seen it before. McClown is basically offering his useless opinion on pretty much everything he writes. He makes so many verifiable errors it is almost a case of spot the accurate claim.

If you want to discuss his horseshit, bring it here and of course ignore any responses.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...oondoggie-quot


Quote:
McGowan also takes aim at the (lying) “debunkers” that harass anybody that tries to expose NASA for the fraud it is.
Nope. The lies are exclusively from corrupt arseholes making hoax claims. He takes aim at anyone kicking his dead arse

Quote:
Following are some highlights from the “Moondoggie” articles...
Nope....shitelights.

Quote:
Strangely in the overhead pictures, the alleged lunar modules are the only things casting long shadows on the moon...
It's a small low resolution section of a big picture. It's also Apollo 11 where there wasn't much rambling, no lunar rover and very little else that could cast a resolvable shadow. Nothing strange at all. Other pictures show more detail in higher resolution.

Quote:
NASA once contemplated using “force fields” to repel the radiation, an interesting idea (for a science fiction movie), but certainly not available to NASA in the 1960s.
Not relevant. Notice this hopeless McClown doesn't quantify the radiation or where he gets his info from.

Quote:
The lunar modules didn’t have any type of physical shielding…
A lie, yes they did. The Command Module was rated at 8g cm^2.

Quote:
See the image below of one of the landing pods of the 33,000 pounds Apollo 11 lunar module, that left no craters nor sink into the surface…
The surface of the Moon below the dust atop was compacted substrata, also the 33,000lb LM weighed 15,000 EARTH lbs when it landed(descent propellant burnt), equating to just 2,500 Lunar lbs. Useless, clueless researcher.

Quote:
Several pictures show unequivocally that more than one light source was used.
Nope. They show no such thing. Multiple light sources cast multiple shadows. No multiple shadows exist on any picture. They are always crisp black and well defined. Extra fill lighting would wash out solid shadows. No such wash outs are in any picture. Useless, clueless researcher.

Quote:
See for example the following famous picture of the Apollo 11 movie.
The surface of the moon is unevenly lit.
The surface is uneven. The lighting is clearly from one source. There is one shadow.

Quote:
Notice the lack of shadow on Buzz Aldrin’s spacesuit (that should be in the shadow). Because on the moon there is no atmosphere shadows would be much darker.
Notice the right hand side where sunlight casts a shadow that falls below the light, on the left the shadow falls above. This is because the Moon retro-reflective surface is casting secondary light on to the suit from below.

Quote:
Notice that Buzz’s spacesuit isn’t pressurised.
The suits inner layer is the pressurised section and is around 1/4 ATM at 3.7psi. It would never show any ballooning. Useless, clueless researcher.

Quote:
In the final photo, the lunar module suddenly appears much closer to the “mountains”.
McClown is just offering his opinion. A number of factors make what "appears to be" inaccurate. On the Moon there is no dust/atmosphere or heat haze to make distant objects more obscured. There are no visual clues at all. No vegetation, no known objects. On Earth at the poles, distant mountains also seem closer because of the same reasons.

Quote:
It’s also strange that the mountains in the background look very similar to the second photo.
They are several miles away.

Quote:
Notice the tracks...
Is this supposed to be the same spot?
Nope, miles away.

Quote:
Is the second picture supposed to show the “crater” of the (earlier) lift off?
Stupid claim....no!

Quote:
If so where are the flag and other garbage left behind?
Not so.

I actually went through this example of dipshittery many years ago....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bhRDM2KWgU



Quote:
See a NASA image of the moon rover folded up (to save space in the lunar module) and ready to go.
And? Says nothing!

Quote:
The following picture shows the Soviet Lunokhod rovers that were supposedly used in the late 1960s and 1970s and had an “ingenious method” to generate enough power to operate for up to 11 months.
And? Says nothing!

Quote:
The very smart NASA “scientists” made up a story including astronauts landing on the moon.
Nope, they landed 6 times. Bare assertion, says nothing!

Quote:
The Soviets came up with another story about dropping their own “rover” to “research” the moon. Maybe this could be considered “easier”, as they wouldn't need a story on lifting off the moon and flying back to earth.
Nope, they landed stuff as well. Bare assertion says nothing!

Quote:
They would need some heavy duty computers to be able to perform this feat.
Bare assertion, useless opinion. Doesn't quantify why they would need such computers.

Quote:
Back in the 1960s and 1970s computers weren’t what they are now...
See for example the specifications for the 2012 iPhone 5 compared to the 1969 Apollo “guidance computer”.
Why would they need to be. The actual Apollo Guidance Computer ACG is available online for anyone to mess around with, using the exact program logic and returns. It did exactly what it needed to, the number crunching was performed on the mainframe at mission control and uploaded.

Quote:
Apollo 13
On 13 April 1970, Apollo 13’s command and service modules were made powerless by an explosion that seriously damaged the exterior of the craft while cruising some 200,000 miles from home.
Nope, they were deemed to be too risky to use. They still had power and consumables.

Quote:
The oxygen tank explosion was fortunately not powerful enough to alter the course of the ship.
Travelling at a few thousand miles an hour an outgassing would alter the course only very slightly.

Quote:
The 3-man crew retreated to the 2-man lunar module.
Nope. They used the LM engines and consumables. They still roamed and used the CM area.

Quote:
The lunar module’s descent engine was used to “slingshot” the module around the moon and successfully back to Earth again!
Nope!! It was to increase the velocity of the craft back up to free return trajectory speed, it was a 31 second burn of the descent engine.

Quote:
Didn’t the module burn when entering earth’s atmosphere at high speed?
Yes, totally.

Quote:
Did they transport the parachute to descend to the module?
No, they left them as they were designed on the Command Module.

Quote:
How could they have room in that tight module?
Well Jimmy, I've seen some fucking howlers in my time but this one takes the shite-biscuit You actually think they went into the LM as a 3 man unit, jettisoned the CM and performed re-entry in the lunar module. That has to be the dumbest piss-poor research I have ever seen.

Quote:
How could they attach it to the outside so they could use it to land “soft” on earth?
Haha, so dumb, they didn't....they stayed in the Command Module


Quote:
I’ve spent some time thinking about these magical engines in the lunar module used to make a soft landing and lift off from the moon.
Yes and you are as useless at that as you are with the last point

Quote:
Dave McGowan shares my idea that is a major impossibility in the official story:
Getting McClown to agree with you means jack shit. He was an imbecile, so I'd keep quiet about it.

Quote:
I won’t limit myself to McGowan’s arguments though...
At this point, I would have strongly advised you to quit posting whilst you were woefully behind.



There now follows some of THE dumbest shite I have ever encountered, dumber than the Apollo 13 Lunar module re-entry? You decide


Quote:
1 – No testing possible
Because it’s impossible to make a large vacuum testing site, the lunar engines couldn’t effectively be tested at all (besides “simulation” exercises).
They tested the engines for many years, including test firing in small vacuum chambers and very high altitude. They then fired off Apollo 5/9/10 to test them in space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_5
"The Apollo 5 mission tested the Lunar Module in a space environment, in particular its descent and ascent engine systems, and its ability to separate the ascent and descent stages. The descent engine would become the first throttleable rocket engine fired in space.

The mission also performed a simulation of a landing abort, in which the ascent stage engine would be fired while still attached to the descent stage. This, referred to by engineers as the "fire in the hole" test, was depicted in the mission's insignia patch."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_9
"Apollo 9 was the third manned mission in the United States Apollo space program and the first flight of the Command/Service Module (CSM) with the Lunar Module (LM, pronounced "lem"). Its three-person crew, consisting of Commander James McDivitt, Command Module Pilot David Scott, and Lunar Module Pilot Rusty Schweickart, spent ten days in low Earth orbit testing several aspects critical to landing on the Moon, including the LM engines, backpack life support systems, navigation systems, and docking maneuvers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_10
"Apollo 10 was the fourth manned mission in the United States Apollo space program, and the second (after Apollo 8) to orbit the Moon. Launched on May 18, 1969, it was the F mission: a "dress rehearsal" for the first Moon landing, testing all of the components and procedures, just short of actually landing. The Lunar Module (LM) followed a descent orbit to within 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) of the lunar surface, at the point where powered descent for landing would normally begin.[2] Its success enabled the first landing to be attempted on the Apollo 11 mission two months later. "

Quote:
The engine Because the engines couldn’t be tested, they couldn’t be designed. It’s that simple!
Haha, what a comedian. So wrong on every single thing you type

Quote:
Because the fuel and oxidizer were so corrosive the engines could only be used once (so they needed an engine for the descend AND for the ascend), they had to use an engine that couldn’t been test-fired prior to flight.
They spent years test firing these engines with the fuel used to make sure they ignited every single time.

Quote:
2 – No possibility to get enough thrust in vacuum
Stupid statement. Are you a no rockets in vacuum donut?

Quote:
In vacuum the only way to slow down (or accelerate) a space ship is by “shooting” out objects.
Hahaha, listen to this bloke, is he a double agent to make HBs look even dumber? They turn the rocket around and fire it in the opposite direction....duhhhhhhhhhh

Quote:
Just imagine throwing down rocks to slow down after jumping from a skyscraper. You could also try to shoot a machine gun at the ground to go “flying like an eagle”...
...or a 10,125 pounds force engine!

Quote:
You probably know that this is preposterous, but this would be a feasible method to make a relatively minor change (correction) in the direction of the space ship.
Jimmy Boy, I'm afraid you are the epitome of preposterous.

Quote:
To use this for the amount of power needed to descend to and ascend from the moon is impossible. Completely impossible amongst others because they would have to carry all of the mass needed to “shoot” the amount of power needed.
The DPS carried 18,000lbs of propellant, what you deem impossible is beyond stupid.

Quote:
The idea of “rocket science” is that the only feasible solutions are lightweight...
The LM was designed that way.

Quote:
3 – Motor burning in closed compartment
The only way to have an ignition where there is no oxygen is to provide it. But because there’s vacuum, the oxygen will immediately disappear in thin air (quite literally).
So they could only make a fire for the engine in a closed off compartment.
Hahaha, every one a winner. Really dumb shit. They used a fuel and an oxidiser in a an engine, the mixture expelled gasses at thousands of metres per second. They use similar engines on Titan missiles.


Quote:
This leads to the following impossibilities.
It leads to the following stupid bullshit....

Quote:
The engine would get very hot (much hotter than boiling water). Cooling down wouldn’t be possible.
No shit Sherlock, a hot rocket engine

Quote:
Even “more impossible” is how to somehow transfer the massive amount of energy needed (to “shoot down” the needed mass that couldn’t be carried along in the space ship) from the closed off engine to the outside.
Mix two volatile chemicals that cause combustion in an enclosed space, expel gasses. Simple.

Quote:
As there is no fire outside the (closed off) engine this wouldn’t even look like the burning fire we could see in the lift off from the moon Apollo movies.
It wouldn't anyway, the fuel mixture produces a very hard to see plume even in atmosphere.

Quote:
4 – The spinning lunar module
Descending to the moon would need an engine that would stop the very fast movement of the module in front of the movement.
Gibberish. They fired a rocket engine to a)stop orbital velocity b) stop falling.

Quote:
My bike has repeatedly been sabotaged.
LMFAO!!

Quote:
In 2 instances this caused my front wheel to block, sending me over my steer face down on the ground...
Uhuh, your bicycle wheel has been sabotaged...therefore....

Quote:
If they could build an engine with sufficient power to make a “soft landing” on the moon possible, the result would be a spinning rocket. In vacuum that would be an even bigger problem than in earth’s atmosphere.
Nope, did anyone get the connection there? His bicycle wheel was sabotaged therefore the LM would spin around on descent.

What dipshittery.

Quote:
5 - 100% success rate
This amazing feat never once went wrong: every astronaut to reach the moon… got safely back to earth.
This is statistically impossible.
The appeal to incredulity. Jimmy Boy is shite at statistics as well.

Quote:
6 – Design story
What I was looking for was a science fiction story on the design of the lunar module that would explain the amazing discoveries by a group of genius “rocket scientists” by accident.
The official story reads like they were designing a new version of an engine of proven technology.
Piffling gibberish. You have the understanding of a jellyfish. The design of this craft has been pored over for decades by people who wouldn't accept a cup of tea from you!

Quote:
NASA asked several money laundering arms companies to come up with a “plausible” story of designing (parts of) the engine.
Liar, no they didn't.

Quote:
The descend engine was especially impossible to design as they would need a “throttleable engine


Nope. Just because you have trouble with bicycles, smart people know how to build engines with throttles!

Quote:
... new to manned spacecraft
Quote:
” and “Very little advanced research had been done in variable-thrust rocket engines”.
Never, they built something new?

Quote:
And this couldn’t be tested!
Why couldn't it? Because some clueless donut says so? It was tested for many years on Earth and at very high altitude...

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/816454.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...0100032986.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket...Altitude_tests

"A typical chamber operating pressure of 0.16 psia (equivalent to an altitude of 100,000 feet) is established inside the chamber by some form of mechanical pumping."

Plus Apollo 7/9/10.

Quote:
Even though there was no way of real-life testing and this was completely new
Yes there was, see just above!

Quote:
NASA later said that they could have chosen both companies - STL and Rocketdyne – as both of their stories were “plausible” enough to sell to the gullible public.
Made up bullshit.

Quote:
Here’s a link to information from the “independent” Wikipedia on the Lunar Module Engine for the lift off and reconnection with the main module: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asce...pulsion_System

Here’s a story from the “reliable” NASA: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/H...205/ch6-5.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/QuQS)
Go and read them!!
__________________
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; 06-07-2018 at 10:20 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 09:24 AM   #59
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
Yes. But let me point something out Jimmy boy. What your pathetic biased eyes can make out on a picture grey upon grey means nothing. Quite clearly the area just above the footsteps shows a more brighter reflected surface.....the slope.
No sharp increase (or decrease) in slope to be seen.



Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Can't be arsed to explain it to you....you won't answer anyway, you won't understand anyway and you will just do another gish gallup…..

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Foru...ML/001299.html
Has NASA still found nobody to write this nonsense who is able to understand more than a "single sheet of paper"?
If I understand correctly they claimed to have used not 1 zipper, but 2 zippers. If one zipper is filled with holes, that wouldn’t protect these NASA actors from vacuum, the second would neither!


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
They tested the engines for many years, including test firing in small vacuum chambers and very high altitude. They then fired off Apollo 5/9/10 to test them in space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
They spent years test firing these engines with the fuel used to make sure they ignited every single time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
It was tested for many years on Earth and at very high altitude...
You’re repeating the same old nonsense over and over again. ”Many years” simulations in a small area and at high altitude (why don’t you label that “rigorous testing”?). You're not really claiming they could use the high altitude simulation to "test" the landing (or lift off) are you?!?
Where are there videos of these simulations?


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
They used a fuel and an oxidiser in a an engine, the mixture expelled gasses at thousands of metres per second. They use similar engines on Titan missiles.
More nonsense. They couldn’t get the huge amount of energy from the closed off engine to the outside.
We wouldn’t need engines that would work in vacuum for missiles fired on earth…


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Mix two volatile chemicals that cause combustion in an enclosed space, expel gasses. Simple.
As the space is enclosed, the gasses can’t be expelled. Simple!


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Never, they built something new?
The NASA disinformation camppign only invents ridiculous science fiction stories and than harasses anybody that sees passed the lies.
__________________
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; 07-07-2018 at 09:27 AM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 09:58 AM   #60
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
No sharp increase (or decrease) in slope to be seen.
CAN YOU READ??

THEIR LEG SHADOWS ARE THE SAME LENGTH!! The slope begins where his waist hits the ground, can your brain work out that that falls off camera???

HOWEVER, in the background just at the end, we see the LM shadow bend upwards as it hits the same slope.

Quote:
Has NASA still found nobody to write this nonsense who is able to understand more than a "single sheet of paper"?
Piffle, ad hominem, I don't work for NASA. Just because you are too clueless to understand something doesn't alter it.

Quote:
If I understand correctly they claimed to have used not 1 zipper, but 2 zippers. If one zipper is filled with holes, that wouldn’t protect these NASA actors from vacuum, the second would neither!
The first 4 words is the problem. They used Velcro fold over strips, exactly what do you think would happen and why. Explain how low pressure oxygen escapes through such tight areas?

Which part of the same thing is used on the ISS confuses you?

Can you see the ISS astronauts ballooning, blowing oxygen out of their suits, failing to handle stuff with their gloves?

YOU ARE FULL OF IT, by IT I don't mean logic, reason or critical thinking!

Quote:
You’re repeating the same old nonsense over and over again. ”Many years” simulations in a small area and at high altitude (why don’t you label that “rigorous testing”?).
This isn't nonsense, it involves testing the chemical reaction, the thrust/exhaust levels and the operation in extremely low pressure. Rigorous is the word. Just because you are too clueless to understand, doesn't alter that fact. You haven't the slightest clue about any of it, but it doesn't stop you making your ignorant claims.

Quote:
You're not really claiming they could use the high altitude simulation to "test" the landing (or lift off) are you?!?
They used simulators to practice landing and take off. After your last post, with the most moronic mistakes I have ever seen, I would have thought you would have pissed off and found another subject to butcher.

Quote:
Where are there videos of these simulations?
What simulations. They performed thousands of bench tests, altitude tests, vacuum tests.


Quote:
More nonsense. They couldn’t get the huge amount of energy from the closed off engine to the outside.
Yes they could, it's how rockets work. I wish to insult you here, I really do, you are as clueless a person as I have come across, but I shall bite my tongue. You are absolutely hopelessly wrong.

Quote:
We wouldn’t need engines that would work in vacuum for missiles fired on earth…
OH FFS!! How do you think Inter continental missiles get to their target??

Titan missile, in space, 30 seconds and no visible engine plume...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxraWRn9N6s

Just STFU!!


Quote:
As the space is enclosed, the gasses can’t be expelled. Simple!
Enclosed? How dumb. Not simple, just plain stupid. You are a real piece of work, you call every space and rocket engineer a liar because you are too stubborn to admit how appallingly clueless you are.




Quote:
The NASA disinformation camppign only invents ridiculous science fiction stories and than harasses anybody that sees passed the lies.
Piffle. You just ignored a MASSIVE amount of my post where I tore you a new arse. Your childlike blunders are so bad they're actually funny. Did you really think they landed back on Earth, in the LM because you "read it somewhere"....hahaha.

Your double agent cheque is in the post, thanks for making HBs look dumber


Hey Jimmy Boy, Can you see the flagpole shadow now, after I put easy to see yellow arrows!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
FFS! What are you bloody suggesting here? They magically cut and pasted a flag on the picture? Or some magic lighting doesn't cast a shadow?



Are you deliberately trying to act really dumb? The flag is held up by a cross member support so that it is opened out. It's also a static picture, so how does your brain see it moving
__________________
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; 07-07-2018 at 12:11 PM. Reason: Yet another coward who cannot admit mistakes!!
truegroup 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 10:20 PM.


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