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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-07-2018, 12:36 PM   #61
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Their shadows aren’t parallel, which is only a minor discrepancy compared to the huge difference in length of their shadows.

http://wallpoper.com/images/00/44/27...s_00442730.jpg

Quote:
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!
As stated, their leg shadows are the same!!



But their upper bodies are different, as the body hits the slope

The slope is where the ground becomes brighter as the phase angle changes...



Now you big jessie - DO THIS - Explain in your own words how this scene is lit on Earth to enable the far person to have the same length leg shadow but half length upper shadow!

Or as expected ignore this and cowardly gish gallup onto more bullshit you have just blundered into
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 02:59 PM   #62
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default Let's put this shite to bed!!

I am betting that Jimmy won't be responding to this in any honest fashion.

The total weight of the LM fully laden with fuel was 33,500 pounds. The total weight of propellant on the descent module was 18,000 pounds.

On landing this equated to say 15,500lbs. EARTH weight.

On the Moon, that equates to 2,600lbs.

The two lunar landing training vehicles the LLTV and the LLRV made over a hundred successful test flights. One LLTV crash, 2 LLRV crashes, all parachuted to safety.

Here's the LLTV taking off and landing, skip to 12 minutes if you must!!

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




SO! The LM at landing was 2,600lbs with a 10,125 pound force engine.

ON EARTH, The LLTV had an empty weight of 2,500lbs and with fuel and passenger .......3,775lbs!!

The whole thing with wind, variable pressure etc. was a pretty decent training vehicle that had 4,200 pound force central engine.

And Jimmy, sucks in his breath and admits he is hopelessly and proven to be wrong. Well folks, I think we all know he won't do that
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2018, 09:04 AM   #63
noncooperation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 635 (416 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
I’m not much of a watcher of long videos (it’s more than an hour)...
Why doesn’t anybody write?!?

My most important reason to know that the Apollo moon landings (there were a whole bunch of them), is the problem of gravity without an atmosphere (vacuum). 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 couldn’t even have a “normal” fire.
1) It would be very difficult to land on the moon (without smashing), even more difficult as they couldn’t test this.
2) Then it gets even more amazing - lift-off from the moon. How? No way!
3) The probe would have to overcome the gravity until it would reach the rocket. Reportedly the rocket was still circling around the moon, so it would also be difficult to connect with the rocket.
This amazing feat never once went wrong: every astronaut to reach the moon… got safely back to earth.

Then the following video of the (first) Apollo 11 moon landing …
1:45 – 2:05. The astronauts are wearing a spacesuit (including oxygen tank) that would hamper their movement. He is jumping up and down like some buffoon, knowing that a tiny hole in the suite would mean instant death!
This doesn’t look like a scientific mission exploring the moon, but more like bad actors trying to make it interesting to watch at home.
2:05 – 2:15: lift off of the probe. There is some kind of red “ignition” at 2:05-2:06 in the video. And some animated parts, rocks blown away, but no crater.
The lift off is immediate, without a slowly increasing speed (before) lift off.



See the following photo (2:24) from the documentary "IN HIS OWN WORDS: BUZZ ALDRIN 40 YEARS LATER": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j9Fo7XayCg
The flag and pole are the only things in colour.
Notice the flag waving in the wind…


See the blow up of the bottom of the flag pole.
The pole has NO shadow.
The bottom of the pole is perfectly straight, looks like it’s floating instead of inserted into the lunar surface.
Yes I know - it's amazing how gullible we are... (i added bold and underline).
__________________
.
Check out Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride's videos on food is your medicine and MUCH more.

There 'should be' 1000's of REAL, high quality photograph's of earth from space/moon all over the internet - WHERE ARE THEY?!

Last edited by noncooperation; 08-07-2018 at 09:04 AM.
noncooperation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2018, 12:34 PM   #64
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noncooperation View Post
Yes I know - it's amazing how gullible we are... (i added bold and underline).
First honest thing you've ever typed. See my signature for some more help.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2018, 03:47 PM   #65
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
What simulations. They performed thousands of bench tests, altitude tests, vacuum tests.
More lies: it’s completely impossible to make a real-life vacuum room large enough to test the “lunar module” and its engine…


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
They used simulators to practice landing and take off.
There you contradict your previous statement, obviously not able to comprehend more than a “single sheet of paper”.


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
In this nice graph all the compartments (including the “combustion chamber”) should be air tight to “protect” the burning fire from the “vacuum”.
Of course NA$A can call something a “nozzle”, but this “nozzle” would work both ways, allowing to vacuum to enter the “combustion chamber” (and both “tanks”) immediately sucking out the “power” of the lunar module engine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Here's the LLTV taking off and landing, skip to 12 minutes if you must!!

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

So you've found a nice video of a flying object that looks remarkably similar to a modern day drone...
And then you claim this for “evidence” that the “lunar module” could really lift off and land on the moon.

I notice that the speed of the “drone” is very slow compared the the very high speed at which the lunar module supposedly started its descend to the moon.
The lunar module with its very high speed had to spin around mid-air, so that the “engine” could slow it down very fast.
None of this can be seen in the video you posted.

That’s not even counting that this isn’t vacuum...
__________________
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; 08-07-2018 at 03:48 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2018, 04:23 PM   #66
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
More lies: it’s completely impossible to make a real-life vacuum room large enough to test the “lunar module” and its engine…
I shudder at how colossally uninformed you are.

Apollo era vacuum chamber:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY4QyOY2hgk

Who says they need to test the LM in the chamber anyway!!? The two engines weren't that big....



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_J-2

"Other test facilities, including a vacuum chamber and full-size engine test stand, were used during the development, with the engine’s turbopumps entering testing in November 1961, the ignition system in early 1962, and the first prototype engine running a complete 250-second test run in October 1962. In addition to flight hardware, five engine simulators were also used during the development process, assisting in the design of the engine’s electrical and mechanical systems."

You are the lying nobody.

Quote:
There you contradict your previous statement, obviously not able to comprehend more than a “single sheet of paper”.
No dumbo, I proved that soft x-rays don't go through a sheet of paper and that is the normal state for the solar output. I contradict nothing, you understand jack shit.


Quote:
In this nice graph all the compartments (including the “combustion chamber”) should be air tight to “protect” the burning fire from the “vacuum”.
No, silly old Jimmy. The chemicals react and blow out exhaust through a small nozzle, just because your vacuous understanding says it should be sealed, making tens of thousands of rocket engineers all stupid, doesn't make it so.

Quote:
Of course NA$A can call something a “nozzle”, but this “nozzle” would work both ways, allowing to vacuum to enter the “combustion chamber” (and both “tanks”) immediately sucking out the “power” of the lunar module engine.
Haha, what a dipstick. Vacuum is the absence of matter. Putting stuff in is easy, chemical reaction is what happens, exhaust is the consequence.

Quote:
So you've found a nice video of a flying object that looks remarkably similar to a modern day drone...
I found a single central engine machine that can be safely landed on Earth using the same maneuverability as the LM and slightly heavier.

Quote:
And then you claim this for “evidence” that the “lunar module” could really lift off and land on the moon.
Yes, I do. And what have you got in response....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LM0CZZ9Uw8

You are a vacuum of understanding, knowledge, logic, credibility and integrity. Did a fly just zoom out your head

Quote:
I notice that the speed of the “drone” is very slow compared the the very high speed at which the lunar module supposedly started its descend to the moon.
Well Einstein, that's why they had 18,000lbs of fuel and a 10,125 pound force engine.

Quote:
The lunar module with its very high speed had to spin around mid-air
Mid air? Haha, no, in a vacuum. It did a simple reverse direction using RCS thrusters.

Quote:
so that the “engine” could slow it down very fast.
Nope, the engine slowed it down fairly close to the same speed it took to get to that speed.

Quote:
None of this can be seen in the video you posted.
It showed a controllable craft with a throttleable engine mounted in the centre. My video didn't need to show the LM descent, just that it was possible for a similar weight, very similar layout and central engine control.

Quote:
That’s not even counting that this isn’t vacuum...
A vacuum doesn't have air resistance, the Moon doesn't have 9.8m s^2 gravity, the Earth has winds and variable pressure. WAY harder to land safely!

But of course your type of person will never be able to admit that.

Hey Jimmy Boy, you are running away from a whole lot of content here and everyone reading this thread can see it. You pathetic coward.

Last edited by truegroup; 08-07-2018 at 04:31 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2018, 08:04 PM   #67
hokuspokus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,457
Likes: 449 (272 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
I shudder at how colossally uninformed you are.

Apollo era vacuum chamber:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY4QyOY2hgk

Who says they need to test the LM in the chamber anyway!!? The two engines weren't that big....



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_J-2

"Other test facilities, including a vacuum chamber and full-size engine test stand, were used during the development, with the engine’s turbopumps entering testing in November 1961, the ignition system in early 1962, and the first prototype engine running a complete 250-second test run in October 1962. In addition to flight hardware, five engine simulators were also used during the development process, assisting in the design of the engine’s electrical and mechanical systems."

You are the lying nobody.



No dumbo, I proved that soft x-rays don't go through a sheet of paper and that is the normal state for the solar output. I contradict nothing, you understand jack shit.




No, silly old Jimmy. The chemicals react and blow out exhaust through a small nozzle, just because your vacuous understanding says it should be sealed, making tens of thousands of rocket engineers all stupid, doesn't make it so.



Haha, what a dipstick. Vacuum is the absence of matter. Putting stuff in is easy, chemical reaction is what happens, exhaust is the consequence.



I found a single central engine machine that can be safely landed on Earth using the same maneuverability as the LM and slightly heavier.



Yes, I do. And what have you got in response....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LM0CZZ9Uw8

You are a vacuum of understanding, knowledge, logic, credibility and integrity. Did a fly just zoom out your head



Well Einstein, that's why they had 18,000lbs of fuel and a 10,125 pound force engine.



Mid air? Haha, no, in a vacuum. It did a simple reverse direction using RCS thrusters.



Nope, the engine slowed it down fairly close to the same speed it took to get to that speed.



It showed a controllable craft with a throttleable engine mounted in the centre. My video didn't need to show the LM descent, just that it was possible for a similar weight, very similar layout and central engine control.



A vacuum doesn't have air resistance, the Moon doesn't have 9.8m s^2 gravity, the Earth has winds and variable pressure. WAY harder to land safely!

But of course your type of person will never be able to admit that.

Hey Jimmy Boy, you are running away from a whole lot of content here and everyone reading this thread can see it. You pathetic coward.
Another yawn-a-thon from the resident NASA fanboy\troll\bot.
Likes: (1)
hokuspokus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2018, 08:09 PM   #68
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hokuspokus View Post
Another yawn-a-thon from the resident NASA fanboy\troll\bot.
Shut up you vacuous twat. Belief requires evidence. With you, it requires ignoring it. You are a troll. You do nothing but stalk me with your ad hominem shit. And for those dumb enough not to actually know what that is....it is where a clueless idiot failed to respond to the content and simply attacks the poster. Hokusjokus to a tee.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2018, 03:36 PM   #69
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
A vacuum doesn't have air resistance, the Moon doesn't have 9.8m s^2 gravity, the Earth has winds and variable pressure. WAY harder to land safely!
Every flying object on earth (including birds) use the atmosphere to land.
You appear to insinuate that flying in vacuum would be easier than in earth’s atmosphere. You once again show what a moron you are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
No, silly old Jimmy. The chemicals react and blow out exhaust through a small nozzle, just because your vacuous understanding says it should be sealed, making tens of thousands of rocket engineers all stupid, doesn't make it so.

Quote:
Of course NA$A can call something a “nozzle”, but this “nozzle” would work both ways, allowing to vacuum to enter the “combustion chamber” (and both “tanks”) immediately sucking out the “power” of the lunar module engine.
Haha, what a dipstick. Vacuum is the absence of matter. Putting stuff in is easy, chemical reaction is what happens, exhaust is the consequence.
The highlighted text is for a change a true statement.
They couldn’t design a “nozzle” (just like a “zipper”) that is able to “exhaust” and “protect” the “combustion chamber” from the vacuum sucking all the air out at the same time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_J-2

"Other test facilities, including a vacuum chamber and full-size engine test stand, were used during the development, with the engine’s turbopumps entering testing in November 1961, the ignition system in early 1962, and the first prototype engine running a complete 250-second test run in October 1962. In addition to flight hardware, five engine simulators were also used during the development process, assisting in the design of the engine’s electrical and mechanical systems."
Your reasoning fails miserably (once more) as the moment the “lunar engine” is ignited; it “shoots” out massive amounts of “air” - effectively "destroying" the vacuum in the "vacuum chamber".
So this “proves” that NASA only “tested” the ignition of the lunar engine in vacuum. This means that the “nozzle” would only need to keep the vacuum out of the “combustion chamber” before ignition (not after the “engine” would blow out massive amounts of air).
In other words: NASA staged these kind of “tests”, not to test the “lunar module”, but to sell the hundreds of billions funneled to whatever NASA pleased for the movies “astronauts on the moon” to the gullible public.


Maybe you enjoy REM – Man on the moon with repeated references to Andy Kaufman and the memorable chorus “If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon
If you believe there's nothing up his sleeve, then nothing is cool
”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLxpNiF0YKs
__________________
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; 09-07-2018 at 03:38 PM.
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2018, 07:39 AM   #70
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Every flying object on earth (including birds) use the atmosphere to land.
Are you really that stupid? You compare an animal with muscles and reflexes to an inanimate machine? You plonker!

Quote:
You appear to insinuate that flying in vacuum would be easier than in earth’s atmosphere. You once again show what a moron you are.
No you pillock. I am saying manoeuvering a rocket engine and landing is way easier in a vacuum. They don't actually "fly" they just fire in one direction The atmosphere has wind, variable pressure and whilst it's great to support winged aircraft it's not so helpful with chunks of non aerodynamic metal

Quote:
They couldn’t design a “nozzle” (just like a “zipper”) that is able to “exhaust” and “protect” the “combustion chamber” from the vacuum sucking all the air out at the same time.
Gibberish. You know less than nothing.

Quote:
Your reasoning fails miserably (once more) as the moment the “lunar engine” is ignited; it “shoots” out massive amounts of “air” - effectively "destroying" the vacuum in the "vacuum chamber".
So this “proves” that NASA only “tested” the ignition of the lunar engine in vacuum. This means that the “nozzle” would only need to keep the vacuum out of the “combustion chamber” before ignition (not after the “engine” would blow out massive amounts of air).
In other words: NASA staged these kind of “tests”, not to test the “lunar module”, but to sell the hundreds of billions funneled to whatever NASA pleased for the movies “astronauts on the moon” to the gullible public.
The gullible conspiracy loons you mean! They test fire the rocket.....extractors remove exhaust. Then they test fire again. Repeat.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 04:29 PM   #71
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default NASA goes Hollywood

The first Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) from 1985 to 1961 was Thomas Keith Glennan.
Glennan had already worked for the movies (for real) before turning his attention to the “hydrogen bomb” and “rocket science”.

After his graduation in 1927 until 1947 he worked in the film industry in the US and Britain, to become operations manager for Paramount and studio manager for Samuel Goldwyn.
In 1950, at President Harry S. Truman's request, Glennan became one of 5 commissioners of the Atomic Energy Commission for 2 years. The most significant hoax the commission staged was the hydrogen bomb.

One of Glennan’s first NASA recruits was German Nazi “rocket engineer” Wernher von Braun: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/12/o...ce-agency.html


Here’s an overview of the career of T. Keith Glennan.

1935-1941 - Operations, Studio Manager Paramount Pictures
1941 - Executive Vega Airplane Corporation
1941-1942 - Studio Manager Samuel Goldwyn Studios
1942-1945 - Administrator, Director U. S. Navy Underwater Sound Laboratory
1945-1947 - Production Manager Ansco Division, General Aniline and Film

1950-1952 - Commissioner U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
1958-1961 – Administrator NASA
1970-1973 - U.S. representative International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.case.edu/its/archives/pre...glesummary.htm


For more information on Glennan’s career in the movies:
Quote:
During his five and a half years at Paramount Glennan provided the logistics necessary to allow the studio's creative teams to stage their productions. He worked with such Hollywood notables as Cecil B. DeMille.
Glennan was also credited with important innovations in the film industry during his time at Paramount, including the first full-fledged engineering department in the business and the first recognized industrial relations department.
http://www.smashwords.com/extreader/...s-nasa-sp-4105


The Hollywood movie industry has been working with the Pentagon and CIA since its inception: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062773315
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 04:50 PM   #72
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default Off topic, gish gallup to moronic no nukes!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
The first Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) from 1985 to 1961 was Thomas Keith Glennan.
Glennan had already worked for the movies (for real) before turning his attention to the “hydrogen bomb” and “rocket science”.

After his graduation in 1927 until 1947 he worked in the film industry in the US and Britain, to become operations manager for Paramount and studio manager for Samuel Goldwyn.
In 1950, at President Harry S. Truman's request, Glennan became one of 5 commissioners of the Atomic Energy Commission for 2 years. The most significant hoax the commission staged was the hydrogen bomb.

One of Glennan’s first NASA recruits was German Nazi “rocket engineer” Wernher von Braun: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/12/o...ce-agency.html


Here’s an overview of the career of T. Keith Glennan.

1935-1941 - Operations, Studio Manager Paramount Pictures
1941 - Executive Vega Airplane Corporation
1941-1942 - Studio Manager Samuel Goldwyn Studios
1942-1945 - Administrator, Director U. S. Navy Underwater Sound Laboratory
1945-1947 - Production Manager Ansco Division, General Aniline and Film

1950-1952 - Commissioner U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
1958-1961 – Administrator NASA
1970-1973 - U.S. representative International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.case.edu/its/archives/pre...glesummary.htm


For more information on Glennan’s career in the movies: http://www.smashwords.com/extreader/...s-nasa-sp-4105


The Hollywood movie industry has been working with the Pentagon and CIA since its inception: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062773315

Omg with sodding bells on....this Fizzix expert is a No Nukes Nutjob.

Seriously, take your off topic shit somewhere else. You still have about 100 points unanswered ....can you see the flag shadow now ...i put idiot proof arrows on the picture
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 07:52 PM   #73
hokuspokus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,457
Likes: 449 (272 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Shut up you vacuous twat. Belief requires evidence. With you, it requires ignoring it. You are a troll. You do nothing but stalk me with your ad hominem shit. And for those dumb enough not to actually know what that is....it is where a clueless idiot failed to respond to the content and simply attacks the poster. Hokusjokus to a tee.
It's unlike you to stalk Nasa\moon landing posts and insulting all and sundry

Believe or be paid to believe whatever you want. I don't care.

Carry on regardless tho.....

BTW don't think that it hasn't been noticed that when you don't have an answer
you bury a post with SBD ( spam based drivel)

Anyway you must have Stockholm syndrome as you are very unlikely to ignore this.

Let's see !
Likes: (2)
hokuspokus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 08:57 PM   #74
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
I am betting that Jimmy won't be responding to this in any honest fashion.

The total weight of the LM fully laden with fuel was 33,500 pounds. The total weight of propellant on the descent module was 18,000 pounds.

On landing this equated to say 15,500lbs. EARTH weight.

On the Moon, that equates to 2,600lbs.

The two lunar landing training vehicles the LLTV and the LLRV made over a hundred successful test flights. One LLTV crash, 2 LLRV crashes, all parachuted to safety.

Here's the LLTV taking off and landing, skip to 12 minutes if you must!!

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




SO! The LM at landing was 2,600lbs with a 10,125 pound force engine.

ON EARTH, The LLTV had an empty weight of 2,500lbs and with fuel and passenger .......3,775lbs!!

The whole thing with wind, variable pressure etc. was a pretty decent training vehicle that had 4,200 pound force central engine.

And Jimmy, sucks in his breath and admits he is hopelessly and proven to be wrong. Well folks, I think we all know he won't do that

Absolute hoax video is so obvious it is laughable. The winch cable can clearly be seen in several shots reflecting sunlight even where it has been edited out. It appears to be not too heavy an object, about the same as a car judging by the way it is swinging around on the winch. The ridiculous little farts of smoke are in no way identifiable with thrust or power.
Clearly fake from many fronts/ no way is that 16 tons - the swing changes far too fast for that sort of weight - 1 or 2 tons maximum.

Last edited by grimstock; 12-07-2018 at 08:59 PM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 09:02 PM   #75
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 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.

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.


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)...
Black backdrop is clearly visible
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 09:09 PM   #76
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Nope. You've blundered on someone else's inept shite and pawned it off as your own.



It's called ghosting The TV signal on Apollo 11 was very low bandwidth.



And?



Stupid observation as usual. We see Armstrong's shadow on the ground then he appears behind Aldrin fully suited



Ghosting.

This is one of those cases where the HB spots something they don't understand therefore....faaaaaake



Phase angle of the sun, terrain consisting of more larger particles, resolution of picture, terrain uneven and the tracks are too faint to show up. On the hi=res original, you can just see one track centre right and it is very faint.

But, hey, let's look at the logic here. We have a driveable vehicle. What do you do, employ a crane driver and lower it manually or drive the bloody thing



Different picture, they kick soil around the back of the rover as they load and unload it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kxVuPeo2fQ




Wow, you are one gigantic coward. Here is the "buffoon" jumping ON THE MOON, for the third time, for you to run away from.....

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

The gravity analysed to show that he falls at lunar spoeed and when adjusted for Earth fall speed, it looks ridiculous. You claim wires?

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



Does the soil have wires too? Owned and too afraid to respond.



The LRV reflects light, as does the regolith in front of him. How did they do this on Earth then? Duhhhhhhh.



Haha, how incredibly stupid This is a stitched panorama taken in multiple directions. You people.....


Blatant join between backdrop and ground in each photo

Last edited by grimstock; 13-07-2018 at 07:10 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 10:29 PM   #77
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimstock View Post
Absolute hoax video is so obvious it is laughable. The winch cable can clearly be seen in several shots reflecting sunlight even where it has been edited out. It appears to be not too heavy an object, about the same as a car judging by the way it is swinging around on the winch. The ridiculous little farts of smoke are in no way identifiable with thrust or power.
Clearly fake from many fronts/ no way is that 16 tons - the swing changes far too fast for that sort of weight - 1 or 2 tons maximum.
Oh please try not to be so bloody ridiculous There are 100s of flights of this ....videos of it at hundreds of feet up. There's even 3 videos showing the crashes and ejections. Cables my arse
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 10:31 PM   #78
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimstock View Post
Blatant join between backdtop and ground in each photo
Nope. Thanks for your opinion...and they are videos Also part of an extended sequence showing the astronaut hundreds of yards into that area. The mountain range is several miles away

I want to ask you a direct question.

Video 1 showed an analysis of the gravitational fall and converted to make the astronaut fall at Earth speed makes the video run at 245%. It looks absolutely comical and clearly not correct. So there is a problem, it cannot be 245%, but then he doesn't fall at Earth speed anymore. Whoops. But he IS falling at Lunar freefall speed!

Video 2 shows kicked soil hitting the ground at the same split second as he comes back down. This means that the moronic theory about wires being used(he comes from 200 odd yards away - so that is clearly absurd anyway) is nonsense, unless the soil is on wires

The question, did you even bother looking at any of that before you did this...…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LM0CZZ9Uw8

….?

Last edited by truegroup; 12-07-2018 at 11:54 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 10:33 PM   #79
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimstock View Post
Black backdrop is clearly visible
Nope. That's the actual sky on the moon. Thanks for your informed opinion.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2018, 02:00 AM   #80
madmax
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: By the beach in S.Aust.
Posts: 534
Likes: 132 (95 Posts)
Default

Moderation Comment: Stop the name calling and Debate the issue
__________________
"I'm here to kick ass and chew gum and I'm all outa gum" Duke Nukem

Just the opinion of a lad from the bush.
madmax is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:11 AM.


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