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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-08-2018, 03:46 PM   #141
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,282 (755 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
So was the rocks on the surface of the moon formed on the moon or in deep space.
When the alleged rocks returned was there any segregation processes removing deep space rocks/meteorite from moon rocks and if not why. Can the geologists determine the difference?
These astronuts were educated as pilots, so wouldn't know how to see the difference...


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
According to GEOLOGISTS the world over, the rocks come from the Moon. They represent solid evidence for the authenticity of Apollo.
I guess you’re a liar who claims that even though meteorites similar to those so-called “moon rocks” were found on earth, these “moon rocks” could still only have been found on the moon...


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Quote:
If they examined only a couple of grams, why would we believe that the other hundreds of pounds are of the same material?
Stupid claim. ALL the rocks have differing properties but predominantly show the same common traits.
How would these “independent” geologists know if they weren’t allowed to check the bunch?


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Quote:
What about dust on the reflectors?
From where?
From the crashing meteorites every day that could eject “moon rocks” all the way to earth for example...


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Quote:
only one out of 10^17 photons “aimed” at the reflector, is received back on Earth, even under good conditions. It seems probable that the moon surface would reflect more of the laser light than the 0.5 meter mirror…
But then the surface distance would vary considerably. It doesn't.
By comparing the 1 out of 10^17 photons to the other?!?


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Quote:
Maybe the most ridiculous of the NASA stories to convince us that their astronauts walked on the moon (and the Soviets landed unmanned rockets), are the mirrors that reflect laser light coming from earth...
According to the state propaganda, Apollo 11, 14 and 15 and 2 Soviet Lunokhod missions placed retroreflectors on the moon.
Correct and proven. Your assessment as to it being ridiculous is evidence of your wilful ignorance.
Even though NASA claims that the received reflected laser light is evidence that these were reflected by these retroreflectors, even before these reflectors were supposedly placed on the moon, succesfull experiments were done in 1962 in which the moon reflected laser light.
From the “independent” Wikipedia that NASA loves so much:
Quote:
The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon's surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_...ing_experiment
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...8&postcount=28

Last edited by the tealady; 07-08-2018 at 08:02 AM. Reason: rude
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2018, 04:14 PM   #142
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,214 (956 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
These astronuts were educated as pilots, so wouldn't know how to see the difference...
It is visually impossible to tell it. Duhhhhhh. The Apollo astronauts all did geology training.

Quote:
I guess you’re a liar who claims that even though meteorites similar to those so-called “moon rocks” were found on earth, these “moon rocks” could still only have been found on the moon...
The METEORITES from the Moon have many of the similar traits of the Apollo rocks, but sadly the fusion crust has screwed up two major ones, and the Earth's oxygen and water has created terrestrial weathering and secondary minerals.


Quote:
How would these “independent” geologists know if they weren’t allowed to check the bunch?
They are allowed to analyse any rock they wish to!!

Quote:
From the crashing meteorites every day that could eject “moon rocks” all the way to earth for example...
Yeah ok, so the likelihood of this occurring on any given area is what? So remote it beggars belief

Quote:
By comparing the 1 out of 10^17 photons to the other?!?
No you very uninformed person, read the text. It explains it to even very dumb people....oh wait They send trillions and trillions and trillions over and over again.

"But if we collect many photons, the average round-trip time for the ensemble will have a higher precision. The statistical rule for this is that the reduction in error one gets by obtaining n independent measurements is the square-root of n. So to get a reduction to one millimeter from 30–50 mm, we need 900–2500 photons, depending mostly on the degree of tilt of the reflector array for that observation. At, say, one photon per pulse, we will get 1200 photons per minute, and should have adequate numbers for a millimeter measurement in a matter of minutes.
"


Quote:
Even though NASA claims that the received reflected laser light is evidence that these were reflected by these retroreflectors, even before these reflectors were supposedly placed on the moon, succesfull experiments were done in 1962 in which the moon reflected laser light.
Duhhhhh, the experiment produced massively varying distances and returns. The LRRR produces the same exact returns over and over.
__________________
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 the tealady; 07-08-2018 at 08:02 AM. Reason: rude
Likes: (1)
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2018, 04:10 PM   #143
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,282 (755 Posts)
Default Van Allen radiation belts

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Quote:
Even though NASA claims that the received reflected laser light is evidence that these were reflected by these retroreflectors, even before these reflectors were supposedly placed on the moon, succesfull experiments were done in 1962 in which the moon reflected laser light.
Duhhhhh, the experiment produced massively varying distances and returns. The LRRR produces the same exact returns over and over.
So you’re telling us that NASA in 1962 first reflected laser light from the moon and back to earth, and in 7 years was able to improve the accuracy of this experiment?

What is the impact of the Van Allen radiation belts on laser light?!?

In 1958, Professor James van Allen discovered a huge amount of radiation surrounding the earth. Van Allen asked the US military to send a Geiger counter into space to measure the intensity of the radiation.
The Geiger counter confirmed that the region above the earth was cooking with deadly radiation. The Van Allen radiation belts (as they were later called) appeared to surround the entire earth; it starts 400 miles and extends out some 65,000 miles above the earth’s surface.
There was an inner belt and an outer radiation belt. The inner belt went from 40 degrees north and south of the Equator and was basically a doughnut surrounding the earth. The outer belt was separated from the inner belt by an area of lesser radiation. Many years later a third radiation belt “the storage ring” between the inner and outer belt was discovered.
Scientific experiments conducted by Van Allen and the military showed that both belts separately were deadly to humans without additional shielding. Van Allen stated that even if you raced quickly through the radiation belts, you would still need additional shielding.

In 1959, Van Allen delivered his conclusion in a speech to the Academy of Science “All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed”.
In December 1961, Van Allen repeated his conclusions, the same year that President John F. Kennedy said that the US would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.
According to Van Allen the space ship’s exterior made of aluminium would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Van Allen concluded that the aluminium skin of the spacecraft would turn the radiation into x-rays that would make the astronauts very sick and could lead to their death.

The National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) had established “permissible doses” of radiation at levels that were consistent with living on earth. This would require additional shielding of lead or another substance and would add weight, making the astronauts on the moon impossible.
In order to go through Van Allen’s belt, in 1965 NASA simply requested that the regulatory groups “modify” the standards for space flight (allowing the astronauts to receive much more radiation).
Then NASA could announce that a simple aluminium skin on the command module was enough to protect astronauts from the allowable doses of radiation.

Years later Van Allen explained that he still “stands by” his conclusions of 1959-1961.
But Van Allen also “stands by” NASA’s point of view that even aluminium, without extra shielding, was enough to protect the astronauts from the radiation he called deadly.
Van Allen labelled his original findings merely “popular science” and “a sloppy statement”: https://alixus.wordpress.com/the-van-allen-enigma/
(archived here: http://archive.is/ajLcS)
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...8&postcount=28
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2018, 05:33 PM   #144
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,214 (956 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
So you’re telling us that NASA in 1962 first reflected laser light from the moon and back to earth, and in 7 years was able to improve the accuracy of this experiment?
No, that is completely wrong. Bouncing light off the surface results in totally random reflections and distances. It makes no sense for you to dispute that there are retro-reflectors on the Moon, unless you wish to call 50 years of experimentation in numerous laser observatories by numerous people....fake.

Is that what you are claiming

Quote:
What is the impact of the Van Allen radiation belts on laser light?!?
None. If you say otherwise, perhaps you'd like to prove it and then say what significance it has anyway?

Quote:
In 1958, Professor James van Allen discovered a huge amount of radiation surrounding the earth.
Yeah yeah, duplicated on other threads.

https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...7&postcount=57

They went around the outer edges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4gSRy1tHls

As for the aluminium hull - this was a slice through it....



Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...iation-effects

I would ask you to cite references for the myriad of quotes within that article, but hey ho, you won't. I would ask you to read it again and look where the author adds his spin on things, "positively mercurial" "acquiesced", his own added questions - leading the witness in a court of law.

Read just the statements and then apply this....

"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed"

Use multiple layers of hull, with honeycombs. One end has the entire length of the Service Module between it and the charged particles, the other has the Lunar Module. Then we have the trajectory going through the far weaker outer areas.

ADEQUATE MEANS OF SAFEGUARDING - job done.

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
__________________
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 13-08-2018, 03:31 PM   #145
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,282 (755 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
No, that is completely wrong. Bouncing light off the surface results in totally random reflections and distances.
Another ridiculous claim...

After NASA in 1962 first successfully bounced a laser beam from the moon and received it back on earth; in the following 7 years they, could have…

Used reflected laser light from the moon surface to notice small differences in distances (even at a distance of hundreds of thousands of kilometres). This couldn’t be used to accurately locate the slope of a hill, but very well to determine “flat” areas on the surface of the moon.
As a result the retroreflector experiments would have been completely useless, wasting valuable time, money and space and mass on the rocket to the moon…

After locating the “flat” areas, NASA (and their Russian co-conspirators) could have easily claimed that the retroreflectors were located at a “flat” area.
And presto, they could claim that the small variety in results is evidence that there are retroreflectors on the moon.


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
It makes no sense for you to dispute that there are retro-reflectors on the Moon, unless you wish to call 50 years of experimentation in numerous laser observatories by numerous people....fake.
Why don't you ask how these numerous "scientists" could distinghuish between laser light reflected from the moon surface or (hypothetically) from the retrofelectors?!?
They couldn't!
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...8&postcount=28
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-08-2018, 04:10 PM   #146
ianw
Senior Member
 
ianw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,019
Likes: 142 (106 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post




By comparing the 1 out of 10^17 photons to the other?!?


Even though NASA claims that the received reflected laser light is evidence that these were reflected by these retroreflectors, even before these reflectors were supposedly placed on the moon, succesfull experiments were done in 1962 in which the moon reflected laser light.
From the “independent” Wikipedia that NASA loves so much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_...ing_experiment
They have to pick the most likely returns and discard the rest. Cherry pick.
This is what the raw data on a graph looks like.
__________________
My definition of being a flatmooner is the apolow footage was filmed in a studio
https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...2&postcount=55
Likes: (1)
ianw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-08-2018, 05:58 PM   #147
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,214 (956 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Another ridiculous claim...
Jimmy, what is stopping you from reading up on this? The laser bounces off the surface returned totally varied distances due to the terrain and each succession of bounces. The laser is about 1km wide when it gets to the Moon. The photons coming back are all over the place distance wide. But when they hit the LRRR they come back with fractions of a mm accuracy.

The lunar surface reflections are massively less powerful than the retroreflectors. The laser needed doesn't need to be as powerful.

Quote:
After NASA in 1962 first successfully bounced a laser beam from the moon and received it back on earth; in the following 7 years they, could have…
Used reflected laser light from the moon surface to notice small differences in distances (even at a distance of hundreds of thousands of kilometres). This couldn’t be used to accurately locate the slope of a hill, but very well to determine “flat” areas on the surface of the moon.
The experiments in 1962 had wildly different distances and returns. The stronger returns came from the more reflective areas.

The LRRR fires at the same general area, no matter what the angle of the Moon, and the distance is always exactly the same with adjustment for that very angle. The surface cannot possibly do that. Even one firing produces massively varying returns.

Quote:
As a result the retroreflector experiments would have been completely useless, wasting valuable time, money and space and mass on the rocket to the moon…
Nonsense. They put it on board with the astronauts, it wasted a few hundred extra dollars on fuel.

Quote:
After locating the “flat” areas, NASA (and their Russian co-conspirators) could have easily claimed that the retroreflectors were located at a “flat” area.
You have no idea what you are talking about. There are massive variances between returns in ONE pulse!

Quote:
And presto, they could claim that the small variety in results is evidence that there are retroreflectors on the moon.
Small variety? Nonsense - massive. With the LRRR there is NO variance, it is exact.

Quote:
Why don't you ask how these numerous "scientists" could distinghuish between laser light reflected from the moon surface or (hypothetically) from the retrofelectors?!?
I don't need to ask. I know. The LRRR pulses are clustered and have the same strength and distance. The laser pulses more often than not, return NOTHING from the Moon's surface.

Quote:
They couldn't!
You don't have any idea what you are talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA
__________________
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; 13-08-2018 at 06:02 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-08-2018, 06:06 PM   #148
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,214 (956 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
They have to pick the most likely returns and discard the rest. Cherry pick.
This is what the raw data on a graph looks like.
https://core2.gsfc.nasa.gov/PGDA/images/LROLR_fig4.jpg
Rubbish! That graph is in nanoseconds for starters! The central point is the average returns by cluster, before the angle of the Moon to the array is factored in.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...Is-This-A-Joke

"Q: how does what the retroflectors do any different from the '62 experiments?


A: Simply by providing a much more effective reflector than would occur naturally.

Measuring distance requires as short a pulse as possible. You're going to derive distance by measuring the travel time of something going the speed of light. Very small fractions of a second matter. Any given laser can only emit so many photons per unit time. If you have a poor reflector (i.e., the Moon's surface itself) then you have to send a lot of photons in order to increase the chance of getting one back.

That means a long pulse for some laser of a given power. And when sending lots of photons means sending a longer pulse, you can't be sure whether the photon you got back left Earth at the beginning or the ending of the pulse. So you have to sample many photons' travel times and build up a statistical distribution. That distribution will be "wide" owing to the longer pulse and the broader variation in travel time.

If, for some laser of a given power, you can send a very short pulse and increase the chances of a photon finding its way back to Earth, your statistical distribution of return times is much "tighter" and provides a more precise statistical basis for estimating the distance.

In general the lunar surface acts like a Lambertian reflector, meaning an incoming photon is likely to bounce off in any old direction -- not back to Earth. With the retroreflector in place, a photon is very much more likely to return along the path it came from.

The Mythbusters demonstrated this. They aimed the laser at a random part of the Moon and found that no detectable photons returned. With the laser at the same settings they aimed it at a retroreflector and got a very significant number of photons back. "
__________________
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; 13-08-2018 at 06:08 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-08-2018, 07:12 PM   #149
ianw
Senior Member
 
ianw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,019
Likes: 142 (106 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Rubbish! That graph is in nanoseconds for starters! The central point is the average returns by cluster, before the angle of the Moon to the array is factored in.
Angle off array ? Wasnt they allegedly manually manipulated to point directly at earth? Isnt the moon in tidal lock meaning the angle of array is constant? Return by cluster! Dont they sent out lots of pulses each with more photons than there are stars in the galaxy and are lucky to get returns of less than ten but often zilch?





.
__________________
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 13-08-2018, 07:53 PM   #150
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,214 (956 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
Angle off array ?
Yes, that is correct.

Quote:
Wasnt they allegedly manually manipulated to point directly at earth?
No, not allegedly. It was actually done that way.

Quote:
Isnt the moon in tidal lock meaning the angle of array is constant?
have to laugh at you Ian, it's just that your comment is comedy gold.

Even discounting that the Moon librates all around the barycentre. The Earth is rotating

Quote:
Return by cluster!
That would be the vertical spread on the graph.

Quote:
Dont they sent out lots of pulses each with more photons than there are stars in the galaxy
Well that's the way they get sufficient numbers of returns

Quote:
and are lucky to get returns of less than ten but often zilch?
Returns are low, only zero when it's not aligned. The point is that the returns ARE in the correct frequency band and time frame.

Why must you always take a contrary position. To summarise your claim:

Ianw is correct in all his googling and thousands of scientists who use these figures, understand these figures, understand exactly how it all works, hundreds of technicians over 50 years in multiple laser observatories - all of them are wrong or lying.

Or the other way around. Now seriously, what do you think is just a tad more likely given your track record with science
__________________
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; 13-08-2018 at 08:04 PM. Reason: removed irritating fullstop and spurious quote tag
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-08-2018, 08:18 PM   #151
ianw
Senior Member
 
ianw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,019
Likes: 142 (106 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post

Even discounting that the Moon librates all around the barycentre. The Earth is rotating
So what the earth is rotating. There is only one trajectory that will see the laser hit its target and that was calculated before the laser pulse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post


That would be the vertical spread on the graph.
The vertical spread is from many pulses over a nights session
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Well that's the way they get sufficient numbers of returns
A nights session is how you get a sufficient numbers of returns
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Returns are low, only zero when it's not aligned. The point is that the returns ARE in the correct frequency band and time frame.
Returns can be zero when aligned. The probability of a computerized alignment system being wrong is what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Why must you always take a contrary position. To summarise your claim:

Ianw is correct in all his googling and thousands of scientists who use these figures, understand these figures, understand exactly how it all works, hundreds of technicians over 50 years in multiple laser observatories - all of them are wrong or lying.

Or the other way around. Now seriously, what do you think is just a tad more likely given your track record with science

.
The experiment cherry picks promising photon returns from a background of returns. It would be a more convincing experiment if they shot every second pulse at an area with no reflector and gave groups of scientists both areas data to study blind. It would be interesting to see if the scientists would be prepared to risk their reputations knowing there was a 50% chance they hailed the wrong area as the one with a reflector. Alas it will never happen, its ''tried and tested'' unlike new pharmaceutical drugs.




.
__________________
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 13-08-2018, 10:19 PM   #152
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,214 (956 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
So what the earth is rotating. There is only one trajectory that will see the laser hit its target and that was calculated before the laser pulse.
Nice try at deflecting your hopeless mistake. The distance TO the Moon and the angle varies as the Earth rotates. You were wrong and as always are afraid to admit it.

The gibberish about trajectory....hahaha....it's a bloody straight line at a fixed target

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw
Isnt the moon in tidal lock meaning the angle of array is constant?
Err no Ian. No. The Earth rotates, don't you know


Quote:
The vertical spread is from many pulses over a nights session
Well if you really want to be precise, you should use the correct data graph. I hate to break it to you, but you've made yet another of your infamous foul ups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
This is what the raw data on a graph looks like.
Err no Ian. That is a totally wrong graph!
That graph is from the NASA LOLA project which is doing laser ranging of the Moon from orbit(Lunar Observer Laser Altimeter).


The data is indeed single timed pulses with multiple returns, that give the height of the surface at the point the laser hits. The average giving the actual height. That graph is a timed session lasting one hour.

Quote:
A nights session is how you get a sufficient numbers of returns
Well technically it's a few hours. But that's not to get sufficient returns, that is to provide error sampling cancellation on spurious and very occasional very weak surface reflections. More modern lasers limit this to almost zero by providing more concentrated beams at lower powers.

Quote:
Returns can be zero when aligned.
Nonsense.

Quote:
The probability of a computerized alignment system being wrong is what?
Exactly as I said, a misalignment

You're flannelling. Will you stop it. You seriously know absolutely nothing about this and you know it. You don't even know that the angle changes to the reflectors as the bloody Earth rotates and you put up a bloody LOLA graph which is absolutely bugger all to do with Laser ranging data

Quote:
The experiment cherry picks promising photon returns from a background of returns.
BULLSHIT. You are just making up crap to divert from your mistakes. You cite a LOLA graph to back up that statement

Quote:
It would be a more convincing experiment
You know nothing of what they do.

Quote:
if they shot every second pulse at an area with no reflector and gave groups of scientists both areas data to study blind.
Not necessary. The signals are of low enough strength to return almost NOTHING from the surface. The idea is to check the path of the Moon by its distance, not to make random hoax claimers happy

Quote:
It would be interesting to see if the scientists would be prepared to risk their reputations knowing there was a 50% chance they hailed the wrong area as the one with a reflector.
Gibberish. The reflector returns EXACT distances over and over again. There is no reputation to risk as you are talking complete bollocks.

Quote:
Alas it will never happen, its ''tried and tested'' unlike new pharmaceutical drugs.
Gibberish non sequitur.
__________________
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; 13-08-2018 at 10:25 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2018, 04:24 PM   #153
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,282 (755 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
They have to pick the most likely returns and discard the rest. Cherry pick.
This is what the raw data on a graph looks like.
That's also a possibility. Without additional evidence, I still think though that NASA was able to bounce a laser beam from the moon surface and receive it back on earth.

I’ve done a “simple” calculation.
When the laser light beam reaches the moon surface it reportedly has a diameter of about 6.5 kilometres. That’s more than 33 million square meter.
The reflector is only 0.5 meter square.
If I divide the size of the reflector with the area of the beam on the moon that’s 1.5 10^-8.
If only 1 out of 10^17 photons “aimed” at the reflector, is received back on Earth, only 1 in 1.5 billion of photons that (supposedly) hit the reflector are received back on earth.
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...8&postcount=28

Last edited by st jimmy; 19-08-2018 at 01:32 PM. Reason: corrected calculation
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2018, 04:29 PM   #154
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,282 (755 Posts)
Default

I’ve found an interesting interview with some important NASA actors.
Before I link to the interview, first I present some information on the descend of the Lunar Module (that couldn’t be tested).

The Lunar Module "started" the descend at 102:33:05.01; Altitude: 10.3 km; speed 6106 km/h.
The Lunar Module landed at 102:45:41.40.
In 12 1/2 minutes it supposedly went from a speed of 6106 km/h to (almost) 0; most of the speed was only lost in the final stages of the descend: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apo...rbit_Phase.htm

They also had to overcome the gravitation from the moon...
See how the Lunar Module descended.


The following shows how the Lunar Module had to turn in the last phase of the descend.
Not only was it important to have a low vertical speed when landing. It couldn’t have any horizontal speed at landing (unlike landings on earth that often use wheels).
Figure 8 LM Braking phase



According to NASA, the lander had 2 large rockets, one for the descent and another for return to the Central Module (circling around the moon at 6000 km/h), and 16 “control engines” with a small thrust.

The lunar module descent engine was the biggest challenge for the Apollo missions. Never before had a throttleable engine been designed for manned spacecraft.
The engine also was gimballed so that it could “shoot out” its thrust in the wanted direction.
Because the fuel was so corrosive, the engine couldn’t be tested before launch.

There was also the huge problem of cooling the combustion chamber for which supposedly radiation cooling was used: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/H...205/ch6-5.html


While the descend and ascend couldn’t be tested in vacuum at all, they could have tested with something like a light version of the Lunar Module:
1) Descending with a starting speed of 6000 km/h.
2) Lift off and then reaching a speed 6000 km/h.

Even more damaging than testing that couldn’t be done is the fact that they didn’t even test the things that could have been tested on earth!

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

Also interesting are the wheels on the drone...

How did they prevent the rocket ship from burning up in the sun light?
Quote:
Chris Kraft, director of flight operations, Mission Control: On the way to the moon, you might say, "Well, that could be a pretty boring time." But that's not true. There were times when you had to do things with the fuel cells, when you had to get rid of the water in the system. You're making sure the thermal operation of the spacecraft is being done well. On Apollo it was called barbecue mode.
Hugh Blair-Smith, software engineer for the Apollo guidance computer, MIT Instrumentation Laboratory: For the long three days from the Earth to the moon they had to keep the spacecraft rotating just like a pig on a spit so the sun wouldn't be concentrated on any one side.
The Lunar Module (engine) couldn’t be tested at all in vacuum. They didn’t even perform the tests that could have been done. The on-board computer couldn’t even handle the tasks it had to do.
Quote:
Steve Bales, guidance officer (GUIDO), White Team, Mission Control: When we came in that morning, the lunar module was dead. We had to power it up, get the thing aligned and checked out. In the simulations, that's where we'd always had the biggest difficulty, really. We had never completed without some major problem--and I don't know if we ever completed successfully in training--what we called a power-up and initialization of everything, and then gone ahead and done a landing.
Joe Gavin, director, Lunar Module Program, Grumman Aerospace Corporation: The whole thing was tense, because we were basically aircraft designers. In the aircraft business you always flight tested something before you delivered it. In the case of the lunar module, you couldn't flight test it. Every launch was a brand-new vehicle.
Doug Ward, NASA public affairs officer: The computer was simply saying, "Hey, I've got more than I can handle, but I'm gonna do the important things, so don't worry about it."

Neil Armstrong: The powered descent was the most challenging segment of the flight. The systems were heavily loaded, the margins were slim, and this would be the first time that the entire descent strategy would be fully tested. A decade earlier, while I was flying in the X-15 program, we learned, surprisingly, that all the pilots, while flying the X-15, had heart rates between 145 and 185. It reflected the mental intensity appropriate for a challenging situation. The Apollo data seemed to correlate well with our prior experience.
Joe Gavin, director, Lunar Module Program, Grumman Aerospace: The lunar module had the first really throttle-able descent engine. When it first fired, it had to operate at about 10,000 pounds of thrust. But as they approached the lunar surface, the vehicle became much lighter, having burned up a lot of fuel, and they had to get the thrust down to maybe 2000 pounds. So it was quite a development to get a rocket engine that would not only do this, but would operate smoothly in either range.
Gavin: In an airplane you usually have, oh, at least an hour's extra fuel in case the airport is closed where you're going. But in the case of the lunar module, we had about 120 seconds of margin.
Nobody had ever been on the moon. There was no way of knowing that, even if landing was possible, the module wouldn’t sink or the surface otherwise wouldn’t be lethal to the astronauts.
Quote:
Gavin: When we started all this, we didn't know what the surface of the moon was like. We went ahead with a very conservative landing gear design because there never had been a rocket-propelled vertical-landing machine.
Bruce McCandless, astronaut (CapCom), Green Team, Mission Control: It was a relief that the dust on the lunar surface was actually only half an inch deep.
Don Beattie, program manager, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments: Another [concern] was that the dust would be pyrophoric--that when they opened the cabin of the lunar module, oxygen would react with dust and explode. There was no way we could be sure until the guys opened up the door and the oxygen flowed out.
The lift off of the lunar module also wasn’t tested. The Apollo 17 lift off violates the laws of physics as the Lunar Module doesn’t slowly accelerate.
Quote:
Gavin: In my mind, the riskiest unknown in the whole mission was the takeoff. When the astronaut pressed the button, a whole bunch of things had to happen. The explosive bolts connecting the two stages had to fire. And then the ascent engine had to be ignited to lift the ascent stage off. And somehow as it left the descent stage, the exhaust from the ascent engine had to go somewhere.
Buzz Aldrin: It was not a gradual liftoff. It was a sudden departure--but without any of the forces that go along with rapid acceleration. Looking out the window, everything was getting smaller so fast that [we didn't really notice] the craft going through a gradual pitch forward.
Because much of the Moon landings couldn’t be tested if I had been the Test Manager, I would have advised against landing on the moon.
Quote:
Alan Kehlet, Apollo chief project engineer, North American Rockwell: Some guy ran an analysis of all the critical events that had to take place and came to the conclusion we didn't have enough reliability, that it would never work. But we discarded it.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/spa...ory-apollo-11/
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...8&postcount=28
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2018, 09:59 PM   #155
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,214 (956 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
That's also a possibility. Without additional evidence, I still think though that NASA was able to bounce a laser beam from the moon surface and receive it back on earth.
Of course that is exactly correct. But seriously, are you that entrenched in your belief system that the MAJOR point whooshes over your head?

Returns from the surface are absolutely random in distance. Returns from the reflectors are not. Returns from the surface are weak, returns from the reflectors are not.

The whole bloody point of putting them there

Quote:
I’ve done a “simple” calculation.
When the laser light beam reaches the moon surface it reportedly has a diameter of about 6.5 kilometres. That’s about 132,665,000 square meter.
The reflector is only 0.5 meter square.
If I divide the size of the reflector with the area of the beam on the moon that’s 3.8 10^-9.
Not sure I'm getting your maths here. Apollo 15(the one they use the most) reflector is 105x65 cm = 0.68 metres square. 132M / 0.68 gives 192,000,000. If you fired 192M photons, equidistant with each other , 1 would hit the reflector.

Quote:
If only 1 out of 10^17 photons “aimed” at the reflector, is received back on Earth, only 1 in hundreds of millions of photons that (supposedly) hit the reflector are received back on earth.


Hurrah. AND?

Are you seriously claiming that your blundering maths and "insight" means that all the 50 years worth of experiments over numerous countries and observatories are all wrong.

Hey guys, you're all wrong cos' St Jimmy did some maths

To clarify!!

Modern lasers are much narrower than 6km, they now spread between 1 & 2 km. The really narrow ones can get it down below 1km. Around one in 30M returning photons are received.

https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/apollo/basics.html

Do you know how many photons there are on each pulse? They fire them over and over again for many hours. Thanks for playing
__________________
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 18-08-2018, 10:33 PM   #156
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,214 (956 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
I’ve found an interesting interview with some important NASA actors.
They aren't actors just because your poor understanding says they are

Quote:
Before I link to the interview, first I present some information on the descend of the Lunar Module (that couldn’t be tested).
You are lying. I say lying because I have explained this to you maybe half a dozen times now.

Quote:
The Lunar Module "started" the descend at 102:33:05.01; Altitude: 10.3 km; speed 6106 km/h. The Lunar Module landed at 102:45:41.40.
In 12 1/2 minutes it supposedly went from a speed of 6106 km/h to (almost) 0; most of the speed was only lost in the final stages of the descend:
Incorrect. You even post a picture explaining that it was incorrect, can you actually read?

Quote:
They also had to overcome the gravitation from the moon...
I await your maths to show why that is a problem.

Quote:
The following shows how the Lunar Module had to turn in the last phase of the descend. Not only was it important to have a low vertical speed when landing. It couldn’t have any horizontal speed at landing (unlike landings on earth that often use wheels).
Uhuh, you are slowly but surely getting it

Quote:
Figure 8 LM Braking phase
After 1/5th of its descent, 1/3 of its speed has gone. At just under 1/2 way 3/4 of its speed has gone. Now to me that contradicts what you just claimed

Quote:
According to NASA, the lander had 2 large rockets, one for the descent and another for return to the Central Module (circling around the moon at 6000 km/h), and 16 “control engines” with a small thrust.
Two engines. One on the Descent Stage, one on the Ascent Stage for return to the COMMAND Module. The RCS thrusters were for attitude control in all 3 axes.

Quote:
The lunar module descent engine was the biggest challenge for the Apollo missions. Never before had a throttleable engine been designed for manned spacecraft.
Uhuh...and?


Quote:
The engine also was gimballed so that it could “shoot out” its thrust in the wanted direction.
Yes but it shoots out its EXHAUST to create thrust in the opposite direction.

Quote:
Because the fuel was so corrosive, the engine couldn’t be tested before launch.
Nonsense. The engine was tested thousands of times. What you mean was the engine could not be fired until needed.

Quote:
There was also the huge problem of cooling the combustion chamber for which supposedly radiation cooling was used: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/H...205/ch6-5.html
Where does it say that was a "huge problem"? You just made that up!!

Quote:
While the descend and ascend couldn’t be tested in vacuum at all
A COMPLETE LIE

The engines were tested at practical vacuum on Earth, thousands of times. They were thoroughly tested in space on Apollo 5/9/10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_10

I'm getting quite sick of you repeating the lies about no testing, some truther you are!!

Quote:
they could have tested with something like a light version of the Lunar Module:
1) Descending with a starting speed of 6000 km/h.
2) Lift off and then reaching a speed 6000 km/h.
If I ran the Zoo fallacy and ignoring the actual tests performed

Quote:
Even more damaging than testing that couldn’t be done is the fact that they didn’t even test the things that could have been tested on earth!
That is actual genuine gibberish.

Quote:
Also interesting are the wheels on the drone...
It isn't a drone. It is a training vehicle to simulate the operation of the LM descent.

Quote:
How did they prevent the rocket ship from burning up in the sun light?
What in the world of piffle are you talking about?? That makes no sense at any level. A test vehicle on Earth protected from "burning up in sunlight" by the frickin' wheels

Quote:
The Lunar Module (engine) couldn’t be tested at all in vacuum.
Liar. Once again...

The engines were tested at practical vacuum on Earth, thousands of times. They were thoroughly tested in space on Apollo 5/9/10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_10

Quote:
They didn’t even perform the tests that could have been done.
You are truly shite at research. You simply haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Quote:
The on-board computer couldn’t even handle the tasks it had to do.
Detail them. The LM AGC is online in many guises using the exact specs of the one used by Apollo CM and LM, they work perfectly. The heavy duty stuff was performed by massive mainframes on Earth and uploaded.

Quote:
Nobody had ever been on the moon.
Sadly, your useless bare assertion is just that. There have been 12 men who have walked on the Moon. The evidence says so.

Quote:
There was no way of knowing that, even if landing was possible, the module wouldn’t sink
Apart from all the numerous unmanned craft

Quote:
or the surface otherwise wouldn’t be lethal to the astronauts.
From what? Alien death rayzzzzzzz

Quote:
The lift off of the lunar module also wasn’t tested.
Another lie. The ascent stage was tested....

The engines were tested at practical vacuum on Earth, thousands of times. They were thoroughly tested in space on Apollo 5/9/10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_10

It was a known delta-v with known propellant, gravity and distance to rendezvous.

Quote:
The Apollo 17 lift off violates the laws of physics as the Lunar Module doesn’t slowly accelerate.
Nope. Thanks for your ever so slightly biased and rather crap opinion.

Quote:
Because much of the Moon landings couldn’t be tested
A lie.

Quote:
if I had been the Test Manager
You would have been fired for incompetency

Quote:
, I would have advised against landing on the moon.
Thank fuck you weren't born, otherwise we would never have had 6 lunar landings and 842lbs of authentic lunar samples etc. etc.
__________________
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; 18-08-2018 at 10:50 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-08-2018, 01:51 PM   #157
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,282 (755 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
A COMPLETE LIE
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
I'm getting quite sick of you repeating the lies about no testing, some truther you are!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
I'm getting quite sick of you repeating the lies about no testing, some truther you are!!
Liar. Once again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
I'm getting quite sick of you repeating the lies about no testing, some truther you are!!

Another lie. The ascent stage was tested....

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
I'm getting quite sick of you repeating the lies about no testing, some truther you are!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
The engines were tested at practical vacuum on Earth, thousands of times. They were thoroughly tested in space on Apollo 5/9/10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_10
The repeated lies to defend the ridiculous story just keep on coming.
The descend and ascend in vacuum couldn't be tested at all because it's impossible to create a vacuum room large enough to perform this "test"...

NASA could've theoretically done an ascend test (not in vacuum) up to a speed of more than 6000 km/h, but they didn't for some reason.
They also didn't test the descend from a starting speed of more than 6000 km/h.


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
I'm getting quite sick of you repeating the lies about no testing, some truther you are!!
It isn't a drone. It is a training vehicle to simulate the operation of the LM descent.
So they put wheels under it and let it land on asfalt because that is similar to how the moon surface would be?!?

Quote:
Neil Armstrong: The powered descent was the most challenging segment of the flight. The systems were heavily loaded, the margins were slim, and this would be the first time that the entire descent strategy would be fully tested.
Quote:
Joe Gavin, director, Lunar Module Program, Grumman Aerospace Corporation: In the aircraft business you always flight tested something before you delivered it. In the case of the lunar module, you couldn't flight test it.

When we started all this, we didn't know what the surface of the moon was like. We went ahead with a very conservative landing gear design because there never had been a rocket-propelled vertical-landing machine.

In my mind, the riskiest unknown in the whole mission was the takeoff. When the astronaut pressed the button, a whole bunch of things had to happen. The explosive bolts connecting the two stages had to fire. And then the ascent engine had to be ignited to lift the ascent stage off. And somehow as it left the descent stage, the exhaust from the ascent engine had to go somewhere.
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...8&postcount=28

Last edited by st jimmy; 19-08-2018 at 01:52 PM.
Likes: (2)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-08-2018, 02:35 PM   #158
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,214 (956 Posts)
Default Ink "likes" your lies!

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
The repeated lies to defend the ridiculous story just keep on coming.
I challenge you to highlight exactly where any of that is a lie!!

Quote:
The descend and ascend in vacuum couldn't be tested at all because it's impossible to create a vacuum room large enough to perform this "test"...
Not only are you a shameless and repetitive liar, you are demonstrating the appalling failure of simply reading links. I posted numerous links for engine testing at 200,000ft near enough to vacuum. I posted links to 3 missions that tested the LM in space.

Quote:
NASA could've theoretically done an ascend test (not in vacuum) up to a speed of more than 6000 km/h, but they didn't for some reason.
YES THEY DID IN VACUUM!!

Quote:
They also didn't test the descend from a starting speed of more than 6000 km/h.
YOU ARE A LIAR!!

Apollo 10 descended to 8 nautical miles above the lunar surface!! Then it did an abort landing, separated the two stages and fired it back up to orbital rendezvous.

What is about you that you have this painful problem of not being able to read links or admit your useless errors?

Quote:
So they put wheels under it and let it land on asfalt because that is similar to how the moon surface would be?!?
You haven't got the slightest clue what you are watching or reading. The object of the LLTV was to simulate landing with a central gimballed engine, a wide craft and a vertical approach. This was made many times harder with wind/pressure variations and higher gravity.

The surface was known about from numerous Soviet and American soft landings. These craft returned thousands of transmitted pictures.

"and this would be the first time that the entire descent strategy would be fully tested. "

The salient word being "FULLY", since Apollo 10 performed the exact same thing and aborted just before landing approach. The nature of doing something for the first time IS that nobody has done it before

" In the case of the lunar module, you couldn't flight test it."

For those incapable of determining what he meant!! They could not test THAT craft, not that they couldn't test previous identical ones

This really is like pulling teeth. NASA were positively anal about the testing for the program. They tested over and over and over again, every damn little thing that could be tested!

Apollo 10:
__________________
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; 19-08-2018 at 02:37 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-08-2018, 09:08 PM   #159
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,214 (956 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
The Apollo 17 lift off violates the laws of physics as the Lunar Module doesn’t slowly accelerate.
Here is Apollo 17 lunar launch, that hoax claimers say is some sort of model, or whatever...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlGis35Epvs

No need to flick to the launch, just look at the view.

Now here is the same view (BEFORE, FROM A CONTINUOUS SHOT!!) with Schmitt throwing his geology hammer, you can actually see it in flight...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIvTZLlV4F0

How exactly was this done in 1972?

Oh and just for good measure below, the rover camera zoomed right back doing a huge panorama, then zooms into that same view. Big "set" huh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWi...ailpage#t=1041

That clip from here where the camera also pans up into the lunar sky and sees the Earth(takes a few seconds to load)....
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...7v.1703729.mpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...7v.1703959.mpg

Be brave!! Answer this with an honest response.
__________________
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; 20-08-2018 at 09:22 AM.
Likes: (1)
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2018, 09:54 AM   #160
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,282 (755 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
What is about you that you have this painful problem of not being able to read links or admit your useless errors?
Maybe you should make a point of posting only links to NASA propaganda of more than a 100 pages. Some of "your" links are actually so short that I try to read parts of it!

I’ve repeatedly called lack of testing an argument against the Apollo moon landings. I think this is a good time to explain a little on “testing”...
I guess that testing of planes is more similar to software testing than the testing that should be done in “rocket science”, but the links I found to come up with a “test strategy” is relevant in this context (at the very least it explains how I look at it).

In (software) testing deciding what to test is decided based on the (estimated) risk.
Risk is assessed by a team of “stakeholders” and based on multiplying (maybe there are better formulas…):
Probability * Severity

Probability is the chance an error would occur after implementation of the software. This is mostly decided on the complexity and the frequency functionality is used.
Severity is the damage a failure would cause. In software development arguably the worst that could happen is that an error brings the whole system down: http://www.methodsandtools.com/archi...hive.php?id=31

When I relate this to the testing for the Apollo moon landings, the risk is enormous, which means I expect that basically every small detail of the moon landings would be tested with hundreds of test cases.
The complexity of a moon landing is especially large as never before people landed on the moon. There are even many factors about landing on the moon (and the trip) that were (are) simply unknown.

When I learn that not even the tests that could have been performed (if a moon landing is feasible) on earth were done, like:
Landing a “lunar module” with a starting speed of 6000 km/h (4 times the top speed of an F-16).
Lifting off a lunar module to reach a speed of 6000 km/h…
I can only conclude that the whole Apollo project was a fraud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Apollo 10 descended to 8 nautical miles above the lunar surface!! Then it did an abort landing, separated the two stages and fired it back up to orbital rendezvous.
So on the one hand you admit that not even the tests that should have been done on earth were performed but on the other hand you call me a “LIAR” for pointing that out!

While landing on the moon is associated with an extremely high risk. For which I don’t think an appropriate, feasible “testing strategy” could be figured out, making a handful of movies on “moon landings” with some special effects wouldn’t be a risk.
With the media under complete control there is no chance that the fraud would ever be exposed (is there?).
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...8&postcount=28

Last edited by st jimmy; 27-08-2018 at 09:56 AM.
st jimmy 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 11:53 PM.


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