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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 19-02-2018, 03:58 AM   #1
deca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 19,285
Likes: 1,071 (727 Posts)
Default Have They Lied To Us About Absolutely EVERYTHING?? -- Bart Sibrel

Have They Lied To Us About Absolutely EVERYTHING?? -- Bart Sibrel


Quote:
SGTreport
Published on Feb 18, 2018
Bart Sibrel, the producer and director of 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon' joins me to discuss the NASA Apollo moon missions and SpaceX. Bart firmly believes that NASA faked the moon landings and the evidence cited in this interview leads me to draw many of the the same conclusions. We know that the elite who run the world have lied to us about everything else, so what would make you believe they told us the truth about the Apollo missions when by NASA's own admission, they have "lost" the technology to go back?

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJ...

Did They Really Walk on the Moon 48 Years Ago on the Very First Attempt?
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/land-...

Please consider supporting SGT Report on Patron with a monthly contribution: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=5104183

For REAL news 24/7:
http://sgtreport.com/
http://thephaser.com/
http://thelibertymill.com/

MUSIC CREDITS:
Epidemic Sound: "Who'sThere" paid license for You Tube use

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

The content in my videos and on the SGTbull07 - SGTreport.com channel are provided for informational purposes only. Use the information found in these videos as a starting point for conducting your own research and conduct your own due diligence BEFORE making any significant investing decisions. SGTbull07 - SGTreport.com assumes all information to be truthful and reliable; however, I cannot and do not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of this information. Thank you!
__________________
It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction...Thus, it may be possible to 'talk' to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them."
United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power For The 21st Century
find out more website ==> https://decasfoxhole.wordpress.com/
deca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-02-2018, 02:06 PM   #2
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

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.
__________________
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 20-02-2018, 08:48 AM   #3
eddieb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 342 (189 Posts)
Default

[QUOTE=st jimmy;1063000569]I’m not much of a watcher of long videos (it’s more than an hour)...
Why doesn’t anybody write?!?

I agree it's too long. Having said that I watched about 30 minutes of it and whilst I've basically given up on the so called Moon landings I decides to have a look and will say was impressed with the bits I saw.
Several things stood out... 1: The computing power back then was 1000 times less powerfull than a modern Smart phone and therefore simply not upto the job.
2: The actual cost of the Moon shots came to $130,000,000,000 US.
3: The cost of each individual Moon Buggie was $60,000,000 US. The American jeep had more parts yet cost way less.
4: When the Landing Craft (LC) landed on the surface of the Moon there should have been a large crater underneath it caused by the rocket blast, there wasn't.
5: The mountains inthe background in all shots virtually never change.
6: There was no dust on the LC after it landed.

I have written on here previously that the only thing that we can honestly comment on with any degree of accuracy about these Moon Shots is the camera and film that they supposedly used. Neither of which would be able to work because the temperature fluctuation between day and night would far exceed the working specifications of said apparatus!
And if a company made the first camera or the first film used on the very first moon landing wouldn't you think that the company would have that advertised on every packet of film or every camera they sold?
__________________
The Nameless War. The book they said would never be written.
Author: CAPTAIN A.H.M. RAMSAY.
It's a small book, but it says so much!

Last edited by eddieb; 20-02-2018 at 08:49 AM.
eddieb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2018, 10:31 PM   #4
skulb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 35 (18 Posts)
Default

I would not argue with any of what you said. But on the subject of propulsion, it would take surprisingly short thrust to actually leave the Moon. It is not comparable at all to leaving the earth. A few seconds burst to get you up and then a tiny directional burst to leave the Moon's gravity well before falling almost automatically back to earth. The escape velocity required to leave earth's orbit is about 40 000 km/hr. The escape velocity on the Moon is one seventh of this. And because there is no resistance from an atmosphere like there is when leaving earth, the fuel requirements for the a return trip are much smaller than these escape velocity figures would indicate. You can thrust the engines for a few seconds to get clear of the surface and then spend whatever fuel you have left on the approach burn for earth immediately. And if you leave the Moon retrograde, as one does, the distance you would have to travel to leave the Moon's gravity field is shortened further. The opposite would mean essentially following the Moon along its orbit as one tried to escape its gravity, and is therefore very silly. By following the Moon's orbit retrograde when leaving you basically fall down to earth naturally just as soon as you reach escape velocity from the Moon.

People tend to think of motions in space as lines, largely thanks to the imbeciles in Hollywood. But they are always curves, because you're always orbiting something. Thrusting and reverse thrusting essentially expands or shrinks the orbit on the opposite side from you, like inflating or deflating a bubble. Thrust long enough and the orbit is broken there and you can leave when you get round to the other side. Or in the case of the moon you can thrust in earth orbit to expand the projected orbit until it will intersect with the Moon's gravity. Once there you can then reverse thrust to shrink the new orbit around the Moon.
Interestingly, the further you are away from the object you are aiming at the less fuel you actually need to expend to correct your approach vector. The tiniest adjustments would be needed from Moon orbit to aim a space craft to exactly where you want it on earth. A lighter's worth of kerosene spent in orbit around the moon can mean a 300 000 km difference in the approach to earth that it would take a full shuttle to achieve if you were close to earth. It's very fascinating.

All of this works perfectly fine in theory. Just not with the gear they had at the time and with the radiation belt on the way there. Or for that matter the temperature variations on the Moon's surface. According to NASA's own documentation the "space suits" worn were not adequate protection from either the high temperatures of the sunlit surface or the low temperatures in the shadows on the Moon. And those would be instant as well, because there is no atmosphere. In other words your front would be scorching hot and your shadowed half would be freezing cold at the same time. And NASA's suits were not designed for either, which they are themselves admitting.

But they do have engines that can ignite in vacuum. And they can test them. It is important to keep things real here.

Last edited by skulb; 20-02-2018 at 11:50 PM.
Likes: (1)
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2018, 10:11 AM   #5
eddieb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 342 (189 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
I would not argue with any of what you said. But on the subject of propulsion, it would take surprisingly short thrust to actually leave the Moon. It is not comparable at all to leaving the earth. A few seconds burst to get you up and then a tiny directional burst to leave the Moon's gravity well before falling almost automatically back to earth. The escape velocity required to leave earth's orbit is about 40 000 km/hr. The escape velocity on the Moon is one seventh of this. And because there is no resistance from an atmosphere like there is when leaving earth, the fuel requirements for the a return trip are much smaller than these escape velocity figures would indicate. You can thrust the engines for a few seconds to get clear of the surface and then spend whatever fuel you have left on the approach burn for earth immediately. And if you leave the Moon retrograde, as one does, the distance you would have to travel to leave the Moon's gravity field is shortened further. The opposite would mean essentially following the Moon along its orbit as one tried to escape its gravity, and is therefore very silly. By following the Moon's orbit retrograde when leaving you basically fall down to earth naturally just as soon as you reach escape velocity from the Moon.

People tend to think of motions in space as lines, largely thanks to the imbeciles in Hollywood. But they are always curves, because you're always orbiting something. Thrusting and reverse thrusting essentially expands or shrinks the orbit on the opposite side from you, like inflating or deflating a bubble. Thrust long enough and the orbit is broken there and you can leave when you get round to the other side. Or in the case of the moon you can thrust in earth orbit to expand the projected orbit until it will intersect with the Moon's gravity. Once there you can then reverse thrust to shrink the new orbit around the Moon.
Interestingly, the further you are away from the object you are aiming at the less fuel you actually need to expend to correct your approach vector. The tiniest adjustments would be needed from Moon orbit to aim a space craft to exactly where you want it on earth. A lighter's worth of kerosene spent in orbit around the moon can mean a 300 000 km difference in the approach to earth that it would take a full shuttle to achieve if you were close to earth. It's very fascinating.

All of this works perfectly fine in theory. Just not with the gear they had at the time and with the radiation belt on the way there. Or for that matter the temperature variations on the Moon's surface. According to NASA's own documentation the "space suits" worn were not adequate protection from either the high temperatures of the sunlit surface or the low temperatures in the shadows on the Moon. And those would be instant as well, because there is no atmosphere. In other words your front would be scorching hot and your shadowed half would be freezing cold at the same time. And NASA's suits were not designed for either, which they are themselves admitting.

But they do have engines that can ignite in vacuum. And they can test them. It is important to keep things real here.
Part of the video that I didn't comment on was Von Braun's statement on how much fuel would be required to get to the Moon and back. He said ( according to the video ) the rocket would need to be three ( Yes 3 ) times the height of the Empire State building and it would have to carry hundreds if thousands of llbs of fuel. I think I would be more prone to agree with a man who apparently knew a thing or two about rockets etc than you, no offence offered.
__________________
The Nameless War. The book they said would never be written.
Author: CAPTAIN A.H.M. RAMSAY.
It's a small book, but it says so much!
eddieb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2018, 01:50 PM   #6
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
But they do have engines that can ignite in vacuum. And they can test them.
Can you show me “evidence” to support this claim?


Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
People tend to think of motions in space as lines, largely thanks to the imbeciles in Hollywood. But they are always curves, because you're always orbiting something.
The (theoretical) lift off (of the module) from the moon would be in a straight line, while the "big rocket" would be circling around the moon; getting from the moon to the big rocket would be almost as impossible as a soft landing on the moon and lift off.


Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
But on the subject of propulsion, it would take surprisingly short thrust to actually leave the Moon. It is not comparable at all to leaving the earth. A few seconds burst to get you up and then a tiny directional burst to leave the Moon's gravity well before falling almost automatically back to earth.
Because there is no atmosphere on the moon, every device that’s used on earth for a “soft landing” would be completely useless on the moon, like parachutes, wings or rotors (of f.e. a helicopter).

The escape velocity from Earth is about 11.19 km/s at the surface.
The escape velocity from the Moon is about 2.38 km/s at the surface.

There is no device yet invented to make the speed drop to zero (for a soft landing) with such fast motion or accelerate to the escape velocity of the moon in vacuum – and going against gravitation on top of that.
Even if they could theoretically make such a device – the energy needed would make this impossible (not even counting the crater that is nowhere to be seen).

In inventing a movie script for the moon landing science fiction they simply invented making a much smaller Lunar Module.
Because of its much smaller mass the energy needed for the soft landing and lift off would be much smaller.
In reality this would probably make it even more difficult, having to take along the extra weight of the module, while there are also some additional practical problems like leaving and reconnecting with the “big” rocket that’s still circling around the moon at a tremendous speed.

But of course in science fiction anything is possible...
From a practical point of view, it's also completely ridiculous that they made 2 astronauts walking the moon surface with an additional one in the Lunar Module.


Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
The tiniest adjustments would be needed from Moon orbit to aim a space craft to exactly where you want it on earth. A lighter's worth of kerosene spent in orbit around the moon can mean a 300 000 km difference in the approach to earth that it would take a full shuttle to achieve if you were close to earth.
Only after leaving the moon's gravition would you come in such a situation (but that is only theoretical)...
They wouldn't care about landing "exactly where ... on earth". Exactly... by using a magical parachute?!?
Because after leaving the moon's gravitation sphere, the rocket would be attracted by earth returning to earth would be relatively easy and wouldn't need much energy.
But in reality - they cannot perform a soft landing on the moon and even if they could they could never leave!

Because a soft landing on earth could be done with a parachute that could probably be done...

It think that H.G. Wells' "The first men in the moon" was better than the 1960s imitation.
__________________
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; 21-02-2018 at 01:56 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-02-2018, 07:40 PM   #7
skulb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 35 (18 Posts)
Default

Well, in vacuum they use electrical engines rather than the chemical ones they use for liftoff on earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...aft_propulsion
As far as I know these engines are just powered by a battery inside the craft and expel matter to propel the craft forward. Or to reverse thrust when you want to stop. Not much thrust but that obviously works in vacuum and uses almost no energy.
You also have more modern ion drives and mass drivers that also do not depend on igniting kerosene in the vacuum of space. Only the launch rocket requires air to run. It's obvious when you think about it of course, but no mission, real or fake, has ever tried to get to the moon with its launch rocket. That would just be silly.

The basic idea of space travel is that speed and fuel might as well be conserved because you have to spend some to slow down anyway when you get to wherever you're going. The faster you're going the more fuel you will need to stop again. This is the big challenge with the existing theories of space travel. There isn't necessarily a limit to how fast a space craft can travel, within reason. But how do you stop? The only way I know of is a retrograde burn to slow you down enough to enter an orbit, or using the atmosphere itself to gradually slow down over the course of many orbits. But you still have to slow down a lot with burns before this even becomes possible. Without it you either crash into something eventually or skip off the atmosphere of the planet you're trying to get to and disappear in space. And they calculate fuel costs for this with a formula called delta-V. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v
This is a measure of the momentum you can generate with the craft in question and the fuel available. The optimal delta V figure +/- 25% must be worked out for a mission and then the craft can be designed with enough fuel for the worst case scenario.
And they did all this for the Apollo movies. They just didn't do any of it manned because that's not possible even today. They probably did them unmanned though, because they had proved theoretically that it was possible. And if not in the 60s and 70s almost certainly later when the robotics and automation technology improved.

As for intersecting with an orbiting object around the Moon, this would indeed be far more exact than I would be willing to try in real life. But I have done it once on a simulator. But it was amazingly fiddly and I was able to save my progress before trying. Otherwise I would never have made it. But clearly it is possible, and doesn't even really require much fuel. Just millimeter precision over huge distances. Personally I give NASA employees the benefit of the doubt that they probably are a bit smarter than me. And that years of training might even make it easier to dock things in space for them than it is for me.

And yes, parachute to land on earth. The reason they come in almost horizontally is to use the air resistance in the atmosphere on earth to gradually slow down. If you don't do that you will explode because you're going too fast. The condensed atmosphere would make the craft catch fire you see. But not if you slow down enough first, which does not necessarily require fuel. Depending on the speed you can use the aerobraking technique I mentioned and spend several orbits dipping in and out of the atmosphere, to gradually slow down before landing at an angle. And no, all of that obviously doesn't work on the Moon. But you can land on an object with low gravity by reverse thrusting because you fall so slowly even in free fall. If you are accurate it is possible to stay vertical while slowly reducing the speed as you descend. This too is very tricky at first though, as I know because I have also tried this in a simulator. The slightest mistake and the craft can flip or speed off in unwanted directions. But again, they are allegedly professionals and I am not. And even I was finally able to land on the Moon without crashing to my death in the simulator. If I remember it right you should get below 20 m/s before you land. If you are going faster than that you will either crash, break landing struts or tip over. Either outcome would be very, very bad in real life. But you're not going to fall faster than 75 m/s or so even in free fall, so not much fuel needed there to land. Or take off. It is theoretically possible to reverse thrust land on earth as well. But this would require huge quantities of fuel, and that would not be possible for an earth based mission that has to spend so much fuel to get out of the gravity well of the planet first. But theoretically you could launch a craft from another planet, like the Moon, and instead spend all your fuel landing with reverse thrusting on earth. It would be silly and pointless when you can just use a parachute that costs 25 dollars. But it is possible. It's a perfectly good way to land under the right circumstances. Like when landing on the Moon.

Anyway, I would strongly recommend that you give a space flight simulator a go. Several good ones, but I am a big baby and presently prefer Kerbal Space Program. It has funny cartoon characters but the physics are accurate, albeit on a 1/4th scale to save some time. But it can give you a good idea of how orbits and delta V works in a fun way. God knows I would know nothing about it if it hadn't been for simulators.



And for the record, I don't pretend to know what happened one way or the other with the Apollo missions. But as far as I'm concerned everything the US government says or does is almost bound to be fishy. If they say something I automatically assume that they are lying. And they said that they sent four Freemasons to the Moon in 1969. So that is probably a lie. But that doesn't mean unmanned space flight is a lie. And certainly not the underlying theories. If I can do it with existing theories and technology (and save games) I think that pretty much proves it. It's not as hard as people think. It's just fiddly and mistakes get you killed most of the time. That's why no one does this with manned missions. Unless they are crazy. Or lying in some mad Cold War propaganda stunt.

PS: KSP does not include radiation, which is why you can send Kerbals to the Moon in it, unlike in the real world. They also have unlimited air and don't need to eat, so you can just come back and get them later if they get stuck without enough fuel to get home. This does not work in real life obviously. But other than that it's accurate enough.

Last edited by skulb; 22-02-2018 at 09:12 PM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-02-2018, 08:52 PM   #8
skulb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 35 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eddieb View Post
Part of the video that I didn't comment on was Von Braun's statement on how much fuel would be required to get to the Moon and back. He said ( according to the video ) the rocket would need to be three ( Yes 3 ) times the height of the Empire State building and it would have to carry hundreds if thousands of llbs of fuel. I think I would be more prone to agree with a man who apparently knew a thing or two about rockets etc than you, no offence offered.
Well, first of all there is zero context here. When did he say this? New types of rocket fuel have been developed continuously since the war. More fuel efficient thrusters are also in use now than when he was alive, and it isn't close, rendering his opinion irrelevant. And even now the launch rockets are basically enormous anyway because of all the fuel inside, so I don't understand at all what you believe this quote proves. And 90% of that fuel is spent getting off the ground. Once you reach orbit you will be moving at about 12000 m/s. You need about 16500 m/s to expand that orbit to intersect with the Moon's gravity. And then you need to slow down to about 2000 m/s to get into orbit around the Moon. And most of that is done for you because the ship will move more slowly at the apoapsis of an orbit, which is where you'll be when you get there. Conversely you would move much faster at the periapsis, when you're closest to the earth. In this case you would be moving at about 4000 m/s when you reach the Moon, and would therefore need enough fuel to slow down only by about 2000 m/s.
And to leave in a retrograde exit from the Moon again you would only need to speed up to about 1200 m/s in order to escape the Moon's gravity get caught by the earth's gravity instead. After that only small correctional bursts would be needed to land where you wanted to on earth.

Add all these figures up and you find how much delta v, and therefore fuel, a specific craft would need to get to the Moon and back again. A small craft would need less fuel to reach the required velocities but would also be able to carry less fuel with which to do it. And it would certainly be less than two Empire State buildings even with a comparatively large craft. But it would still be a lot, which is why launch rockets are so enormous. But what Oppenheimer said in the 1940s is completely and utterly irrelevant in every way. If you can get into orbit, going to the Moon is not an issue, fuel wise. It is getting into orbit that stops major space exploration missions because you basically have to spend millions and millions on oceans of fuel just to essentially get a gasoline can with a radio antenna into orbit. The actual space traveling part of any mission is the tiny tea cup on the tip of the launch rocket.
Unless you have a really, really good reason you're not going to even try anything ambitious just because of this. And that is why they are trying to build facilities in orbit. Maybe one day they can assemble space missions there, or on the Moon even, which would eliminate the prohibitive fuel costs associated with leaving the planet. If a modern space rocket with all that fuel could launch from the Moon it would be easy to explore the entire solar system. The fuel would last forever with an electrical or ion thruster. As long as you don't land anywhere that is. Getting back up again would use up all the fuel.

It's just presently very difficult technically to land anywhere or really do much of anything in space, simply because of the fact that you can't use manned missions so everything needs to be automated. But they are working on this too with the unmanned probes to Saturn, Jupiter and Mars. But this is the real problem with things like landing on the Moon, and why it is too expensive to be worth it for anyone not desperate to score a propaganda victory against the Soviet Union in 1969. Or people who aren't lying, like the US government always does. For them it's free to send people to the Moon. They just have to say they did and shoot some stuff on a movie set and everyone will believe them. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to land something there. Just pointlessly expensive and useless. There's nothing there but dust and rock. Now if there was gold on the Moon the US government would steal all the tax dollars they could to go there and steal it before anyone else could. But there isn't, so they don't. Well they steal tax dollars, but not for that. For bombs to be tested on Arabs and for "interest" payments to their parasitical banking system.

Last edited by skulb; 22-02-2018 at 09:19 PM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2018, 05:39 AM   #9
cosmicpurpose1.618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Everywhere/nowhere
Posts: 2,475
Likes: 2,085 (1,075 Posts)
Default

no they didn't lie about everything.

Mercury really is poisonous
cosmicpurpose1.618 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2018, 09:30 AM   #10
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
Well, in vacuum they use electrical engines rather than the chemical ones they use for liftoff on earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...aft_propulsion
As far as I know these engines are just powered by a battery inside the craft and expel matter to propel the craft forward. Or to reverse thrust when you want to stop. Not much thrust but that obviously works in vacuum and uses almost no energy.
(...)

But how do you stop? The only way I know of is a retrograde burn to slow you down enough to enter an orbit, or using the atmosphere itself to gradually slow down over the course of many orbits. But you still have to slow down a lot with burns before this even becomes possible. Without it you either crash into something eventually or skip off the atmosphere of the planet you're trying to get to and disappear in space.
I have the impression that we agree that it would be impossible to descend to the moon, because it’s impossible to slow down enough for a soft landing.

I’ve been thinking about the theoretical possibility of an engine that ignites in vacuum. The first problem I think of is lack of oxygen.
Even if it would be possible to build it in a way to supply the oxygen, I doubt if this could ever do anything besides make the temperature very hot.
The engine would have to be in front of the direction of the rocket (instead of behind it, to make slowing down possible). The rocket would become very, very hot as a result…

The Lunar Module would need huge tanks just to carry the oxygen alone which would increase the mass of the module with additional problems as a result.
I don’t know how much oxygen they would need, but this could very well be the size of the Empire State Building. Do you see the huge tanks on the Lunar Module?
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-02-2018, 02:17 AM   #11
skulb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 35 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
I have the impression that we agree that it would be impossible to descend to the moon, because it’s impossible to slow down enough for a soft landing.

I’ve been thinking about the theoretical possibility of an engine that ignites in vacuum. The first problem I think of is lack of oxygen.
Even if it would be possible to build it in a way to supply the oxygen, I doubt if this could ever do anything besides make the temperature very hot.
The engine would have to be in front of the direction of the rocket (instead of behind it, to make slowing down possible). The rocket would become very, very hot as a result…

The Lunar Module would need huge tanks just to carry the oxygen alone which would increase the mass of the module with additional problems as a result.
I don’t know how much oxygen they would need, but this could very well be the size of the Empire State Building. Do you see the huge tanks on the Lunar Module?
No it is not impossible. Like I tried to explain, when there is no atmosphere you can turn the craft around and thrust upwards to control the speed of the descent. It's a little fiddly and easy to make mistakes, but it is not impossible. Don't know where you got that idea from. Parachutes are not the only way to land space craft. This is Newton's Third Law you're basically declaring impossible here. It isn't.

Last edited by skulb; 24-02-2018 at 02:18 AM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-02-2018, 09:41 AM   #12
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
No it is not impossible. Like I tried to explain, when there is no atmosphere you can turn the craft around and thrust upwards to control the speed of the descent. It's a little fiddly and easy to make mistakes, but it is not impossible. Don't know where you got that idea from. Parachutes are not the only way to land space craft. This is Newton's Third Law you're basically declaring impossible here. It isn't.
Please tell me where Newton explained the slowing down in vacuum by any other means than gravition.
According to Newton´s laws:
1) A mass moving at a constant speed in vacuum will continue at the same speed.
2) A mass going towards the moon would increase in speed.


Now you're contradicting you're own comments according to which there is no way to slow down sufficiently:
Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
Well, in vacuum they use electrical engines rather than the chemical ones they use for liftoff on earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...aft_propulsion
As far as I know these engines are just powered by a battery inside the craft and expel matter to propel the craft forward. Or to reverse thrust when you want to stop. Not much thrust but that obviously works in vacuum and uses almost no energy.
(...)

But how do you stop? The only way I know of is a retrograde burn to slow you down enough to enter an orbit, or using the atmosphere itself to gradually slow down over the course of many orbits. But you still have to slow down a lot with burns before this even becomes possible. Without it you either crash into something eventually or skip off the atmosphere of the planet you're trying to get to and disappear in space.
__________________
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; 24-02-2018 at 09:41 AM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2018, 03:47 AM   #13
skulb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 35 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Please tell me where Newton explained the slowing down in vacuum by any other means than gravition.
According to Newton´s laws:
1) A mass moving at a constant speed in vacuum will continue at the same speed.
2) A mass going towards the moon would increase in speed.


Now you're contradicting you're own comments according to which there is no way to slow down sufficiently:
I already explained it, but you chose to pretend not to notice or understand it. You slow down in vacuum by reverse thrusting. You turn the craft around so that the thrusters face in the direction you are traveling and then turn the engines on. This will still move the craft forward, but since you very cleverly turned the craft around will actually be the opposite direction of where you were going, ergo slowing the craft down.

If you can't understand this kindergarten stuff now there is no point even bothering with further "conversation". Tiny children understand this. It's just embarrassing.
Likes: (2)
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2018, 03:07 PM   #14
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
Please tell me where Newton explained the slowing down in vacuum by any other means than gravition.
According to Newton´s laws:
1) A mass moving at a constant speed in vacuum will continue at the same speed.
2) A mass going towards the moon would increase in speed.


Now you're contradicting you're own comments according to which there is no way to slow down sufficiently:
You claim to be a Physics expert!! That is one of the most anti Physics statements anyone can make.

You simply turn the rocket around and thrust in the opposite direction I've reported post 2 above by St Jimmy as it is a duplicate spam post already answered.
Likes: (1)
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2018, 03:22 PM   #15
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)
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
I have the impression that we agree that it would be impossible to descend to the moon, because it’s impossible to slow down enough for a soft landing.
Ridiculous.

Quote:
I’ve been thinking about the theoretical possibility of an engine that ignites in vacuum. The first problem I think of is lack of oxygen.
Even if it would be possible to build it in a way to supply the oxygen, I doubt if this could ever do anything besides make the temperature very

The Lunar Module would need huge tanks just to hot
Spam. I explained quite clearly that it was a hypergolic fuelled engine and I gave you the links and engineering details. These engines are mega reliable.

Quote:
carry the oxygen alone which would increase the mass of the module with additional problems as a result.
I don’t know how much oxygen they would need, but this could very well be the size of the Empire State Building. Do you see the huge tanks on the Lunar Module?
Stupid claim. Hypergolic fuel. The details of the LM engines were given to you so no idea why you need to spam this claim again!

As I recall when you spammed your complete shite before, you ran away because you got your mad claims torn apart!

I urge anyone viewing this thread to look at this response he basically pretends never happened. Look at the flag pole shit!

https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...7&postcount=56

Pathetic

Quote:
Do not read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason.
Ironic signature. They don't block your posts...but if they DID it would be for spamming shite.

Last edited by truegroup; 21-05-2018 at 03:38 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2018, 03:35 PM   #16
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 deca View Post
Have They Lied To Us About Absolutely EVERYTHING?? -- Bart Sibrel
Right there is one of the greatest pieces of irony I think I've seen.

The lying arse Bart Sibrel....wonders if "they" have lied to us.

How many videos do you want to prove he's a lying git? Let's start with one and see how we go....

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



This guy tore Sibrel to pieces many, many years ago....whackamole....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/to...comment-198336
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2018, 04:22 PM   #17
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

I’ve found some special effects from the Apollo moon hoaxes that failed even more miserably than the NASA BOT's...


The first video shows Buzz Aldrin turning transparent as he descends from the “lunar module”. Notice the black line that indicates the horizon (?!) through the astronaut.
To make it more interesting for the viewers at home, Buzz jumps up and down the ladder again.
At about 1:00 in the clip, a silhouette emerges out of nowhere behind Buzz's back. That can’t be Neil Armstrong, without his space suit, can it?



Source: https://youtu.be/3CMlHmURHm0


Here’s another short clip (from 0:54 in the video).
The astronaut walks in front of the pole, but we can still see the pole through him (why doesn't he leave a trail?)...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4

Here is the "Moon Rover" in the middle of a moon landscape. How did it get there without the wheels leaving a trail?


See a close-up.


For comparison I looked at the video I posted earlier for the astronaut jumping up and down like a buffoon.
I’m not saying that the following are convincing footsteps on the moon, but they only showed after the astronaut had jumped up and down at that spot.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwZb2mqId0A


The following 2 pictures have shadows that are almost OK…


The following from the "APOLLO 17" movie.
__________________
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; 30-06-2018 at 04:35 PM.
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2018, 09:26 PM   #18
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
I’ve found some special effects from the Apollo moon hoaxes that failed even more miserably than the NASA BOT's...
Nope. You've blundered on someone else's inept shite and pawned it off as your own.

Quote:
The first video shows Buzz Aldrin turning transparent as he descends from the “lunar module”. Notice the black line that indicates the horizon (?!) through the astronaut.
It's called ghosting The TV signal on Apollo 11 was very low bandwidth.

Quote:
To make it more interesting for the viewers at home, Buzz jumps up and down the ladder again.
And?

Quote:
At about 1:00 in the clip, a silhouette emerges out of nowhere behind Buzz's back. That can’t be Neil Armstrong, without his space suit, can it?
.Source: https://youtu.be/3CMlHmURHm0
Stupid observation as usual. We see Armstrong's shadow on the ground then he appears behind Aldrin fully suited

Quote:
Here’s another short clip (from 0:54 in the video).
The astronaut walks in front of the pole, but we can still see the pole through him (why doesn't he leave a trail?)…
Ghosting.

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

Quote:
Here is the "Moon Rover" in the middle of a moon landscape. How did it get there without the wheels leaving a trail?
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

Quote:
See a close-up.
Different picture, they kick soil around the back of the rover as they load and unload it.

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


Quote:
For comparison I looked at the video I posted earlier for the astronaut jumping up and down like a buffoon.
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.

Quote:
The following 2 pictures have shadows that are almost OK…
The LRV reflects light, as does the regolith in front of him. How did they do this on Earth then? Duhhhhhhh.

Quote:
The following from the "APOLLO 17" movie.
Haha, how incredibly stupid This is a stitched panorama taken in multiple directions. You people.....

Last edited by truegroup; 30-06-2018 at 09:31 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2018, 08:01 AM   #19
ianw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,032
Likes: 144 (107 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post



Here’s another short clip (from 0:54 in the video).
The astronaut walks in front of the pole, but we can still see the pole through him (why doesn't he leave a trail?)...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4




The following 2 pictures have shadows that are almost OK…
They will argue the toss eternally if you say that the shadows are almost OK
Id leave that one on the back burner.
The faithful claim the dark stark shadows are some kind of proof that 'we went moon'
Is there a scientific reason that low bandwidth and ghosting would make them disappear.
Half expecting some joker to point out ghosts cast no shadow.


.
__________________
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 01-07-2018, 10:33 AM   #20
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 My stalker appears.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
They will argue the toss eternally if you say that the shadows are almost OK
1. Who is "they"?
2. What qualification does the claimant have for saying they aren't ok!?
3. What analysis has been made of the terrain?
4. There is nothing on Earth capable of lighting such a massive area of land and only casting one shadow.

Quote:
The faithful claim the dark stark shadows are some kind of proof that 'we went moon'
A lie. They claim it proves one light source and their normal shape proves it was the Sun. The pitch black sky, terrain, effects of gravity etc. prove beyond any doubt that it was on the Moon.

Quote:
Is there a scientific reason that low bandwidth and ghosting would make them disappear.
They don't disappear

Quote:
Half expecting some joker to point out ghosts cast no shadow.
.
You blind? The shadow is cast directly to his right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptx_c7g4Lsg

A more obvious question is....if somebody is truly clueless enough to claim no shadow is being cast, how the crap did they do that and why would they!?
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:16 AM.


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