Users Online Now:
2,330
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
1,374,667
Pageviews Today:
1,975,203
Threads Today:
543
Posts Today:
10,526
04:05 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
NASA lies: Apollo 16 Moon Hoax evidence (Conspiracy a proven fact)
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 29873597:MV8yMDAxMzg4XzM1MTMwNDM3X0RDRUY1Q0I2] [quote:Anonymous Coward 29873597:MV8yMDAxMzg4XzM1MTMwMzk3XzIzNEZBMkI5] [quote:Anonymous Coward 29873597:MV8yMDAxMzg4XzM1MTMwMzYwXzNBQjMyQkQ1] Can I put you in my over,,,or better,,,my Big Green Egg bar-B-Q cooker in that suit,,,and will you volunteer...??? Let alone,,,,what proof are they radiation proof....are you willing to go into Chyrnobyl with 1960's technology?? Don't be crazy, and misreprosent history...they were on a surface that would boil water,,in a very flimsy suit...and we are to trust that on a foreign planet......ummmm ok. I dare you to volunteer.....remember,,,,our current astraunauts have NEVER been outside of the earths atmoshphere..... [quote:nomuse (not logged in) 2380183:MV8yMDAxMzg4XzM1MTI3NTg1XzcwNjA5RjZG] Why do hoaxies make up claims? Is it that the real statements by NASA are too hard to disprove, or is it that they don't understand what it is that is being said and present their own flawed version instead? [quote:Anonymous Coward 29873597:MV8yMDAxMzg4XzM1MTI2MDczX0EwRUM4MzFC] Three things, well, there are a ton more, but how could they ever get a rocket into space, [/quote] The usual way rockets do it. Sufficient thrust/mass ratio. Rockets, in fact, are used because they are one of the few things around with enough power density -- and the kind of power that can be turned into thrust with a high enough efficiency. [quote:Anonymous Coward 29873597:MV8yMDAxMzg4XzM1MTI2MDczX0EwRUM4MzFC] then put the humans into spacesuits that could never block the solar radiation,,, [/quote] I think we managed to solve the opacity problem with fabric a long time ago. Or do you think most clothing is transparent to visible light? You may not have said what you meant. However, most of the output of the sun is in the visual spectrum. Very little is in the form of ionizing radiation, and very little of THAT is of a type that would make it through as much as a sheet of paper. [quote:Anonymous Coward 29873597:MV8yMDAxMzg4XzM1MTI2MDczX0EwRUM4MzFC] then, walk around on a moon in direct sunlight where we are told is hot enough to boil water on? We're told they had suits with tubes of water that cooled them...HOW DID THEY COOL THE WATER?? You need oxygen to, like an air conditioner, cool the air or water. [/quote] Not what is claimed. Part and parcel of the description of the coolant loop is how the water is chilled. And, no, you don't need oxygen to chill anything. Inside your refrigerator is essentially no airflow (aside from convective cells). What is happening on the inside of the shell of your refrigerator is expansion of a working fluid. Same thing -- EXACTLY -- that causes a CO2 cylinder to become cold when you let off gas. Or take a Peltier Junction, which is a solid state electronic device. In both of the above examples, a difference is created; it is colder inside the refrigerator, and hotter outside. In both, yes, that excess heat is then rejected via radiators -- but unlike the misnamed automotive "radiator," these are not primarily convective; they would work in a vacuum as well. In the case of the Apollo suits, the engine leveraged was, basically, the behavior of water in the lunar vacuum. Unlike the closed loop of your refrigerator, it was a wasteful process; water is allowed to boil off, cooling the heat exchanger it is dribbling out of. [quote:Anonymous Coward 29873597:MV8yMDAxMzg4XzM1MTI2MDczX0EwRUM4MzFC] We are told the moon has no atmosphere, and hence, no oxygen, SOOOO, do those suits look big enough to lug around that much water, or oxygen?? Ummm, no. [/quote] Umm, yes. Here's a seat-of-the-pants calculation for you. Look at a typical SCUBA tank. As a first approximation, maximum breathing time off a single cylinder is one hour. The PLSS worn on the surface of the Moon is at LEAST the volume and mass of that one tank. And the PLSS has two huge advantages. First, it is essentially a rebreather, not an open-circuit rig such as used by sport divers. Second, it is pure oxygen, not the mixed-gas of a typical diving cylinder. Since our atmosphere is only 20% oxygen, [i]without even including rebreathing[/i] the PLSS should be capable of sustaining life for over five hours. (In practice, the O2 tank on the PLSS is considerably smaller. SCUBA is performed under pressure, and for open circuit diving this means that you use more air at increased depths. The PLSS makes up for this and more by also having to include batteries, fans, radio, and of course the 6-7 kilos of cooling water. The longest EVAs were still only about twice the five-hour figure arrived at above.) (Basically, if you do the math in any kind of detail, you find the numbers still work out in Apollo's favor. The thing is quite possible, even with generous engineering margins). [quote:Anonymous Coward 29873597:MV8yMDAxMzg4XzM1MTI2MDczX0EwRUM4MzFC] The second, this EXTREMELY complicated mission could be pulled off in a high tech rocket and lunar lander that has less computer ability than a modern cell phone?? Would you put your ass into a rocket to the moon that had only the power of your cell phone......? [/quote] Not exactly. NASA had more computer power, and certainly much better "expert systems," (aka a huge staff of actual rocket scientists on call), and they were in constant communication with the rocket. This is basically like saying your computer mouse doesn't have enough RAM to do decent graphics. Nonsense. Your mouse doesn't NEED any RAM. It only needs the cable. [quote:Anonymous Coward 29873597:MV8yMDAxMzg4XzM1MTI2MDczX0EwRUM4MzFC] And third,,,,I believe that NASA admitted that they DID film a moon landing in a studio just in case the footage could not be beamed back to earth. I don't blame them for being apprehensive, I have T-Mobile and still have no service at my house that is reliable.... [/quote] No. You may be mis-remembering that a speech was rehearsed (and I think it might even have been recorded) by the President in case the first mission was a failure and the crew was lost in space. The live coverage was rather crammed in at the last minute, and was a bit ad-hoc. It just hadn't occurred to anyone that people would care that much about live TV coverage. (And, sadly, by the time of Apollo 13, they were right again). [/quote] [/quote] that is "oven"......and you are making a TON of assumptions as to why the phony space missions were suddely called off.... [/quote] Why don't you enlighten us all as to this amazing leap in science was suddely called off,,,,,in favor of a "war on drugs", or a "war on cancer"..... Public money better spent?? LOL [/quote]
Original Message
Link [
link to www.youtube.com
]
NASA footage proves a Hoax of a Hoax, and that they must have faked the videos on Earth. Man walks around without space suit, allegedly on the surface of moon, and 2 cameras in use revealed.
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>