Moon Hoax Proof: There is NOT a Single Photo of the First Step on the Moon.

ANYONE that can use google can find it. Sadly you aren't capable of doing anything for yourself.

Anyone else out of that shill above doing dirt job on thread trolling around?

still suffering from retarditus I see.

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Took one click to find.

It's called "an orbit".
The spacecraft in LEO alters its orbit into one that that intersects with the Moon's.

Astronautics: you don't know it.


They could track it, and THEY DID.

That they didn't is yet an other one of the hoax-peddlers' lies that the gullible hoaxies believe without any critical thought.
Remarkable bunch of creduloids those hoaxies.

The evidence: you don't know it.


Just as well, because you're so good at it.


"Shill" is just GLP-speak for "person who has shown me wrong".


Apollo history: you don't know it.

The ability to do your own research: you don't have it.




The construction of the spacecraft: you don't know it.

(The triangular window isn't at a 90 degrees angle with the surface.)

Is there anything about Apollo that you do know?

Why are all hoaxies such complete ignorami?


You obviously need no help with that.
You expose your ignorance, and sheer unwillingness to learn anything, with every word you post.

It is something you have in common with all hoaxies.



His argument seems to be "I would have..." AKA the "If I ran the zoo" argument.

Some people seem to be incapable of understanding that OTHER people might have different priorities.




Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 12/13/2012 03:49 PM

How exactly were they supposed to do that?

Are YOU freakin kidding me?!!!

Do you know what the word "resolution" (in optics) means?

Thanks but I know that page link, so what? did you find any reference on remote camera?

Baby steps.

First get him to show the smallest object photographed on Mars (not by a lander, rover, or orbiter). He apparently has no idea what the scale of the features he may have seen is.


(seen..have..scale...is...? okay, grammar gives up and goes home for the day.)

The phrase "Ground Controlled Television Assembly" didn't leap out at you?

In addition to being mentioned in about half the references linked by that page, there are several reports specifically on the control and a complete operations and check-out manual.

You mean that? --> [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]




-

Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 12/13/2012 05:08 PM

those 2 raving ginger queers?

lol.

well that just proves the fake moon landing was real.

SO not any type of exhaust plume. Why?


Also


No sand in the ground moving away from the LEM's bottom area when lifting off. Why?




-

Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 12/13/2012 06:25 PM

the fuel used does not produce a visible plume in a vacuum.



All the thrust was concentrated on the descent stage (the part that was left behind). Why would the thrust then affect the ground?

WHY? which are the chemical elements as the result of the reaction stuff?



Simply because there would be too much power released.



-

Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 12/15/2012 07:29 AM

Translation: google doesn't work for me so I have to ask others to do my work.

Because I'm feeling generous
[link to www.google.com]

The fuel used Aerozine 50 with nitrogen tetroxide as an oxidizer. there are other rockets that use the same fuel and those ALSO don't have a visible plume in a vacuum.
Explained in depth here
[link to www.clavius.org]



? It still doesn't make sense for the thrust to affect the ground. It was directed at the descent stage and deflected outward and upward. NONE of it towards the ground. Have you actually LOOKED at the liftoff?

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/13/2012 07:23 PM

Stupid moon-hoaxtards. You're stupid. You're just stupid people who want to be contrary about something.

If the moon landing was a hoax, don't you think THE SOVIETS would have come out and said so in 1969 if they had even the SLIGHTEST SHRED OF EVIDENCE? They didn't. In fact, they accused the US of running a conspiracy to build a missile base on the moon to attack the USSR. Don't you think it would have been a much better tactic to try and get the world to believe the American capitalist pigs were lying about landing on the moon?

I asked for the chemical elements as the result of the reaction, NOT the primary elements.

Anyway you did not link NASA, you've just use google as a noob and then you picked up the crap that fit nice to you.

Are you freaking kidding me?




-

Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 12/13/2012 07:54 PM

Thank you MrMr

Translation: I'm too lazy to do the work myself so I'll complain about what you gave me.

I provided information about the fuel used and showed evidence that other rockets using the same fuel do not have visible plumes. If I had given the resultant chemical compounds I doubt you'd know what to do with it anyway (the products by the way are water vapor, nitrogen gas, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen gas and hydroxide).
[link to www.dtic.mil]

I gave you the answer you needed, not the answer you wanted. You'd realize that if you weren't too busy trolling.

If the information is correct, (it is but I'm betting you didn't even read it) then why does it matter what the source is?

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/13/2012 08:10 PM

The camera was already outside the LM on a platform called the "MESA" (Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly). Before Armstrong climbed down the ladder, he pulled a ring that deployed the MESA and allowed the TV pictures to start.

(From the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Times are "Ground Elapsed Time"--GET is basically the mission time)

109:21:07 Aldrin: Did you get the MESA out?

109:21:09 Armstrong: I'm going to pull it now. (Pause)

[Neil is pulling the D-ring which releases the MESA, attached to the side of the LM under Buzz's station, and lets it swing down into an accessible position. Once down on the surface, he can adjust the MESA height if necessary.]

109:21:18 Armstrong: Houston, the MESA came down all right.

Also see [link to www.myspacemuseum.com]

Classic ad hom. [link to yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
And the usual abominable logic.

For over 40 years hoaxies have produced vast amounts of hot air but not a single verifiable fact that indicates that their accusations are even remotely correct.

That doesn't proof them wrong, but it certainly proofs them irrelevant.



What is a rocket plume, and what makes it visible?

Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 12/14/2012 06:27 AM

Hey duc
Your shill stuff is getting old, and it is becoming apparent taht you have no argument aside from crying "shill". Just because someone knows more (a LOT more) than you do about Apollo.

You don't "know" anything about Apollo, or spaceflight in general. You just spout the hoax line, without knowing anything about the subject you "argue".

It makes you look silly...go play with your bike or something (just don't ride it, there are too many idiot bikers out there...)

Oh, I alos ride...

Who? whats your opinion, WHY there not a single photo of the first step on the moon?


/