Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space

Want to compare the budgets next? Or the time/tech factor?

You give an agency 30 Billion in 1060 dollars, you figure a decent video is the least they can bring back.

We are still waiting..$100s of billions later..

*1960

Did The Wizard of Oz provably pay for multiple huge rockets and other hardware? Did the Wizard of Oz have to broadcast 250,000 miles on a low bandwidth signal?

Thank you for proving you've only looked at clips from the EVA of Apollo 11. You are aware there were more landings, right? And there was other footage? And the video was just a very small part of the total evidence? No, of course you aren't.

They broadcasted on TELEVISION

Other hardware? You mean a simple calculator for a computer? Or the aluminum?

And? Did you actually have a point?

Command Modules, Service Modules, Lunar Modules, rovers, scientific equipment, trainers, simulators, etc.
As for the computer, it was a GUIDANCE computer and it did its job well. It was not designed to make complicated calculations. Those were done in large mainframes on Earth and the results relayed via radio. Other calculations could be done via slide-rule.
As for the aluminum, yes, much of the spacecrafts were made of aluminum. So what?

From all we could tell, it was coming from our local TV station. The bandwidth excuse is a pathetic cop out.

Aluminum melting point = 1,221°F (660.3°C)


'n average temperature profile through the lower layers of the atmosphere. Height (in miles and kilometers) is indicated along each side. Temperatures in the thermosphere continue to climb, reaching as high as (3,600°F) 2,000°C.'
[link to www.srh.noaa.gov]

Then prove it.

Hilarious that they focus on the quality of the video from Apollo 11 and ignore the quality from the other missions. Then they bring out the claim that the footage is just slowed down. Of course they cherry-pick the footage so they don't show how absurdly fast the astronaut's arms move when the footage is sped up. They also don't account for the fact that they were interacting LIVE with those in Mission Control and discussing current sports scores. How does that work with footage supposedly slowed down?

Next is flag waving. Really? EVERY TIME the flag moves it is being touched by an astronaut. It is still all other times.
Then the claim of perfect photos. They only prove they haven't bothered to look at most of them. The vast majority are badly framed, over or underexposed or out of focus.

The claim of artificial lighting. Explained with perspective and terrain. Plus multiple lights would cause multiple shadows on each object. They claim additional lighting for the astronauts when in shadow. In this they are correct. The lunar surface reflects a lot of light back into the shadowed area.

Claim of identical backgrounds. The mountains are distant. They CLAIM the mountains are identical but they do vary slightly, exactly as they should given their distance. Then they have the claim of the same hill from different days on Apollo 16. NASA never claimed the footage was from different days. A third-party documentary made that erroneous claim and the hoaxies never bothered to check if it was true.

The crosshairs. EVERY TIME the cross hairs disappear it is on low res photos and on bright white objects. They claim doctoring of the images but if they had bothered to look at the high res photos they would have seen the cross hairs. The cross hairs are just getting washed out on the bright sunlit objects. Unless you think only the white stripes on the American flag were pasted in here?
[link to www.clavius.org]

More info here
[link to www.clavius.org]

Thanks for the laugh! Crazy that hoaxies believe this crap.

The temperatures may be high but the heat is low. The air pressure is extremely low making each molecule far apart from each other making the heat transfer low.
A candle flame is about 2600°F but the total heat is puts out is simlarly low

I did not receive billions of dollars as payment for something. Your proof has been paid for, it is your burden.

Again, bandwidth is a pathetic cop out for those crap videos. And they conveniently lost the originals. Sure bro.

Did you miss the flag waving? Not from 11.

That's your reply to that post? Really? I only mentioned Apollo 11 for their claim of video quality. do try to keep up. For the flag waving, I DID address it. EVERY TIME it moved it was being touched by the astronauts.

So in other words you can't and won't even try to prove you claim that it only came from your local TV station.



They only lost the originals on Apollo 11. You did know there was more than one landing, right? And they had backups of EVERYTHING so there is no actual footage lost. You only even know about it because NASA told you.

Interesting story about how it was lost though. In the 70's they need more tape to record telemetry for other missions (the video from Apollo 11 was piggybacked on the telemetry). There was a shortage of tape because the manufacturer used whale-oil in the binder and the endangered species act made obtaining whale oil extremely difficult. So they overwrote some tapes. Again, since everything was copied, nothing was actually lost.

Here is an example of apples to oranges.

1) A candle

2) A spacecraft going x miles per hour through the atmosphere, compressing massive amounts of air in front of it. You are really comparing a candle to this?

No. A candle was an example of something with high temp and low heat. Apparently that went over your head though.

Now, YOU have made the claim that the spacecraft "compressing massive amounts of air in front of it" should be exposed to heat more than it can handle. You going to prove that or ignore it and handwave it away? I know what my bet is.

You wanted to talk about air pressure. I gave you massively compressed air. Who is handwaving?

Sorry it was TL, DNR.

The end of the flag was not touched. The end/tip of the flag moved, actually curled. Like wind hit it. It is on video, nothing you can do to 'handwave' it away.

And how long is it compressed for? And how much heat is transferred to the craft in that time? YOUR claim.

Catadioptric reflection. Some others claim it is a frog. What we do see is it mirrors the movement of the astronaut's helmet across the center of the lens.

I love the claim that supposedly there were letters in the paper but yet no papers with these letters have ever been found.

They were twisting the pole. You really think the end wouldn't move when the pole is being twisted? Wind would make it billow. It did not. And it was completely still at all times when it was not being touched.

These are good questions. This article doesn't say much:

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]
Ablative atmospheric entry

Let me keep trying to do your work for you, kind sir.

That article is about the other direction. You didn't make the direction clear earlier and only going up would aluminum be contacting the compressed air. Coming back down they used the heat shield which is NOT aluminum by the way and is designed to burn off to shed the heat. They are also continually going into thicker air so the heat transfer is not comparable. And YOU brought it up. It is YOUR work.