Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,491 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 564,763
Pageviews Today: 961,563Threads Today: 506Posts Today: 8,272
03:43 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?

 
DGN  (OP)

User ID: 76673672
United States
02/09/2019 02:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
...


No blast crater, no problem in Hollywood, as long as no one asks inconvenient questions.
 Quoting: DGN


Questions like "Why does the math work?"

[link to pseudoastro.wordpress.com (secure)]
 Quoting: 74444

No questions like how did they forget to rake out the craters on all seven filming s?
 Quoting: DGN


Ah, Gish Galloping again, I see. What, exactly, is your problem with the craters, now? Why did the craters need 'raking' in your unique worldview?

And are you going to address your previous hoaxie claims being blown to pieces earlier, or can we expect to see you repeat those same debunked claims again in the near future?
 Quoting: 74444

Do a photo shop rake out on them, all seven for authenticity. Present them as ...The new improved Apollo moon walk blast crater up grade photo shoot. Have the stage crew in the suits raking it out doing thumbs up at the camera.
Goofy Thum

Last Edited by DGN on 02/09/2019 02:13 AM
Loila

User ID: 75225479
Australia
02/09/2019 03:12 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Shouldn't they have gradually lifted the model to simulate rocket thrust rather than blowing it up with explosives, and throw some dust under it?


 Quoting: DGN


Soo funny. Looked like fire works gone wrong. So who stayed behind to film or did they do a second take.
So that junk is still on the moon then
Loila

User ID: 75225479
Australia
02/09/2019 03:21 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Today cant get wifi or even mobile if your 20km from town yet nasa can from the moon. No wonder we have a hole in the ozone they keep making it.
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/09/2019 05:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
74444 and hotdogg I refer you to my previous posts.


Whether you believe we got bamboozled, or it really happened, it is time to move on to other things.
 Quoting: RepublicofTexas


Agreed, but Apollo makes that impossible. While the lie stands, we're not going anywhere.

In the fifty years since the Apollo story NASA has had $ billions thrown at it and constant orders and promises to return to the moon. They've been unable for two primary reasons:

1) They have no technology to go past the Van Allen belts with men on board.

2) They said they have already gone a few times, played golf and driven a weird EV around on the moon (with unreal levels grip for a dusty surface with 1/6 downforce). This kills the required R&D they need.

So you get threads like this where NASA's 'True Believers' don't understand why they've not 'returned' but in half a century but are always waiting for the 'next trip' 'real soon now', and to twist the universe around their beliefs make up all sorts of stuff. Saturn V's that work, silent descent motors, LEMs that were rushed into manufacture but worked faultlessly even after baking on the moon for 2 days, unfoggable file even when sitting in the solar wind itself, pictures of their own feet in vacuum dried dust from angles impossible to achieve in a pressure suit with a viewfinder free camera bolted to their chest packs that sticks out 12", no exposure bracketing, perfect focussing, heights and shots inconsistent with chest mounted cameras, manufactured images with a tiny moon sized earth, shadows, lighting and reflections that don't work, odd fill in lighting for flags and logos, winches for LROs that should weigh almost nothing, doors and hatches that are too small for PLSS equipped people to pass, weird audio mistakes, lost telemetry tapes, lost video tapes, lost technology that people on GLP know about but NASA doesn't, unpracticed docking procedures that take mere minutes, are unfilmed and never spoken of, landscapes shorter than most people's driveways, a sun that only lights up the ground next to the LEM etc. etc.

Invisible stars? You're in the vacuum of space so you just need some shade. If you took 12 super smart astronauts and stood them next to a giant LEM on the lunar surface, how many of them would be able to find some shade? You'd think the answer was obvious: 12. But no, here in NASA's fantasy land, even with 400,000 experts working at NASA over a period of years not ONE of them ever worked it out.

In a space capsule full of cameras on the way to the moon, jammed in a tiny cone with two other adults? What's the one thing you'd NEVER thing of doing? That's right - you'd never take any pictures of the moon or earth on the way there or back. Even when on TV chatting to the entire planet, the last thing you'd ever do is say 'hey, look at the earth' or 'hey, look at the moon we're going to intercept!', you'd simply keep the TV camera pointed at your interesting face or some instrument panel, because in 7 trips not one of the 400,000 people at NASA would ever say 'hay - what's out the window?' would they? Just like they did in the cheap B-movies about space.

Last Edited by Drone#6 on 02/09/2019 05:08 AM
Halcyon Dayz, FCD

User ID: 76260827
Netherlands
02/09/2019 06:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
If there should have been a crater than there would have been a crater either way.

If Apollo is historical than the exhaust would have dug a crater.
Or Apollo is faked and because there should be a crater the fakers would have dug a crater. Unless you think they were complete morons.

So the absence of a distinct crater proves that there shouldn't be a distinct crater.
book
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD

User ID: 76260827
Netherlands
02/09/2019 06:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
I wish you would just stick to your creationist bullshit. You are out of your depth here, junior.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76860697

He's out of his depth everywhere.
book


I was on the fence until an HVAC engineer took apart the refrigeration/heating issues in a vacuum lol.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77240489

So some jabberer told you something you didn't actually understand ('cause if you did you would have known it is nonsense), but it confirmed your preconceived bias so you just believed it.
Like the good wittle conspirasheep you are.

The second issue was computer processing capability from both a hardware and software side...then all the programming code "disappeared" with as much legitimacy as a klinton "suicide"...two to the back of the head type thing.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77240489

IOW you're an idiot who couldn't bother to check the facts.
Like the good wittle conspirasheep you are.

Bottom line...it were all a lie, Billy....a beautiful, stinking lie
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77240489

Presumes facts not in evidence.

Do you really beleive that ignorant idiots like you will ever be able to prove anythinbg when in over 50 years none of the experts has found fault with the Apollo record?
How does someone get to be that epically stupid?
book


How does that little booger have enough fuel to reach escape velocity of the moon(Approximately 5K MPH)?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77322868

IT DOESN'T NEED TO REACH ESCAPE VELOCITY!
Fekking idjits!

no air resistance helps. leaving behind the descent stage also helps. Plus they didn't reach escape velocity of the Moon. they only had to reach orbit. the math shows they had the fuel necessary.
 Quoting: LHP598

uh no. If they didn't reach escape velocity they would still be "orbiting"!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77322868

So you don't even know what escape velocity is?
And you're trying your hand at astronautics conspiracism?
Double fekking idjit!
book


So, here's a question...

Who went back to get the tape? They took off, leaving the camera filming them behind.

Don't tell me they had wireless video technology in 1972.
 Quoting: SoberLife

Why don't you want to be told the truth?
Does the truth scare you?
book


They must have had some sweet batteries to power those amazing environmental control systems.

Ray-O-Vac
 Quoting: CK Dexter Haven

They did.
Which you could have know by doing just a teeny weenie bit of research.

Of course, hoaxies don't do research.
They're lazy, and don't like reality anyway.
book


Ya know I would believe if we went back, with updated tech, but just the fact that we have not gone back with all this new tech and materials, tells me we never went.
 Quoting: page8844 72511948

How is this rational?
People didn't go back to the South Pole or the Challenger Deep for half a century either.
book


Body of evidence favors Hoax!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77043019

A collection of brainfarts, misunderstandings, and lies does not constitute a "body of evidence."
It constitutes a collection of brainfarts, misunderstandings, and lies.
book


Or any noise, listen to 10 seconds before 'The eagle has landed'. No roar, no rattle or vibration, just a clear voice with no background noise whatsoever.
 Quoting: Terrabyte

Why would there be background noise?

Remember, the microphones are directional, voice activated, and inside the helmet.
Also the engine is pressure-fed, so no pumps.
Also also no air turbulence.
book


Why do you think the Russians would blow the whistle? That is a rather naive viewpoint to post on a conspiracy forum.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77353246

Propaganda coup of the century.
The Cold War was as much about winning the hearts and minds of the neutrals as it was a military stand-off.
Reputation is everything.
book
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD

User ID: 76260827
Netherlands
02/09/2019 06:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Not helping your case is that in general the CSM commanders were so unobservant/blind they even failed to see the stars while orbiting the dark side of the moon
 Quoting: Drone#6

Why do you lie?
Why do hoaxies lie so fucking much?
Honestly, what wrong with you?

There is no way around the belts from the trajectory used for Apollo. Duh. The only way 'around' them is on the polar axis.
 Quoting: Drone#6

And lie some more.

Please read. It is NASA's job to prove they went.
 Quoting: Drone#6

They did.
Your ingnorance or denial of the evidence is irrelevant.

Err - this isn't my fault. That's NASA's job. A better question is WHY haven't they developed a heavy lifting rocket in 50 years?
 Quoting: Drone#6

Because they put all ther HSF eggs in the Shuttle basket.
Which turned out to be a white elephant.

Again, learn to read. Just pop into your local hospital and look at a chest X-ray. Duh. Enjoy arguing with the radiologists.
 Quoting: Drone#6


Why are you comparing medical x-rays with solar x-rays?

NASA: PROVE you went to the moon with Apollo. You can't.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Denial is the only thing hoaxies are good at.

Your entire defence of NASA's Apollo story is that we must prove it was false, or 'prove a negative', I've now asked you FOUR times for ANY proof that NASA went to the moon.
 Quoting: Drone#6

If YOU accuse people of crimes than YOU do FUCKING DO have the BURDEN OF PROOF.
But you're just another obsessive-compulsive liar on the internet, you're never going to prove anything.

Meanwhile, in over half a century, hoaxies haven't been able to prove a single relevant claim.
It's pathetic.

Are you sure that NASA claims they know how they did it? Because a common NASA excuse is that they forgot or their dog ate the blueprints, telemetry, video tapes etc. NASA also haven't done it since, another good indication that they don't know how to.
 Quoting: Drone#6

That's not a common NASA excuse, that is a story hoaxies have fabricated out of whole cloth.
It isn't true, and you propagating this lie tels us that all you think you know about Apollo you gleened from hoax-monger sites, IOW you didn't actually study Apollo, just the fantasies that hoaxies believe.

Rocketdyne was the west's foremost experts in rocket design. In 1962 they designed the 1962 F-1 engine and played about with it for 5 years failing to make it better. Already in 1962 it was an obsolete design, inefficient and low on power. Then Von Braun spent 2 years playing with it at NASA and claimed to have increased the thrust by 50%, something never verified and impossible due to the construction.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Only actual facts can be used in evidence.
Mere assertions are just that, stuff that for all we know you discovered during a colonic excavation.

The untried LM, spacesuits, PLMs, rover, descent and ascent stages etc : NO FAILURES.
In TWO YEARS FLAT they did everything perfectly and it all worked. That's not rapid learning, that's cinema.
 Quoting: Drone#6

More fantasy.
There were plenty of failures.
You are just reinforcing the observation that hoaxie are utterly clueless and ignorant of the actual Apollo record.

Actually you cannot. The VAB is a donut shaped toroid of various layers stretching from a few hundred miles out to 10,000 miles and the take off was at a very low inclination to the equatorial plane, around 20 degrees IIRC.
The ONLY way to avoid the VAB is to take up vertically from the north or south pole, but their orbit was largely equatorial - just like the VAB.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Idiot.
You have just been shown a 3D depiction of the actual geometry.

Just saying something is not proof. Do you understand that?
 Quoting: Drone#6

Apparently you don't.

It's poorly documented even by NASA, their website coverage of Apollo is a total mess. They even destroyed the vital telemetry data, the blueprints, the video tapes of the Apollo 11 lunar surface video. If NASA doesn't care about Apollo: why should you?
 Quoting: Drone#6

More fantasy.

The soviets didn't track it, there's no independent record of that.
 Quoting: hotdogg

Prove it.

They also would not have cried foul because Gagarin never went into space either and their silence was bought by 10 years of grain shipments.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Pray tell, HOW could the Soviets have known in 1969, when they were having record harvests, that they would be wanting to PURCHASE grain in the mid-70s?
Did they have a time-machine.
Do tell....

I'm still waiting for a single piece of EVIDENCE of Apollo. Just choose ONE item you can defend and it PROOF.
 Quoting: Drone#6

You studiously avoid telling us what you actually would consider proof.
Is it because you don't actually have a rational standard of evidence?

You still don't get it do you? It's ALL fake.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Presumes facts not in evidence.

Hoaxies tend to have an extremely asymptotic approach to the balance of evidence.

Returned by what? When? You have NO chain of custody therefore it's not evidence.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Now I start to wonder if the meaning of the word "evidence" itself is what confuses you.

No amateur was in possession of any equipment that could track Apollo so I don't see how your assertion is possible, and neither do you.
 Quoting: Drone#6

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You are dismissed.
Your denial of the documented evidence is irrelevant.
You actually need to DISPROVE it.

This is the 'brilliance. of the Apollo story, it's not one false thing that doesn't work, NOTHING about Apollo works. Even the hatches were too small in the LM, the footsteps are not possible in vacuum dried dust, the photography is impossible with the gear taken, the CM gear was too big to fit into the CM - let alone with pilots and parachutes, the LRO never behaves like it's in 1/6th g, the 'still visible' flags would have crumbed to dust long ago, the shadows are wrong, the photo's have pool-of-light errors and too short horizons (early MGM Borehamwood shots), the film is totally unfogged, the invisible stars and planets, the astronauts ignorance of the Van Ellen belts, the orange juice stains on the films (Apollo 15 I think) from a sealed suit, the cavorting careless manner in a deadly environment, the crying at the press conference, the special escape chute they built for Saturn V, the dud engines, the lack of continuous footage of any take off of any Apollo, the precise spashdown sites even of Apollo 13, the total lack of evidence anything was left on the moon, the daft water cooled suits - we add antifreeze in our car engines but not for the cold vacuum of space?, the unrealistic plaster cast moon, the silent main descent engine, the LM's stability and reliability, the list is endless.
 Quoting: Drone#6

You alone got me a stupid-hoaxie-claims bingo in this thread.
Regurgitated lies invented by hoax-mongers aren't FACTS.
Only FACTS can be used in evidence.

But, like all hoaxies, you don't know any actual facts.

But ALL of the Apollo images have PERFECT blacks.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Since you've only have ever seen reproductions how could you possibly know that?
More colonic excavations?
Fantasists, the lot of you.
book
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/09/2019 08:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Why do hoaxies lie so fucking much?
Honestly, what wrong with you?
Your ingnorance or denial of the evidence is irrelevant.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


ingnorance ?

I admire the passion that your faith in NASA gives you, what a wonderful gift you have. I loved your stories about all photos being reproductions (the definition of a photo surely) and of rocket engines being silent (but not explaining why attitude thrusters are not) BTW, have you ever thought of becoming a writer?

But what I know and think doesn't affect you, in fact you don't even know me, so from where does your hostility originate?

As it can't be from me it must come from you, I think part of you already knows the Apollo mission story is false, you're mad about it so you simply project your anger onto anyone 'daring' to give their analysis of the fake story.

Perhaps when you are in a better mood you'll be able to provide some evidence of the Apollo mission?
NASA claims they landed on 6 different sites yet no one can prove it - could you be the one to do that?

Halcyon is a good name for Apollo, I approve!
kos

User ID: 76210316
Norway
02/09/2019 09:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Dogma is a hell of a drug

LOL

pope
Triforce333
User ID: 77251037
United States
02/09/2019 10:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
That is the fakest and gayest thing I've ever seen. I mean the 1960's era special effects when they take off look so fake. Fuck the camera following, the whole thing looks laughable. People actually believe this shit? No the government actually pays people to debate that this gay ass hoax was real. Astromut got laid off so you got a couple left obviously. Stop pushing fake and gay news government shills, no one believes it.
DGN  (OP)

User ID: 76673672
United States
02/09/2019 10:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Shouldn't they have gradually lifted the model to simulate rocket thrust rather than blowing it up with explosives, and throw some dust under it?


 Quoting: DGN


Soo funny. Looked like fire works gone wrong. So who stayed behind to film or did they do a second take.
So that junk is still on the moon then
 Quoting: Loila


Yeah right next to the Rover which they forgot to make a toy model of for the exploding lift off shot.
tounge

Last Edited by DGN on 02/09/2019 10:31 AM
LHP598

User ID: 77166529
United States
02/09/2019 10:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
...


Exactly. but he'll come back to this in a few days as if nothing ever happened.
 Quoting: LHP598


No blast crater, no problem in Hollywood, as long as no one asks inconvenient questions.
 Quoting: DGN


Questions like "Why does the math work?"

[link to pseudoastro.wordpress.com (secure)]
 Quoting: 74444

No questions like how did they forget to rake out the craters on all seven filming s?
 Quoting: DGN

There were 6 landings, not 7. and you were shown there should not be a crater and loose dust was scoured away.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
DGN  (OP)

User ID: 76673672
United States
02/09/2019 11:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
...


No blast crater, no problem in Hollywood, as long as no one asks inconvenient questions.
 Quoting: DGN


Questions like "Why does the math work?"

[link to pseudoastro.wordpress.com (secure)]
 Quoting: 74444

No questions like how did they forget to rake out the craters on all seven filming s?
 Quoting: DGN

There were 6 landings, not 7. and you were shown there should not be a crater and loose dust was scoured away.
 Quoting: LHP598


So the footprint is fake?
LHP598

User ID: 77166529
United States
02/09/2019 11:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
In the fifty years since the Apollo story NASA has had $ billions thrown at it and constant orders and promises to return to the moon. They've been unable for two primary reasons:
 Quoting: Drone#6

Billions? Really? Various politicians have said they'd like to return but the funding never materialized.

1) They have no technology to go past the Van Allen belts with men on board.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Wrong. They can take the path Apollo took for trips to the Moon but if they want to take interplanetary trips they have to go through the center.

2) They said they have already gone a few times, played golf and driven a weird EV around on the moon (with unreal levels grip for a dusty surface with 1/6 downforce). This kills the required R&D they need.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Except it doesn't. They had spacecraft that could get 2 people to the Moon for a few days. That likely wouldn't meet current safety standards. And none of it is in production anymore.

Saturn V's that work,
 Quoting: Drone#6

You've not shown they can't. Despite being asked to back up why they are "dreadful".

silent descent motors,
 Quoting: Drone#6

You've not shown they should be noisy. Most of the noise from a rocket comes from the thrust interacting with atmosphere.

LEMs that were rushed into manufacture but worked faultlessly even after baking on the moon for 2 days,
 Quoting: Drone#6

If you think they were faultless then it proves only that you haven't done any real research.

unfoggable file even when sitting in the solar wind itself,
 Quoting: Drone#6

For how long? And what is the quantity of radiation it would have received?

[link to www.clavius.org]


pictures of their own feet in vacuum dried dust from angles impossible to achieve in a pressure suit with a viewfinder free camera bolted to their chest packs that sticks out 12",
 Quoting: Drone#6

You did know the camera was removable, right?

no exposure bracketing, perfect focussing, heights and shots inconsistent with chest mounted cameras,
 Quoting: Drone#6

If you think they were perfect then you haven't looked at many of them. and the heights are fine. Again, the cameras were removable if needed.
[link to www.clavius.org]


manufactured images with a tiny moon sized earth,
 Quoting: Drone#6

That was the size it should be for the lens used. Check the field of view of the lens and you'll find the Earth takes up about 2 degrees just like it should.

shadows, lighting and reflections that don't work,
 Quoting: Drone#6

Except they can all be explained with terrain and perspective. If there were multiple lights as hoaxies like to claim then there would be multiple shadows on each object which is never seen.
[link to www.clavius.org]
[link to www.clavius.org]
[link to www.clavius.org]
[link to www.clavius.org]
[link to www.clavius.org]
[link to www.clavius.org]



odd fill in lighting for flags and logos,
 Quoting: Drone#6

OMG!! Reflective items are reflective!

[link to www.clavius.org]

winches for LROs that should weigh almost nothing,
 Quoting: Drone#6

almost is not nothing. How dare they have a way to lower the rover to the ground without dropping it!! rolleyes


doors and hatches that are too small for PLSS equipped people to pass,
 Quoting: Drone#6

Not according to those that actually measured it.



weird audio mistakes,
 Quoting: Drone#6

Never heard any.

lost telemetry tapes, lost video tapes,
 Quoting: Drone#6

That were backed up. they had to reuse tapes as the manufacturer, Memorex, couldn't get them new tapes due to a shortage of whale oil that was used for the binder. Reuse tapes that have been copied and backed up or don't record incoming info from multiple probes. I'd likely make the same decision.

lost technology that people on GLP know about but NASA doesn't,
 Quoting: Drone#6

Do you see any Saturn V rockets lying around waiting to be used?


unpracticed docking procedures that take mere minutes, are unfilmed and never spoken of,
 Quoting: Drone#6

why do you lie? The gemini program practiced docking as well as earlier Apollo missions.


landscapes shorter than most people's driveways,
 Quoting: Drone#6

opinion.
they look bigger to me but I'm not expecting to see the same fading with distance that you see on Earth.


a sun that only lights up the ground next to the LEM etc. etc.
 Quoting: Drone#6

[link to www.clavius.org]


Invisible stars? You're in the vacuum of space so you just need some shade. If you took 12 super smart astronauts and stood them next to a giant LEM on the lunar surface, how many of them would be able to find some shade? You'd think the answer was obvious: 12. But no, here in NASA's fantasy land, even with 400,000 experts working at NASA over a period of years not ONE of them ever worked it out.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Another lie. Some took the time to let their eyes adjust. Others did not. Apollo 16 took a camera specifically designed to photo stars.

In a space capsule full of cameras on the way to the moon, jammed in a tiny cone with two other adults? What's the one thing you'd NEVER thing of doing? That's right - you'd never take any pictures of the moon or earth on the way there or back. Even when on TV chatting to the entire planet, the last thing you'd ever do is say 'hey, look at the earth' or 'hey, look at the moon we're going to intercept!', you'd simply keep the TV camera pointed at your interesting face or some instrument panel, because in 7 trips not one of the 400,000 people at NASA would ever say 'hay - what's out the window?' would they? Just like they did in the cheap B-movies about space.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Another lie. There are plenty of pics and video of both the Earth and the Moon on the way there and back.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
LHP598

User ID: 77166529
United States
02/09/2019 11:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
...


Questions like "Why does the math work?"

[link to pseudoastro.wordpress.com (secure)]
 Quoting: 74444

No questions like how did they forget to rake out the craters on all seven filming s?
 Quoting: DGN

There were 6 landings, not 7. and you were shown there should not be a crater and loose dust was scoured away.
 Quoting: LHP598


So the footprint is fake?
 Quoting: DGN


Were there footprints directly underneath the engines? No.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
LHP598

User ID: 77166529
United States
02/09/2019 11:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Shouldn't they have gradually lifted the model to simulate rocket thrust rather than blowing it up with explosives, and throw some dust under it?


 Quoting: DGN


Soo funny. Looked like fire works gone wrong. So who stayed behind to film or did they do a second take.
So that junk is still on the moon then
 Quoting: Loila


Yeah right next to the Rover which they forgot to make a toy model of for the exploding lift off shot.
tounge
 Quoting: DGN

The camera used was attached to the rover you moran.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
DGN  (OP)

User ID: 76673672
United States
02/09/2019 11:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Shouldn't they have gradually lifted the model to simulate rocket thrust rather than blowing it up with explosives, and throw some dust under it?


 Quoting: DGN


Soo funny. Looked like fire works gone wrong. So who stayed behind to film or did they do a second take.
So that junk is still on the moon then
 Quoting: Loila


Yeah right next to the Rover which they forgot to make a toy model of for the exploding lift off shot.
tounge
 Quoting: DGN

The camera used was attached to the rover you moran.
 Quoting: LHP598


The Rover sure covered it's tracks well, as did the astroNut walking back to the LEM, just like the astroNuts filled in the blast crater. One wouldn't want to mess up the moon after all.

Last Edited by DGN on 02/09/2019 11:35 AM
LHP598

User ID: 77166529
United States
02/09/2019 11:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
...


Soo funny. Looked like fire works gone wrong. So who stayed behind to film or did they do a second take.
So that junk is still on the moon then
 Quoting: Loila


Yeah right next to the Rover which they forgot to make a toy model of for the exploding lift off shot.
tounge
 Quoting: DGN

The camera used was attached to the rover you moran.
 Quoting: LHP598


The Rover sure covered it's tracks well, as did the astroNut walking back to the LEM, just like the astroNuts filled in the blast crater. One wouldn't want to mess up the moon after all.
 Quoting: DGN


you really are determined to be the biggest troll on GLP, aren't you?

There are plenty of tracks for the rover and the astronauts. There should not be a crater.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Neil WeakLegs
User ID: 77358818
United States
02/09/2019 11:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
....

Why do you think the Russians would blow the whistle? That is a rather naive viewpoint to post on a conspiracy forum.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77353246

Propaganda coup of the century.
The Cold War was as much about winning the hearts and minds of the neutrals as it was a military stand-off.
Reputation is everything.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


Okay, let's say that Pravda ran a newspaper campaign in 1970 saying that the photographs of the landings are wrong because of the shadows, etc, and this proves they were fake. Would you have believed them?

Or say they said they had additional secret information proving the landings were faked. Would you believe the Russians if they said they had secret information?

No, the Cold War was not about "winning the hearts and minds of the neutrals" . Study book about international banking and the link between gov't and big corporations.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76594256
Canada
02/09/2019 11:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Always knew that that astro mutt fellow was a shill

8 pages and not one mentuon from him proves it conclusively

Hope he is enjoying coding
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/09/2019 11:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
you were shown there should not be a crater and loose dust was scoured away.
 Quoting: LHP598


So the footprint is fake?
 Quoting: DGN

DGN, Naturally LOL. Vacuum dried dust, perfect focus, perfect exposure, the need to bend over some 120 degrees in a pressure suit.

LHP598: No one was shown there should not be a crater at all LOL, the entire subject is up for debate.

The LEM's weight on the moon was not huge (16 tonnes / 6 = 2.7 tonnes) but the MASS was still a very real 16 tonnes.
(Mass is approximate due to info available and fuel burn).

To slow it down by only 1G requires a 16 tonne force, plus the gravitational attraction which gives us a typical thrust of 18.7 tonnes - like trying to stop a laden truck.

LHP598 claims the loose dust was scoured away but NASA photographs show that the dust was thick and undisturbed all the way around the LEM, despite some 2.7 - 30 tonnes of thrust from the (strangely silent) motor.

One must also take account of a variation of WIG - Wing-In-Ground-effect, at close distances a bubble of gas fed by the rocket motor, trapped by the LEM and ground and drained by the circumferential vacuum forms a localised high pressure zone that to support a thrust of several tonnes would have cleaned the surface like a mechanic cleans out dust with an air line.
It would also cause instability in the completely untested LEM too, but as in Buck Rogers and Dan Dare, only a steely grip of a hero and some untested 1960s 'stabilisation' system was needed.

Of course the presence of a thick coating of dust on the moon is itself speculation, although I'm sure it's possible. Funny how none of the rocks ever seemed to have any dust on though, ever been in a room full of dust where only the floor is dusty?

Oh it's snowing outside, there's a good 4" covering but it's decided to miss all the chairs and tables - I must be on the moon!!
DGN  (OP)

User ID: 76673672
United States
02/09/2019 11:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
you were shown there should not be a crater and loose dust was scoured away.
 Quoting: LHP598


So the footprint is fake?
 Quoting: DGN

DGN, Naturally LOL. Vacuum dried dust, perfect focus, perfect exposure, the need to bend over some 120 degrees in a pressure suit.

LHP598: No one was shown there should not be a crater at all LOL, the entire subject is up for debate.

The LEM's weight on the moon was not huge (16 tonnes / 6 = 2.7 tonnes) but the MASS was still a very real 16 tonnes.
(Mass is approximate due to info available and fuel burn).

To slow it down by only 1G requires a 16 tonne force, plus the gravitational attraction which gives us a typical thrust of 18.7 tonnes - like trying to stop a laden truck.

LHP598 claims the loose dust was scoured away but NASA photographs show that the dust was thick and undisturbed all the way around the LEM, despite some 2.7 - 30 tonnes of thrust from the (strangely silent) motor.

One must also take account of a variation of WIG - Wing-In-Ground-effect, at close distances a bubble of gas fed by the rocket motor, trapped by the LEM and ground and drained by the circumferential vacuum forms a localised high pressure zone that to support a thrust of several tonnes would have cleaned the surface like a mechanic cleans out dust with an air line.
It would also cause instability in the completely untested LEM too, but as in Buck Rogers and Dan Dare, only a steely grip of a hero and some untested 1960s 'stabilisation' system was needed.

Of course the presence of a thick coating of dust on the moon is itself speculation, although I'm sure it's possible. Funny how none of the rocks ever seemed to have any dust on though, ever been in a room full of dust where only the floor is dusty?

Oh it's snowing outside, there's a good 4" covering but it's decided to miss all the chairs and tables - I must be on the moon!!
 Quoting: Drone#6

So if there was air pointing a leaf blower won't cause 'moon' dust to billow up?
LHP598

User ID: 77166529
United States
02/09/2019 11:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
you were shown there should not be a crater and loose dust was scoured away.
 Quoting: LHP598


So the footprint is fake?
 Quoting: DGN

DGN, Naturally LOL. Vacuum dried dust, perfect focus, perfect exposure, the need to bend over some 120 degrees in a pressure suit.
 Quoting: Drone#6

so you are still ignoring that many pics are NOT perfect focus or exposure and the cameras are removable.

LHP598: No one was shown there should not be a crater at all LOL, the entire subject is up for debate.

The LEM's weight on the moon was not huge (16 tonnes / 6 = 2.7 tonnes) but the MASS was still a very real 16 tonnes.
(Mass is approximate due to info available and fuel burn).

To slow it down by only 1G requires a 16 tonne force, plus the gravitational attraction which gives us a typical thrust of 18.7 tonnes - like trying to stop a laden truck.
 Quoting: Drone#6

[link to www.clavius.org]
[link to www.badastronomy.com]
Your "math" assumes they are trying to slow down all at once and not spread out on the descent.



LHP598 claims the loose dust was scoured away but NASA photographs show that the dust was thick and undisturbed all the way around the LEM, despite some 2.7 - 30 tonnes of thrust from the (strangely silent) motor.
 Quoting: Drone#6

So you didn't even bother to look at the links provided. How sad for you.

One must also take account of a variation of WIG - Wing-In-Ground-effect, at close distances a bubble of gas fed by the rocket motor, trapped by the LEM and ground and drained by the circumferential vacuum forms a localised high pressure zone that to support a thrust of several tonnes would have cleaned the surface like a mechanic cleans out dust with an air line.
It would also cause instability in the completely untested LEM too, but as in Buck Rogers and Dan Dare, only a steely grip of a hero and some untested 1960s 'stabilisation' system was needed.
 Quoting: Drone#6

So now the thrust doesn't spread out but forms a bubble? Any references?

Of course the presence of a thick coating of dust on the moon is itself speculation, although I'm sure it's possible. Funny how none of the rocks ever seemed to have any dust on though, ever been in a room full of dust where only the floor is dusty?
 Quoting: Drone#6

When the dust is the same color as the rocks, how can you tell they aren't dusty?

Oh it's snowing outside, there's a good 4" covering but it's decided to miss all the chairs and tables - I must be on the moon!!
 Quoting: Drone#6

So all you've got is argument from ridicule.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 02/09/2019 11:59 AM
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
74444

User ID: 74444
United States
02/09/2019 12:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
74444 and hotdogg I refer you to my previous posts.

 Quoting: Drone#6


None of your previous posts answer my question.

What evidence would allow *you* to tacitly conclude that the Apollo missions happened, pretty much as reported? Any you can even *imagine?* If so, can you name it?

If the answer is that no evidence will convince you, just say so.
74444

User ID: 74444
United States
02/09/2019 12:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
...


Questions like "Why does the math work?"

[link to pseudoastro.wordpress.com (secure)]
 Quoting: 74444

No questions like how did they forget to rake out the craters on all seven filming s?
 Quoting: DGN

There were 6 landings, not 7. and you were shown there should not be a crater and loose dust was scoured away.
 Quoting: LHP598


So the footprint is fake?
 Quoting: DGN


Sigh. Do you read? From the very link I GAVE you above:

"First, some numbers: The lunar module (LM) descent stage engine had a maximum thrust of 9870 ft-lb, but this was throttleable back to a minimum of 1050 ft-lb. Sounds like a lot. But, the diameter of the nozzle was 63 inches, which is an area of about 3120 in2. Dividing this into the force (thrust) and you have a pressure range of 0.4-3.2 ft-lb/in2, otherwise known as psi. This is equivalent to the metric 2760-22,100 N/m2. But let’s stick with psi.

Anyone who owns a car probably knows that this is already significantly less than your tire pressure … by a factor of 10-100. When Apollo 11 landed, the thrust was down to about 1/3 of max, so down to around 1 psi.

Now let’s look at the average adult footstep: The average non-American weighs around 150 lbs. The average human footprint is around 50 in2 (don’t believe me? do the math yourself!). Divide the first into the second and you have the average human footstep exerting a simple 3 psi.

This is 3x larger than Apollo’s engines!!

The very fact that the astronauts walking on the moon did not create “blast craters” underneath them should be explanation enough as to why the engine did not create a blast crater under it — the pressure was simply too low."

There you go. No blast crater, but yes, footprints. You will, of course, ignore this and use the same argument in a few weeks.
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/09/2019 12:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Interesting pics from Apollo 14 as I was trying to find a single rock with dust on it.

Check out the tracks here!
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

See anything odd?
Yup, it's a 4 wheeled vehicle that made a turn while fitting into a single wheel track!

As it's turning I'll say those tracks are from the front wheels, so where are the impressions of the back wheels in the turn? As it only had 2 wheel steer these tracks are impossible. Also they had no LRV!

It's also an interesting image if you save it to disk and check it out with an image editor. If you play with the blacks you'll see the 'sky' is not uniform at all, but looks exactly like a grid, in fact there's a vertical line that goes all the way up about 70% across. This is exactly what you'd find in the back of a soundstage for the backdrop projection screen.

It's also not certain what type of sun can cause two parallel lens flares - out solar system is not a binary system as far as I'm aware.

Here's a nicely dusted moon rock. Given that there's nothing to disturb dust on the moon this should have the same many inches of dust on it as the ground does. Gravity is also lower (1/6th) so the super-sticky dust (NASA's explanation of why their damp grey sand / moon dust) makes footprints in a vacuum) should adhere well to this.
Obviously the Lunar Cleaning Company (LCC Inc.) has cleared it off with their special 'Earth Weather' process.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

This 'sky' has also been digitally washed to be clean, NASA have been systematically revising their online photo library to eliminate these issues that give the 1960s fakery away.
It's a bit pot luck today to find a good rendition of the back projection screen, but when you do it's all the more rewarding. The older digital copies are better for this.


Oh what fun.

Last Edited by Drone#6 on 02/10/2019 06:28 AM
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/09/2019 12:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
duplicate

Last Edited by Drone#6 on 02/10/2019 01:02 PM
LHP598

User ID: 77166529
United States
02/09/2019 01:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Interesting pics from Apollo 14 as I was trying to find a single rock with dust on it.

Check out the tracks here!
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

See anything odd?
Yup, it's a 4 wheeled vehicle that made a turn while fitting into a single wheel track!

As it's turning I'll say those tracks are from the front wheels, so where are the impressions of the back wheels in the turn? As it only had 2 wheel steer these tracks are impossible.
 Quoting: Drone#6

those tracks are not from the rover but from a hand pulled cart. I see no problem with the tracks.


It's also an interesting image if you save it to disk and check it out with an image editor. If you play with the blacks you'll see the 'sky' is not uniform at all, but looks exactly like a grid, in fact there's a vertical line that goes all the way up about 70% across. This is exactly what you'd find in the back of a soundstage for the backdrop projection screen.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Of course you tried this with the uncompressed hi res, right? And not the highly compressed jpeg? Could the line be from the scanner?

It's also not certain what type of sun can cause two parallel lens flares - out solar system is not a binary system as far as I'm aware.
 Quoting: Drone#6

looks like dust on the lens and not a lens flare to me.

Here's a nicely dusted moon rock. Given that there's nothing to disturb dust on the moon this should have the same many inches of dust on it as the ground does. Gravity is also lower (1/6th) so the super-sticky dust (NASA's explanation of why their damp grey sand / moon dust) makes footprints in a vacuum) should adhere well to this.
Obviously the Lunar Cleaning Company (LCC Inc.) has cleared it off with their special 'Earth Weather' process.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]
 Quoting: Drone#6

so moon quakes are no longer a thing?


This 'sky' has also been digitally washed to be clean, NASA have been systematically revising their online photo library to eliminate these issues that give the 1960s fakery away.
It's a bit pot luck today to find a good rendition of the back projection screen, but when you do it's all the more rewarding. The older digital copies are better for this.
 Quoting: Drone#6

citation needed.
And likely jpeg used again.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
74444

User ID: 74444
United States
02/09/2019 08:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
74444 and hotdogg I refer you to my previous posts.

 Quoting: Drone#6


None of your previous posts answer my question.

What evidence would allow *you* to tacitly conclude that the Apollo missions happened, pretty much as reported? Any you can even *imagine?* If so, can you name it?

If the answer is that no evidence will convince you, just say so.
 Quoting: 74444


Still avoiding this, eh?

Sigh.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76638891
United States
02/09/2019 08:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Anyone who thinks they landed on the moon as laid out by nasa is a mind controlled moron. You are sad little things with no ability to reason. It's deeply pathetic how the indoctrination works on so many of you.